25-1477
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the First Circuit
`
`STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF HAWAII,
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
`STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND,
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
`STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
`STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF VERMONT,
`STATE OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF WISCONSIN, STATE OF ARIZONA,
`
` Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`v.
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, in the official capacity as President of the United States,
`
` Defendants-Appellants,
`
`(Caption continues inside front cover)
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Rhode Island
`
`BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
`
`PETER F. NERONHA
` Attorney General of Rhode Island
`150 South Main Street
`Providence, Rhode Island 02903
`
`ANNE E. LOPEZ
` Attorney General of Hawai‘i
`425 Queen Street
`Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813
`
`(Additional counsel listed on signature pages.)
`
`LETITIA JAMES
` Attorney General of New York
`28 Liberty Street
`New York, New York 10005
`(212) 416-6184
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 27, 2025
`
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Caption continues from front cover.)
`INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES, KEITH E. SONDERLING, in the official
`capacity as Acting Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services,
`MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MADIHA D. LATIF, in the official capacity
`as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Minority Business Development,
`FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE, GREGORY GOLDSTEIN, in the official
`capacity as Acting Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
`HOWARD LUTNICK, in the official capacity as Secretary of Commerce,
`RUSSELL THURLOW VOUGHT, in the official capacity as Director of the Office of
`Management and Budget, US OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
`Defendants-Appel lants,
`US INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS, KENNETH JACKSON, in the official
`capacity as Acting Executive Director of the US Interagency Council of Homelessness,
`Defendants.
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... iii
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`ISSUES PRESENTED .............................................................................. 5
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 5
`A. Congress Establishes the Three Agencies at Issue .................. 5
`B. The Executive Order Directing the Dismantling of the
`Three Agencies and Its Implementation .................................. 9
`C. This Lawsuit ........................................................................... 12
`STANDARD OF REVIEW....................................................................... 15
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 16
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 19
`I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION
`OVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS. ................................................................... 19
`A. Plaintiffs Have Demonstrated Article III Standing. .............. 19
`B. The Tucker Act Does Not Divest the District Court of
`Jurisdiction. ............................................................................ 24
`
`C. The Civil Service Reform Act Does Not Bar the District
`Court from Ordering Reinstatement of Agency
`Personnel. ................................................................................ 30
`
`
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`Page
`II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY FOUND THAT
`PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF THEIR
`CLAIMS. ................................................................................................ 36
`A. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their
`Administrative Procedure Act Claims. ................................... 36
`1. Plaintiffs challenge final agency action. ......................... 37
`2. Plaintiffs’ claims are not subject to review as claims
`seeking to compel unlawfully withheld or
`unreasonably delayed actions. ........................................ 42
`
`3. Plaintiffs do not challenge action committed to
`agency discretion by law. ................................................. 44
`
`B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their
`Constitutional Claims. ............................................................ 47
`
`III. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS
`DISCRETION IN BALANCING THE EQUITIES AND CRAFTING A
`TAILORED REMEDY. .............................................................................. 52
`A. Plaintiffs Demonstrated Irreparable Harm. .......................... 52
`B. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Weigh
`Strongly in Plaintiffs’ Favor. .................................................. 54
`
`C. The Preliminary Injunction Is Appropriately Tailored.......... 58
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Albrecht v. Committee on Emp. Benefits of Fed. Rsrv. Emp.
