Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake; Michael Abramowitz v. Kari Lake

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · May 22, 2025 · No. 25-5144 & 25-5145

Summary

This Per Curiam order from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denies motions for en banc rehearing and vacatur regarding a prior stay of district court preliminary injunctions. The order addresses two consolidated appeals challenging preliminary injunctions issued on April 22, 2025, concerning actions by Kari Lake in her official capacity at the U.S. Agency for Global Media. A majority of the eligible judges declined to grant en banc reconsideration, with further statements to follow.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Srinivasan, Chief Judge; Henderson; Millett; Pillard; Wilkins; Katsas; Rao; Walker; Childs; Pan; Garcia
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decision date
May 22, 2025
Docket number
25-5144 & 25-5145
Procedural posture
Petitions for rehearing en banc denied
Precedential value
published
Parties
Kari Lake, in her official capacity as Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media v. Patsy Widakuswara, et al., Michael Abramowitz, in his official capacity as Director of Voice of America
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

constitutional lawadministrative lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals should grant rehearing en banc and vacate its May 3, 2025 order

Holdings

  1. The motions for rehearing en banc are denied.

Factual background

Appellants Kari Lake sought to vacate preliminary injunctions issued by the district court on April 22, 2025; the appellants filed petitions for rehearing en banc.

Procedural history

The district court entered preliminary injunctions on April 22, 2025; the Court of Appeals issued an order on May 3, 2025; petitioners sought rehearing en banc; the court denied the motions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…