The Daily Populous Wednesday February 26th, 2025 morning edition
Authored by lawandcrime.com and submitted by Sachyriel

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., engaged in an extensive dressing down of the Trump administration during a Tuesday afternoon hearing that ended in a series of onerous directions to enforce compliance with a temporary restraining order that unfroze contract spending for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The order in the underlying case has been in place for 12 days. And, yet, to date, the government has not complied with the court’s directive to restore funding to worldwide aid programs.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali, a Joe Biden appointee, was well aware that his order — which actually covers two similar and since-consolidated cases — was being flouted by the government.

On Tuesday, the judge lost patience with the unlucky government lawyer tasked with defending the administration’s conduct.

“I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you,” the judge intoned, according to a courtroom report by Politico journalist Kyle Cheney. “Are you aware of an unfreezing of the disbursement of funds for those contracts and agreements that were frozen before Feb. 13?”

The government lawyer replied: “I’m not in a position to answer that.”

That back-and-forth set the tone for the arguments between the U.S. Department of Justice and the nonprofit plaintiffs in the case.

“We’re now 12 days in,” the judge reportedly said later on — referring to when the temporary restraining order was initially entered. “You can’t answer me whether any funds that you kind of acknowledged are covered by the court’s order have been unfrozen?”

More Law&Crime coverage: Trump-appointed judge refuses to restore AP’s White House access, but warns Trump admin to ‘consider’ if its actions are ‘really appropriate’

The unimpressed judge has trod down this exact territory before.

On Feb. 20, Ali issued a seven-page order to enforce the restraining order — while rejecting a motion for contempt against U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and USAID Deputy Secretary Pete Marocco.

“[T]he TRO does not permit Defendants to simply search for and invoke new legal authorities as a post-hoc rationalization for the enjoined agency action,” the order reads. “Defendants have continued their blanket suspension of funds pending review of agreements, the very action that the TRO enjoined.”

After that, however, the administration appeared to continue defying the original court order. The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion on Feb. 24, asking the court to, yet again, enforce the order.

On Tuesday, the judge issued highly specific demands for how the government must comply with the court’s order going forward.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox

In the end, USAID was directed to pay all invoices for work performed prior to the issuance of the order on Feb. 13. Those bills, the court ruled, must be paid by midnight tomorrow, Feb. 26.

Ali made clear to note that paying those contractual obligations “in no way narrows the scope of the TRO itself.” And, to make that point clear, the judge reiterated that the government “shall take no actions to impeded the prompt payment of foreign assistance funds.”

The court also directed the defendants to continue working with the plaintiffs on a joint status report — due tomorrow by 12:00 p.m. — that outlines “what steps have been taken” to comply with the court’s order and subsequent order enforcing compliance.

But the judge was not nearly done — and clearly unsatisfied with the efforts taken by the Trump administration in the case so far.

“To the extent there remain any disputes as to compliance, the parties shall identify agency officials, employees or other witnesses who can testify under oath about those disputes,” Ali said — with an eye toward creating an evidentiary record at the trial court level.

To that end, the court also directed the government to provide “any directives or guidance” that have been issued since the initial court order “which pertain to the implementation of the TRO.”

This specific demand, the court noted, was based on the discussion during the hearing — and is prospective; the court is requiring documentation of any internal government documents concerning compliance with the order that are filed up until noon on Feb. 26.

amprather on February 25th, 2025 at 22:43 UTC »

Until the Judges start throwing DOJ attorneys in jail for contempt with the additional threat of disbarment will you get anything. Because then at least the DOJ will start running out of lawyers.

Fewer DOJ lawyers mean fewer things that the DOJ can do.

Start destroying lawyers' careers and you will see them get nervous.

restore_democracy on February 25th, 2025 at 21:55 UTC »

Hold them in contempt. I do.

Sachyriel on February 25th, 2025 at 21:29 UTC »

> “I don’t know why I can’t get a straight answer from you,” the judge intoned, according to a courtroom report by Politico journalist Kyle Cheney. “Are you aware of an unfreezing of the disbursement of funds for those contracts and agreements that were frozen before Feb. 13?”

> The government lawyer replied: “I’m not in a position to answer that.”

It'd be funny if so much weren't riding on the line.

> “We’re now 12 days in,” the judge reportedly said later on — referring to when the temporary restraining order was initially entered. “You can’t answer me whether any funds that you kind of acknowledged are covered by the court’s order have been unfrozen?”

> The unimpressed judge has trod down this exact territory before.

> On Feb. 20, Ali issued a seven-page order to enforce the restraining order — while rejecting a motion for contempt against U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and USAID Deputy Secretary Pete Marocco.

I mean eventually they have to be in contempt if they keep flouting the law, but not yet I guess?

> “[T]he TRO does not permit Defendants to simply search for and invoke new legal authorities as a post-hoc rationalization for the enjoined agency action,” the order reads. “Defendants have continued their blanket suspension of funds pending review of agreements, the very action that the TRO enjoined.”

> After that, however, the administration appeared to continue defying the original court order. The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion on Feb. 24, asking the court to, yet again, enforce the order.

> On Tuesday, the judge issued highly specific demands for how the government must comply with the court’s order going forward.

> In the end, USAID was directed to pay all invoices for work performed prior to the issuance of the order on Feb. 13. Those bills, the court ruled, must be paid by midnight tomorrow, Feb. 26.

Emphasis mine.

> Ali made clear to note that paying those contractual obligations “in no way narrows the scope of the TRO itself.” And, to make that point clear, the judge reiterated that the government “shall take no actions to impeded the prompt payment of foreign assistance funds.”

> The court also directed the defendants to continue working with the plaintiffs on a joint status report — due tomorrow by 12:00 p.m. — that outlines “what steps have been taken” to comply with the court’s order and subsequent order enforcing compliance.

> But the judge was not nearly done — and clearly unsatisfied with the efforts taken by the Trump administration in the case so far.

> “To the extent there remain any disputes as to compliance, the parties shall identify agency officials, employees or other witnesses who can testify under oath about those disputes,” Ali said — with an eye toward creating an evidentiary record at the trial court level.

"You get thrown under the bus, and you get thrown under the bus, and you..." - Oprah_bees.gif

> To that end, the court also directed the government to provide “any directives or guidance” that have been issued since the initial court order “which pertain to the implementation of the TRO.”

If Trump told them directly to break the law, or if Marco Rubio told someone to do something, maybe then action?

> This specific demand, the court noted, was based on the discussion during the hearing — and is prospective; the court is requiring documentation of any internal government documents concerning compliance with the order that are filed up until noon on Feb. 26.

Well this one comes to a head tomorrow or heads start rolling. Figuratively, I think.