When the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting President Donald Trump from deporting Venezuelan migrants under an 18th century wartime authority, the ruling indicated the case would be adjudicated in Texas, where appeals are overseen by the most conservative federal circuit in the nation. However, a federal judge in New York on Wednesday issued a separate TRO one day after attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class-action lawsuit in challenging the administration’s fast-tracked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) on behalf of two Venezuelan nationals currently being detained in the state.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein granted the petitioners’ request to halt deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the AEA, according to a courtroom report from MSNBC legal contributor Adam Klasfeld. The TRO is not nationwide, reportedly only covering individuals currently detained in the Southern District of New York.

The two unnamed migrants, ages 21 and 32, filed the 21-page lawsuit seeking the emergency ordering preventing the federal government from moving the plaintiffs out of the jurisdiction and from deporting any similarly situated migrants under the AEA.

According to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s vacating the TRO, the administration “is resuming its summary removals of Venezuelans who are in ongoing immigration proceedings, including Petitioners here, without any judicial review — including by this Court.”

“Respondents seek to move Petitioners in secret, without due process, to a prison in El Salvador known for dire conditions, torture, and other forms of physical abuse — possibly for life,” the complaint states.

The judge scheduled a hearing in the matter for Wednesday.

Trump on March 15, 2025, became the first president since World War II to invoke the AEA, which authorizes him to summarily remove “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects” of a “hostile nation or government” when there is “declared war” against it or when it has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States” an “invasion or predatory incursion.” In a controversial and novel use of the power, Trump declared the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) had committed or attempted an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” such that any member of the group was summarily removable under the Act.

The administration asserted that the gang constituted a “hybrid criminal state” for purposes of invoking the AEA.

A Florida woman was recently arrested after she allegedly sexually abused her Chihuahua on video for profit, police in the Sunshine State say.

Logan Nichole Guminski, stands accused of one count each of sexual activity involving an animal and filming sexual activity involving an animal, according to the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s office says they learned of the crime on Jan. 28, when a detective who works with the major crimes unit received an “anonymous tip” that the defendant “posted a video to Instagram depicting sexual activity with a dog,” according to a press release.

The unidentified tipster apparently included a 32-second-long video clip of the offending incident in question. An arrest report contains a detailed and graphic account of what occurred in the video between a “small brown and white” Chihuahua and a woman whose face cannot be seen.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks…

Administrative Law

Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks pause on foreign aid but does not order Trump to act

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 18, 2025, 12:11 pm CST

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a temporary restraining order that allows some foreign assistance programs to continue, for now, in a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association and other plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 13 in two consolidated suits, report Law.com, the New York Times, NPR, NBC News and Law360. The ABA announced the decision in a Feb. 14 press release.

President Donald Trump froze the funding in a Jan. 20 executive order requiring a 90-day review to determine whether the foreign assistance programs should end or be modified.

“Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” wrote Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.

Ali’s TRO bars the suspension of appropriated foreign assistance funds in connection with contracts, grants or other awards that were in existence Jan. 19. The TRO also bars stop-work orders in connection with those funding awards.

Ali’s decision applies to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and other government defendants but not to Trump.

Ali said the ABA “narrowed” its request for relief after the government “rightly highlighted the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power” during a hearing. An initial proposed TRO filed by the ABA and other plaintiffs asked Ali to order all the defendants, including Trump, to allow continued funding. A revised proposal no longer mentioned Trump.

The Feb. 11 suit had claimed that the administration’s actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the Constitution’s take care clause and beyond a president’s powers.

Ali said the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs.

“Defendants have repeatedly, and rightly, emphasized the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power as it relates to foreign policy,” Ali wrote. “Plaintiffs, for their part, have emphasized the Constitution’s separation of powers, which also demands respect for Congress’ Article I role in legislating, including Congress’ choice to allow judicial review through the APA and other statutes constraining the executive branch, as well as Congress’ important role in appropriating funds.”

The ABA implements 19 programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development or “via subaward,” according to the Feb. 11 suit filed by the association and seven other plaintiffs. The ABA also implements 59 programs funded by the U.S. Department of State.

The ABA programs, administered through the ABA Center for Global Programs, support U.S. international interests by promoting the rule of law and human rights, the suit says.

