“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated by Donald Trump to the federal district court for the District of Columbia, lifted a temporary restraining order and refused to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump Administration from firing more than 2000 employees at the Agency for International Development (AID). The February 2025 decision was in American Foreign Service Association v Trump.
What happened in this case?
As part of its effort to dismantle large parts of the federal government and eliminate important federal programs, immediately after taking office, the Trump Administration “paused” all foreign assistance programs and placed on administrative leave more than 2100 employees, effectively firing them and leaving only 611 working on staff. On February 6, the union representing these employees filed suit in federal district court, contending that Trump was violating the law by its firing of the employees and by unilaterally “dismantling” AID without Congressional approval.
On February 7, after a hearing, Judge Nichols issued a “limited” temporary restraining order (TRO) that temporarily restored the AID employees placed on administrative leave and blocked additional such action. He also set a hearing on whether to issue a more durable preliminary injunction against the Administration for February 13.
Why was the decision by Judge Nichols harmful?
Trump Judge Nichols issued an opinion that denied the request for a preliminary injunction, clearing the way for the Administration to go forward with its destructive plans for AID and its employees. Nichols claimed that since AID was “still standing” any real harm the employees would suffer could be addressed by a later ruling on monetary damages. The union maintained that the termination and the suspension of AID programs will cause “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” as well as serious harm to employees and relationships with on-the-ground organizations. Nichols ruled, however, that it is “not possible” to conclude that the public interest favors an injunction.
The case will go forward and the ultimate outcome remains unclear. Even though other judges nominated by Republican and Democratic administrations have issued preliminary relief against other destructive moves by Trump, including with respect to AID, the decision by Nichols is creating immediate and harmful consequences. Within days, Trump officials carried through with placing AID employees on leave and beginning a process to permanently fire them. As opponents have charged, the Administration itself lacks the authority to eliminate AID without Congress’ approval and its actions “upend decades of U.S. policy that aid and development work overseas serves national security.” Nichols’ opinion illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.