`Benefits Sys.,
`357 F.3d 62 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 29
`American Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. Trump,
`139 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025) ............................................... 32, 35, 49
`American Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. Trump,
`929 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 34
`American Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. Trump,
`No. 25-cv-03698, 2025 WL 1358477 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2025) ............ 51
`Axon Enter., Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n,
`598 U.S. 175 (2023) ........................................................................ 30-33
`Baker v. Carr,
`369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................................................. 62
`Bell v. Hood,
`327 U.S. 678 (1946) ............................................................................. 49
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) ............................................................................. 38
`Biden v. Nebraska,
`600 U.S. 477 (2023) ....................................................................... 19, 64
`Boaz Hous. Auth. v. United States,
`994 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................... 29
`Bowen v. Massachusetts,
`487 U.S. 879 (1988) ....................................................................... 24, 28
`Braintree Lab’ys, Inc. v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc.,
`622 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2010) ................................................................. 59
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`Cases Page(s)
`
`California v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,
`132 F.4th 92 (1st Cir. 2025) ................................................................ 27
`Carr v. Saul,
`593 U.S. 83 (2021) ............................................................................... 32
`Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Reich,
`74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ........................................................ 50-51
`Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency,
`801 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ............................................................. 39
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ............................................................................. 19
`Clinton v. City of N.Y.,
`524 U.S. 417 (1998) ............................................................................. 47
`Columbus Reg’l Hosp. v. United States,
`990 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................... 29
`Comcast of Me./N.H., Inc. v. Mills,
`988 F.3d 607 (1st Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 15
`Community Action of Laramie Cnty., Inc. v. Bowen,
`866 F.2d 347 (10th Cir. 1989) ............................................................. 45
`Community Legal Servs. in E. Palo Alto v. U.S. Dep’t of Health
`& Hum. Servs.,
`137 F.4th 932 (9th Cir. 2025) ....................................................... 32, 56
`Connectu LLC v. Zuckerberg,
`522 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 42
`Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys.,
`603 U.S. 799 (2024) ............................................................................. 37
`Crowley Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Servs. Admin.,
`38 F.4th 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ............................................................ 27
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v
`Cases Page(s)
`
`DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
`547 U.S. 332 (2006) ............................................................................. 23
`Dalton v. Specter,
`511 U.S. 462 (1994) ........................................................................ 49-50
`Department of Com. v. New York,
`588 U.S. 752 (2019) ........................................................................ 44-45
`Department of Educ. v. California,
`145 S. Ct. 966 (2025) ........................................................................... 28
`Department of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
`591 U.S. 1 (2020) ................................................................................. 36
`Does 1-6 v. Mills,
`16 F.4th 20 (1st Cir. 2021) .................................................................. 54
`Elgin v. Department of Treasury,
`567 U.S. 1 (2012) ................................................................................. 33
`Emigrant Residential, LLC v. Pinti,
`134 F.4th 626 (1st Cir. 2025) ........................................................ 42, 62
`FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project,
`592 U.S. 414 (2021) ............................................................................. 36
`Flyers Rts. Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin.,
`864 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 53
`Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Acct. Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) ....................................................................... 30, 49
`Friedman v. Federal Aviation Admin.,
`841 F.3d 537 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 37
`Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
`460 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ............................................................... 40
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vi
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Gately v. Massachusetts,
`2 F.3d 1221 (1st Cir. 1993) ................................................................. 64
`Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors,
`560 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 33
`Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.,
`527 U.S. 308 (1999) ............................................................................. 62
`Heckler v. Chaney,
`470 U.S. 821 (1985) ............................................................................. 46
`Hispanic Affs. Project v. Acosta,
`901 F.3d 378 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 41
`In re Aiken Cnty.,
`725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ............................................................. 48
`In re Core Commc’ns, Inc.,
`531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 53
`In re Sawyer,
`124 U.S. 200 (1888) ............................................................................. 62
`K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc.,
`875 F.2d 907 (1st Cir. 1989) ............................................................... 52
`League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby,
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 54
`Lincoln v. Vigil,
`508 U.S. 182 (1993) ............................................................................. 45
`Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v.
