The Trump administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court to scrub away a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a federal judge late last month that requires it to cough up nearly $2 billion in federal funds — related to contracts and grants formed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and State Department — in what Justice Department lawyers are blasting as a “pay-or-else order.”

Organizations that had entered into contracts or received grants from the State Department and USAID are suing the Trump administration over an executive order that required a blanket freeze of all foreign aid funding, arguing that it was an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power “in contravention of congressional will” as well as an “arbitrary and capricious agency action” that will lead to starvation and the deaths of many. An emergency hearing was held last Tuesday, which led to the Supreme Court intervening by Wednesday evening after Trump requested an emergency stay.

In a Supreme Court brief, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris on Monday said U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali’s ruling from last week — which required the government to fork over $2 billion by Feb. 26 — was carried out at an “emergency hearing” where no additional evidence or briefings were presented. She claimed that this led to the Trump administration doling out “fraudulent” and “improper” payments without any proof that they were needed, with there even being alleged requests for funds related to “already-completed work,” according to Harris.

A federal judge in Virginia has given the Trump administration and CIA the green light to pluck intelligence workers from offices focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — falling in line with the president’s axing of DEI policies — after originally agreeing to block their terminations last week with a temporary restraining order.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated, with Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options, made available to them under the CIA Director’s February 18, 2025 Memorandum, extended to at least to 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, March 3, 2025,” the Thursday order from U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga said. “Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, and for the reasons stated from the bench, it is hereby ordered that the administrative stay, entered on February 18, 2025, is vacated.”

Trenga ruled from the bench, saying he was siding with Trump and CIA Director John Ratcliffe to vacate the TRO based on current laws and regulations in place that give them the authority to fire intelligence employees at will, according to The New York Times.

The judge reportedly said that he would have agreed to keep the TRO in place for the 11 plaintiffs — all intelligence workers who were fired — if the argument would have been centered around basic fairness. The federal employees at risk of being fired work in offices and have roles tasked with overseeing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs across all intelligence agencies.

More from Law&Crime: ‘Profoundly erroneous’: Trump admin says Biden-appointed judge’s order requiring ‘immediate outlay’ of nearly $2 billion is ‘without legal basis’

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee who presides over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, extended the deadline to Monday, March 3, for workers to resign under a deferred resignation program (“DRP”) and other employment options made available to them that allows them to be paid through Sept. 30. Employees are unable to challenge the firings or transfer to other agencies, per Trenga.

When the judge stayed the firings last week, he said that he was looking for “clarification” as to what agency regulations are involved in the case and the potential harm caused to the plaintiffs if they were to be terminated.

“Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, the Court concludes that it would benefit from Defendants’ response to the Motion, including clarification as to what Agency regulations are implicated in this case and the potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff John Does 1-6 and Jane Does 1-5,” Trenga’s Feb. 18 order said. “As the Court awaits full briefing and argument on the Motion, it exercises its powers under the All Writs Act and its inherent powers to manage its docket, to issue an administrative stay.”

After Thursday’s ruling came down, several intelligence workers — including those who filed the suit — gave Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Barghaan, who argued Trump’s case, a tongue lashing outside of court.

“You should be ashamed. You should really be ashamed of yourself,” one of the plaintiffs said, according to Politico. “That was really disgusting.”

When Trump issued his Jan. 20 orders ending DEI programs shortly after taking office, he condemned the initiatives and policies as being a corruption of “our institutions” and an attempt to replace “hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy,” according to one order. Three different directives were handed out targeting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility roles.

“The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government,” Trump said.

The DEI crusade has sparked multiple lawsuits and at least one other TRO in Maryland, where a federal judge blocked Trump from targeting federal agencies and contractors.

It’s unclear how many intelligence officers will be dismissed by the CIA, with as many as 51 being listed by lawyers for the employees. The plaintiffs suing the Trump administration include six men and five women who worked for the CIA and Director of National Intelligence. They claim in their complaint that they were unlawfully targeted and terminated due to “their assumed beliefs” about DEI policies without cause and notice.

“While intelligence officers lack recourse to the Merit System Protection Board, their own agencies classified internal regulations provide procedures for terminating officers,” the complaint says. “Officers’ basic rights include notice, the development of a record, to consult with counsel, and the opportunities to be heard and to appeal. Plaintiffs have received none of these rights.”

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.

A federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to boot the Biden administration’s whistleblower advocate Hampton Dellinger from his post at the Office of Special Counsel, voting 2-1 to let him keep his job through a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a lower court judge. Trump’s Justice Department had asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rule by noon Friday, saying it has “the opportunity to seek expeditious review” from the Supreme Court, should they be swatted down. The rejection came Saturday just before 11 p.m.

“The relief requested by the government is a sharp departure from established procedures that balance and protect the interests of litigants, and ensure the orderly consideration of cases before the district court and this court,” wrote judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs in the late night ruling. “The government asks us to resolve disputed issues that plainly have not been finally adjudicated by the district court. The litigation of Dellinger’s motion for a preliminary injunction is ongoing … and that litigation raises issues that are overlapping, if not identical, to those that would be presented in an appeal of the TRO.”

