A federal judge on Thursday immediately refused to spare US Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors from mass firing, moving forward the core part of the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the agency.
US District Judge Carl Nichols said the USAID personal services contractor was unable to prove that he faced the potential for irreparable harm and merit success, denying claims for a temporary restraining order that would allow the fired contractor to be returned to employment and resume work.
The judge said the harm that contractors face were “directly traceable” that the government has made to the contract, suggesting that relief should be sought through a different path.
The Personal Services Contractors Association, an advocacy group for US personal service contractors, sued the Trump administration last month to isolate the contractors from dealing with agents.
In the court's application, the contractor's attorney said notices of termination have been distributed to “probably hundreds” of around 1,110 contractors working for USAID, with about 46% of whom working abroad.
“The destruction of USAID is now imminent,” said challenger's lawyer Carolyn Shapiro during a hearing on Wednesday's issue.
The contractor urged the judge to come to a “different conclusion” than he had in another case, involving a union representing a USAID employee who advocated for the closure of the agency's business.
In that case, Nichols initially granted a temporary restraining order from purges of USAID employees, but ultimately disbanded the order, promoting further relief after realising that the union's initial claims of harm had been “exaggerated.”
Shapiro attempted to direct judges from the individual harms that the USAID contractor could face, and instead argued that he was facing irreparable harms from the government's “structurally unconstitutional decisions.”
She said refusing to allow temporary relief called for risk in scenarios like “Humpty Dumpty.”
The judge said Thursday that harm amounted to a “generalized complaint” and would not reach the high bar needed to win the temporary relief sought.
Justice Department attorney Michael Clendon argued that while the lawsuit continued, the contractor's situation was “almost identical” to the union's situation where they were unable to obtain injunctive relief.
Nichols questioned the important differences between the two cases in which USAID employees represented by the union were placed on paid leave, but the contractor stood to finish completely.
However, Clendon suggested that the notification on the 15th before the end should provide a buffer for immediate harm, and that economic harm can be corrected through different channels to seek financial damage.
The Trump administration has largely sought to dismantle USAID, including firing employees and freeing payments to contractors.
In another challenge to the obvious dismantling, US District Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to immediately announce payments of unpaid foreign aid under existing contracts.
Supreme Court of the5-4 Emergency JudgmentOn Wednesday he refused to stop the order and handed the government the losses.
Later on Thursday, Ali hears debate on whether further injunctive relief would be justified in that case.