`Pennsylvania,
`591 U.S. 657 (2020) ............................................................................. 55
`Lubow v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`783 F.3d 877 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 41
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vii
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Lucas v. American Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. (AFGE),
`No. 23-7051, 2025 WL 2371197 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 15, 2025) ................. 31
`Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n,
`497 U.S. 871 (1990) ........................................................................ 40-41
`Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`No. 25-1338, 2025 WL 1073657 (4th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025) ..................... 34
`Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi
`Indians v. Patchak,
`567 U.S. 209 (2012) ............................................................................. 24
`Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis,
`672 F.2d 959 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ............................................................. 27
`Mercado-Salinas v. Bart Enters. Int’l, Ltd.,
`671 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 15
`Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman,
`310 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............................................................. 45
`Missouri v. Jenkins,
`515 U.S. 70 (1995) ............................................................................... 23
`N.A.A.C.P. v. Secretary of Hous. & Urb. Dev.,
`817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987) ............................................................... 44
`National Insts. of Health v. American Pub. Health Ass’n,
`No. 25A103, 2025 WL 2415669 (U.S. Aug. 21, 2025) .................... 26-27
`National Treasury Emps. Union v. Vought,
`No. 25-5091, 2025 WL 2371608 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 15, 2025) ........... 34, 39
`New York v. Trump,
`133 F.4th 51 (1st Cir. 2025) .......................................................... 41, 56
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ............................................................................. 57
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` viii
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Norton v. South Utah Wilderness All.,
`542 U.S. 55 (2004) .................................................................... 40, 42-43
`Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors,
`589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 33
`Organization for Competitive Mkts. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`912 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 43
`Osediacz v. City of Cranston,
`414 F.3d 136 (1st Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 22
`Raines v. Byrd,
`521 U.S. 811 (1997) ............................................................................. 22
`Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc.,
`217 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 58
`Safari Club Int’l v. Jewell,
`842 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 39
`Sampson v. Murray,
`415 U.S. 61 (1974) .......................................................................... 62-63
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`584 U.S. 357 (2018) ............................................................................. 32
`Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War,
`418 U.S. 208 (1974) ............................................................................. 22
`Seila L. LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau,
`591 U.S. 197 (2020) ............................................................................. 47
`Somerville Pub. Schs. v. McMahon,
`139 F.4th 63 (1st Cir. 2025) ..................................................... 34-35, 57
`Spectrum Leasing Corp. v. United States,
`764 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ............................................................. 29
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ix
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`578 U.S. 330 (2016) ............................................................................. 22
`Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,
`573 U.S. 149 (2014) ............................................................................. 19
`Sustainability Inst. v. Trump,
`No. 25-1575, 2025 WL 1587100 (4th Cir. June 5, 2025) .................... 29
`Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich,
`510 U.S. 200 (1994) ............................................................................. 31
`Trafalgar Cap. Assocs., Inc. v. Cuomo,
`159 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1998) ................................................................. 39
`Trump v. CASA, Inc.,
`145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025) .................................................................... 61-62
`U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co.,
`578 U.S. 590 (2016) ............................................................................. 39
`Union of Concerned Scientists v. Wheeler,
`954 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 44, 46
`United States v. Fausto,
`484 U.S. 439 (1988) ............................................................................. 33
`United States v. Morrison,
`529 U.S. 598 (2000) ............................................................................. 47
`United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation,
`563 U.S. 307 (2011) ............................................................................. 28
`USP Holdings, Inc. v. United States,
`36 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................ 50
`Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry,
`587 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 58
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` x
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res.
`Def. Council, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 519 (1978) ............................................................................. 46
`Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Central Intel. Agency,
`811 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................... 42, 44
`We the People PAC v. Bellows,
`40 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022) .................................................................... 52
`Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns,
`531 U.S. 457 (2001) ............................................................................. 37
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952) ............................................................................. 47
`Constitutions
`U.S. Const.
`art. I, § 1 .............................................................................................. 47
`art. II, § 1 ............................................................................................ 47
`art. II, § 3 ............................................................................................ 47
`Federal Statutes
`Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025,
`Pub. L. No. 119-4, 139 Stat. 9 (2025) ............................................. 8, 48
`Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-101,
`61 Stat. 136 ......................................................................................... 48
`Minority Business Development Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-58,
`135 Stat. 1445 ..................................................................................... 48
`Museum and Library Services Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208,
`110 Stat. 3009 ..................................................................................... 48
`
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` xi
`Federal Statutes Page(s)
`
`5 U.S.C.
`§ 701 .................................................................................................... 44
`§ 702 .................................................................................................... 24
`§ 704 .............................................................................................. 24, 37
`§ 706 .............................................................................................. 28, 36
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 9502 .............................................................................................. 7, 11
`§ 9513 .................................................................................................... 7
`§ 9522 .................................................................................................... 6
`§ 9523 .................................................................................................... 6
`§ 9524 .................................................................................................... 6
`20 U.S.C.
