Latest Breaking News

As I noted the decision distinguishes between two sets of claims brought by the plaintiffs. The first claim challenged the decision to purge a billion dollars in previously authorized grants. That claim was dismissed not because the loss of those previous grants was not irreparable harm. It was dismissed because consistent with established precedent, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear that claim, which should have been filed with the federal court of claims. So the district court never opined on the irreparable harm issue as it relates to the prior grants.

The second claim asserted by the plaintiffs challenged the revision of the procedures and standards to be applied in assessing future grants. That prospective claim was properly presented to the district court. But, not surprisingly, the court couldn’t find irreparable harm since the procedures apply to grants that haven’t yet been sought and that may or may not be denied.

The article made this distinction clear—quoting the opinion as follows: “The Court finds that it likely lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ retrospective APA claims … [and] Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm flowing from their prospective APA claims and have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims,”

So you’re right I didn’t write to the author since the article wasn’t misleading