“Plaintiff ABA has had tens of millions of dollars in USAID and State Department funding frozen,” the suit says. “This freeze has decimated ABA’s programs, including its efforts to protect religious freedom in Asia, fight human trafficking in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, prepare Ukraine to recover from Russia’s invasion, advance democracy in Myanmar, and combat money laundering and terrorism in South America.”

ABA President Bill Bay commented on Ali’s ruling in the press release.

“The actions of the president and other executive branch officials to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was established by Congress to administer billions of dollars of foreign assistance funding, is unprecedented. The American Bar Association cannot overstate the impact of this unlawful course of conduct,” Bay said.

“Every administration has the right to review ongoing programs and set priorities, but those actions must be carried out in compliance with relevant constitutional and statutory requirements,” Bay said. “There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. We have filed a suit to ensure that changes are consistent with the rule of law. The sudden dismantling of USAID has real-world consequences that cause harm not only to those we serve but also to those who serve others.”

The ABA and the other plaintiffs are represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in their suit, Global Health Council v. Trump. The Global Health Council suit was consolidated with AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia has imposed a TRO in a similar case and extended it to Feb. 21, according to Law.com. The TRO bars the administration from putting USAID employees on administrative leave and from requiring them to leave their overseas posts.

See also:

Contempt sought against US officials for alleged ‘brazen defiance’ of court order on foreign-aid funds

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, issued the following statement regarding the President’s veto of S. 4199, the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act:

“The President’s veto of the JUDGES Act is extremely disappointing. Providing additional judgeships is essential to improving access to the courts and necessary for the efficient and effective administration of justice, as the Judiciary stated in a recent letter to the President (PDF) addressing issues raised by the Administration in objection to the bill. The judgeship legislation presented to the President reflects decades of work by the federal Judiciary and is very similar to legislation introduced in the last Congress. It is not a bill that was hastily put together. Rather it is the product of careful and detailed analysis which considers primarily the weighted caseload per active judge in each judicial district, while also factoring in the contribution of senior judges, magistrate judges and visiting judges. 

“This veto is a deviation from the long historical pattern of approving judgeship bills that awarded new judgeships to sitting Presidents. The President’s veto is contrary to the actions of Senator Biden who helped pass many of those bills. 

“It is regrettable that the Administration failed to support the federal Judiciary, and rejected this bipartisan, bicameral and interbranch agreement (PDF). The President’s veto will contribute to the pattern of growing caseloads and increasing backlogs that hurt litigants and weakens public confidence in our courts. We appreciate the support of Congress and look forward to working with them to enact essential judgeship legislation.”

For 60 years, the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) has ensured that defendants who cannot afford to retain an attorney receive professional legal counsel by providing funding for court-appointed counsel in federal cases.

“The CJA has been a critical advance toward ensuring that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel is upheld for every person accused of crime in federal court, regardless of their financial means,” said U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel, chair of the Defender Services Committee.

The legislation, signed into law on Aug. 20, 1964, helped create the modern federal defenders system and redefine a criminal defendant’s right to counsel. Today, nearly 90 percent of federal criminal defendants are aided by lawyers, investigators, and experts paid for under the CJA.

“By consistently providing exceptional legal representation to financially eligible clients, federal defenders and CJA panel attorneys play a crucial role in safeguarding individual rights and maintaining public confidence in our federal courts’ commitment to ‘equal justice under law,’” said Elizabeth Luck, chief of the Defender Services Office at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson was appointed as a CJA panel attorney in the early 1970s. At a February event in celebration of the historic legislation, he reflected on how the CJA continues to ensure competent counsel to every person charged of a federal crime, regardless of their means. The right to counsel, extended to state criminal cases by Gideon v. Wainwright, is now taken for granted by many Americans.

“I have had a front row seat to the implementation and evolution of the Act,” said Thompson, during his address to over 100 federal defenders and CJA panel attorneys at the Edward A. Garmatz U.S. Courthouse, in Baltimore. “As to what the future holds, I can only say to all of you, do not be closed-minded to change or to new ideas.”

Learn more about the history of the CJA and how the Judiciary’s Defender Services Office works to protect the right to counsel and even the courtroom odds through continuing education, training, and support for defenders and court-appointed private lawyers across the country.