`§ 9108 .................................................................................................... 6
`§§ 9121-9165 ......................................................................................... 6
`§ 9133 .................................................................................................... 6
`§ 9134 .................................................................................................... 6
`§ 9161 .................................................................................................... 6
`§ 9162 .................................................................................................... 6
`§ 9165 .................................................................................................... 6
`§§ 9171-9176 ......................................................................................... 6
`28 U.S.C. § 1491 ...................................................................................... 25
`29 U.S.C. § 173 .......................................................................................... 7
`Federal Regulation
`Exec. Order No. 14,238, Continuing the Reduction of the
`Federal Bureaucracy (Mar. 14, 2025), 90 Fed. Reg. 13043.................. 9
`Miscellaneous Authorities
`Paul J. Larkin, Jr. & John-Michael Seibler, The President’s
`Reorganization Authority (Heritage Found. Legal Mem. No.
`210) (July 12, 2017) ............................................................................ 49
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing
`numerous congressionally created and funded agencies, including the
`Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business
`and Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and
`Conciliation Service (FMCS), to eliminate all functions not required by
`statute and to reduce their statutorily required functions to the minimum
`required by law. Defendants implemented that Executive Order by strip-
`ping the agencies to the bone, eliminating nearly all staff and leaving the
`remaining personnel incapable of fulfilling the agencies’ statutorily man-
`dated functions.
`1
`
`1 Defendants-appellants are IMLS, MBDA, FMCS, the Office of
`Management and Budget (OMB), Keith E. Sonderling, in his official
`capacity as Acting Director of IMLS, Madiha D. Latif, in her official capacity
`as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Minority Business Develop-
`ment, Howard Lutnick, in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce,
`Gregory Goldstein, in his official capacity as Acting Director of FMCS,
`Russell T. Vought, in his official capacity as Director of OMB, and Donald
`J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States.
`
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`Plaintiffs2 filed this suit to enjoin defendants’ lawless actions and
`to preserve the States’ access to critical funds and services provided by
`the three agencies at issue. Following briefing and argument, the U.S.
`District Court for the District of Rhode Island (McC onnell, J.) granted
`plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction specifically tailored to undo
`defendants’ unlawful actions that harmed plaintiffs and to prevent defen-
`dants from attempting to unlawfully implement the executive order at
`the agencies again during the pendency of this case. This Court should
`affirm.
` As an initial matter, defendants make no attempt to demonstrate
`that the challenged actions were consistent with the statutes governing
`the operations of the three agencies, and offer no evidence showing that
`defendants engaged in any reasoning prior to taking the challenged
`actions, much less reasoning that satisfies the Administrative Procedure
`Act (APA). And while defendants quibble with whether plaintiffs have
`
`2 Plaintiffs-appellees are the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
`Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
`the People of the State of Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
`New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington,
`and Wisconsin.
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`cognizable constitutional causes of action, they offer no other defense as
`to the constitutionality of their actions.
`Instead, defendants press a series of threshold arguments designed
`to shield their plainly illegal actions from judicial scrutiny. Several of
`these arguments were not raised below and so are waived. In any event,
`the district court correctly rejected defendants’ threshold objections, and
`defendants identify no error in the court’s thorough, well-reasoned opinion.
`First, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over plaintiffs’
`claims. The unrefuted factual record demonstrates that plaintiffs faced
`actual and imminent injuries that are traceable to defendants’ actions
`and redressable by judicial relief, thus readily satisfying the require-
`ments for A rticle III standing. Moreover , d efendants are mistaken in
`their efforts to shoehorn plaintiffs’ claims into another forum. Plaintiffs’
`claims about federal funds are not subject to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1491, and thereby relegated to the Court of Federal Claims, because the
`claims do not arise from a contract dispute. Likewise, plaintiffs’ claims
`are not subject to the review provisions in the Civil Service Reform Act
`(CSRA), 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., because they call upon no relevant
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`expertise under the CSRA, and, if relegated there, would receive no
`meaningful judicial review.
`Second, the district court correctly found that plaintiffs are likely
`to succeed on the merits of their APA and constitutional claims. Defen-
`dants orchestrated a set of final agency actions in implementing across-
`the-board policies meant to cripple the three agencies in accordance with
`the President’s directive and in contravention of congressional appropria-
`tions. Those actions are reviewable under the APA, and such review does
`not interfere with the discretion committed to the agencies by law.