A “grassroots” organization founded by conservative lawyer and Donald Trump ally Mike Davis has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against a federal judge and Democratic appointee in North Carolina who rescinded his plans to take “senior status” last week, calling the decision to unretire on the future POTUS — before he can take office and choose a Republican replacement — “politically motivated” and a betrayal of “the public trust in the judiciary.”

The Article III Project, which describes itself as wielding “brass knuckles to fight leftist lawfare,” filed the complaint Monday and posted it online, along with a statement detailing why it was going after Fourth Circuit Judge James Wynn Jr., who announced his decision to rescind his senior status in a letter to President Joe Biden on Dec. 14.

“The complaint raises serious concerns about violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges following Judge Wynn’s abrupt decision to withdraw his earlier announcement of retirement in December 2024, immediately following the outcome of the 2024 presidential election,” A3P said in its statement. “A3P’s complaint makes clear that this sudden reversal was politically motivated and undermines public trust in the judiciary.”

Appointed in 2009 by former President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2010, Wynn is a federal judicial vet who served as a judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and briefly as a justice on the Supreme Court of North Carolina. His decision to unretire came last week after President Biden’s nominee to replace Wynn — North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park — withdrew his name from being considered after it was reported by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that Park didn’t have enough votes to get confirmed in the Senate.

Republicans called out Wynn in the wake of the move, with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) going after him and other judges in public statements that warned of “significant” ethics complaints to come.

“He’s earned it,” McConnell said on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Monday.

It’s not every day that a judge has a retirement party and then tells the President he’s going to keep his job. I expect that Judge Wynn will face significant ethics complaints based on Canons 2 and 5 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, followed by serial recusal demands from… https://t.co/NI6QpEPzrv

— Leader McConnell (@LeaderMcConnell) December 15, 2024

In addition to Wynn, A3P leaders have also announced that they’ve filed similar misconduct complaints against two trial court judges who have also rescinded senior status bids following the 2024 election.

U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn Jr. — another Obama appointee — of the Western District of North Carolina had his name quietly removed from the federal judiciary’s list of future vacancies late last month, just weeks after U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio, a Bill Clinton appointee, announced he would be remaining active after officially rescinding a “senior status” bid he made in October 2023 to semi-retire.

“Until Judge Wynn, no federal appellate judge had ever rescinded a retirement or senior-status letter after a presidential election,” the A3P complaint says. “Indeed, they have long stood by their announcements of intent to retire or take senior status despite electoral outcomes.”

The A3P complaint specifically addresses two violations committed by Wynn — against Canons 2 and 5 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges — which are outlined in the document.

“Canon 5 prohibits United States judges from undertaking a variety of political actions, including opposing a candidate for public office, soliciting funds for a political candidate, or “engag[ing] in any other political activity,” the complaint says. “Rescinding a public retirement or senior-status letter because of the outcome of a presidential election is the epitome of engaging in political activity and opposing a political candidate.”

Citing Canon 2 directly, the complaint says: “A judge … should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

According to A3P, withdrawing a public senior status or retirement letter because of the results of a presidential election “strikes at the heart of impartiality and public confidence: a judge who changes his public stance based solely on presidential elections.”

“On the public record as it currently exists, every indication is that Judge Wynn — who had already celebrated his retirement nine months earlier — had a change of heart solely because of the outcome of the 2024 presidential election,” A3p said.

In Cogburn’s and Marbley’s cases, Biden never nominated anyone to replace the two judges on account of there being a split in support from their respective state’s senators, leading to them rescinding their senior statuses. Per the Senate’s “blue slip” policy, home-state senators have the ability to support or oppose presidential nominees.

For Marbley, it was Republican Vice President-elect JD Vance, Ohio’s Republican senator, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who were standing in his way. For Cogburn, Biden would’ve had to try and get his pick past Tillis and Republican Sen. Ted Budd.

“Democrats don’t have the votes to confirm these [circuit] nominees and both seats are in red states with two Republican senators,” George Washington University law professor John P. Collins told Reuters last month. “So even if blue slips came back, you’d get a far right replacement.”

With Donald Trump winning the presidency, a federal judge in Ohio who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton has chosen to rescind his decision to take “senior status” — preventing the future 47th president from being able to appoint a successor — following Trump’s election win over Kamala Harris, according to reports.

Speaking in a letter viewed by Reuters and the Columbus Dispatch on Monday, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley tossed his hat back into Ohio’s Southern District ring, telling the Biden administration he would be remaining active after officially rescinding a “senior status” bid he made in October 2023 to semi-retire.

A conservative appeals court dealt a blow to President Joe Biden’s energy agenda Monday when it ruled that rolling back Trump-era loopholes for efficiency rules on dishwashers and washing machines had been done without enough consideration.