The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a stay granted on Wednesday requiring the Trump administration to continue paying grants to Voice of America (VOA) grantees. The cuts were led by Kari Lake, who was appointed as advisor to the acting CEO of the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees VOA.
Lake posted on X after the ruling, “Judges are trying to take the authority away from the President to run executive branch agencies. This is a gross encroachment on the President’s Article II Powers. The American people voted loud and clear for President Trump and his agenda. We will appeal this ruling as high as possible.” The Trump administration is planning an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.
Judges are trying take the authority away from the President to run executive branch agencies.
— Kari Lake (@KariLake) May 28, 2025
This is a gross encroachment on the President’s Article II Powers.
The American people voted loud and clear for President Trump and his agenda.
We will appeal this ruling as high as… https://t.co/AFWhkrjgVK
Four justices dissented from the full court’s decision. D.C. Circuit Court Judge Gregory Katsas said in his dissent, which Justices Karen Henderson, Neomi Rao, and Justin Walker joined, “The district court lacked jurisdiction to order continued funding for the affiliated networks.”
He first laid out the majority’s reasoning, “The majority denies the government’s stay motions based on its conclusions that (1) the government is unlikely to prevail on its Tucker Act contention and (2) the balance of harms tips for the networks because the government has not yet staked out a merits defense of its decision to terminate the grants.”
Katsas’s decision conflicted with a previous decision by the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the Department of Government Efficiency cuts this year, Department of Education v. California. He explained in that case, “the Supreme Court concluded that the government was likely to succeed on its Tucker Act argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction.” The nation’s highest court was inclined to agree that “the Tucker Act gave the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over the claims at issue,” so a district court judge would not have the authority to decide the lawsuit.