`Moreover, on the constitutional claims, defendants do not argue on
`appeal that their actions are consistent with the separation of powers
`doctrine and the Take Care Clause. Their only argument—that no consti-
`tutional cause of action is available to plaintiffs —misconstrues the
`governing law as well as the authority they cite.
` Finally, the district court properly exercised its discretion in
`concluding that the equities weighed strongly in favor of a preliminary
`injunction and in crafting relief that remedied plaintiffs’ injuries while
`preserving operational flexibility for defendants.
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`1. Whether the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over
`plaintiffs’ claims, which seek equitable relief to redress injuries caused to
`plaintiffs by defendants’ actions dismantling IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS.
`2. Whether the district court correctly found that plaintiffs are
`likely to succeed on the merits of their APA and constitutional claims ,
`where plaintiffs challenge final and discrete agency actions that unlaw-
`fully usurped Congress’s powers and flouted multiple statutory mandates.
`3. Whether the district court abused its broad discretion in
`balancing the equities and crafting preliminary injunctive relief tailored
`to remediate the irreparable harms that plaintiffs demonstrated.
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`A. Congress Establishes the Three Agencies at Issue
`This case involves three federal agencies created by Congress, each
`of which serves critical and statutorily mandated functions.
`IMLS. IMLS is the primary federal agency responsible for supporting
`the country’s museums and libraries through grantmaking, research,
`and policy development. (Appendix (A.) 68.) The agency is responsible for
`(among other things) supporting museums and libraries by disbursing
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`and expending appropriated funds and providing other forms of assis -
`tance. 20 U.S.C. §§ 9121-9165 (libraries), 9171-9176 (museums).
`IMLS’s largest funding program—and the largest source of federal
`funding for library services—is the “Grants to States Program.” (A. 69.)
`See 20 U.S.C. § 9133(a). In administering that program, IMLS evaluates
`dozens of plans each year, see 20 U.S.C. § 9134(e)(1), distributes funding
`in accordance with the plans, id. § 9133(a), and monitors States’ expen -
`ditures, see id. § 9133(c). In addition, IMLS is required to administer a
`series of competitive grant programs each year. See, e.g., id. §§ 9161,
`9162, 916 5. (A. 69 -70.) Congress has also directed IMLS to engage in
`regular research and data collection to “extend and improve the Nation’s
`museum, library, and information services.” 20 U.S.C. § 9108.
`MBDA. MBDA is a federal agency responsible for facilitating the
`growth of minority businesses through various forms of assistance. See
`15 U.S.C. §§ 9522, 9523(a)(1)-(3). (See A. 80-81.) Congress has instructed
`that the MBDA “shall” provide financial awards and technical assistance
`to MBDA business centers, 15 U.S.C. § 9523(a)(3), and laid out criteria
`the agency must use in awarding funds, id. § 9524(d). MBDA is required
`to establish a “regional office . . . for each of the regions of the United
`Case: 25-1477 Document: 00118334004 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 Entry ID: 6747357
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`States,” id. § 9502(e)(2)(A), with statutorily enumerated duties for each
`of those offices, id. § 9502(e)(2)(B).
`Congress also requires MBDA to collect and analyze data relating
`to minority business enterprises, id. § 9513(a)(1)(A), to conduct economic
`research, studies, and surveys, id. § 9513(a)(1)(B)(i), and to provide
`outreach, educational services, and technical assistance in at least five
`languages, id. § 9513(a)(1)(C).
`FMCS. Established in 1947, FMCS is the federal agency
`responsible for “assisting parties to labor disputes in industries affecting
`commerce to settle such disputes through conciliation and mediation.”
`(A. 89.) See 29 U.S.C. § 173(a). FMCS is required by statute to perform
`various functions promoting the peaceful resolution of labor disputes,
`such as providing mediation and conciliation services, 29 U.S.C. § 173(a)-
`(c), conducting grievance mediations in certain cases involving collective-
`bargaining agreements, id. § 173(d), and supporting “the establishment
`. . . of joint labor manage