Summary
The D.C. Circuit granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal of a district court's temporary restraining order that compelled the U.S. Agency for Global Media to disburse appropriated funds to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty under a prior grant agreement. The panel determined the government was likely to succeed on the merits regarding its statutory discretion over grant terms and questioned the district court's jurisdiction to mandate fund disbursement under the Tucker Act. Judge Pillard dissented, arguing the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the stay would cause existential operational damage to the network.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the government's motion for a stay pending appeal should be granted under the applicable stay factors.
- Whether the district court likely lacked authority to require USAGM to enter into a grant agreement incorporating all terms of prior grant agreements.
- Whether the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to order payment of funds allegedly owed under a grant agreement.
- Whether the temporary restraining order was appealable because it functioned as a de facto preliminary injunction.
Holdings
- The stay pending appeal was warranted because the government was likely to prevail on its challenges to the district court's injunction and the remaining stay factors also supported a stay.
- The government was likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked a sufficient basis to bind USAGM to all terms contained in earlier grant agreements.
- The government was likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order payment of funds owed under a grant agreement.
- The temporary restraining order was appealable because it functioned as a de facto preliminary injunction by ordering immediate disbursement of funds that could not later be recouped.
Key quotations
“Applying these factors, we conclude that a stay is warranted.” (at 2)
“Even so, the district court had no basis for binding the agency to all of the terms contained in earlier grant agreements.” (at 3-4)
“For reasons explained in a related case, we conclude that the court likely lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of funds owed under a grant agreement.” (at 4)
Factual background
USAGM disbursed congressionally appropriated funds to RFE/RL through grant agreements, including agreements covering funding through February 2025. After the President directed USAGM leadership to reduce the agency to the minimum level of operations required by statute, USAGM purported to terminate RFE/RL's grant agreements and did not countersign a grant agreement RFE/RL had signed. The district court ordered USAGM to enter into an April bridge grant agreement on prior terms and to disburse $12,178,590, prompting the government's appeal and stay motion.
Procedural history
RFE/RL sued USAGM and related government officials in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after USAGM terminated or failed to renew grant arrangements and withheld appropriated funding. The district court ordered USAGM to enter into an April 2025 grant agreement on terms materially identical to the parties' prior agreement and to disburse $12,178,590. The government appealed and sought a stay pending appeal, which the D.C. Circuit granted.