In a significant legal battle, a federal judge has halted President Trump's recent efforts to seize control of the Inter-American Foundation.
According to The Hill, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan blocked Trump’s directive aimed at dismantling the IAF, potentially overstepping presidential authority.
The legal confrontation arose when Trump signed an order on February 19 to significantly reduce the IAF's influence, in alignment with applicable legislation. As a result, the Inter-American Foundation—an organization that significantly invests in development across Latin America and the Caribbean—faced potential dismantlement, making the move a consequential one. However, Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden-appointed district judge, ruled against the administration’s decision in a ruling made public last Friday.
Judge AliKhan's decision involves reinstating Sara Aviel as the IAF’s president. The ruling permanently halts efforts to break up the organization as legal proceedings continue. The Trump administration previously removed Aviel and the board, leaving the foundation near-operationally crippled with only one acting employee and one active grant.
In place of the previous leadership, Trump appointed Peter Marocco as the IAF's acting board member, allowing him to serve as a de facto overseer of the foundation. Judge AliKhan’s ruling effectively revokes Marocco's appointment, barring any authority he might have exercised, including the suspension of grants.
Judge Loren AliKhan voiced concern over potential breaches of constitutional limits, challenging the government’s interpretation of presidential authority.
The Justice Department had countered that the dismissals and appointments conducted under Trump's direction were within legal rights based on the president's broad appointment authority. Nevertheless, this argument did not gain traction with Judge AliKhan.
Judge Loren AliKhan said, “Because accepting Defendants’ arguments would leave parts of the Constitution in tatters, Ms. Aviel has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”
Judge AliKhan warned about the risks of bypassing the Appointments Clause, emphasizing the precedent it could set. He criticized the government for lacking a clear rationale that justifies unlimited presidential control over federal appointments without Senate oversight.
The case highlights a significant clash over constitutional boundaries concerning the president's power over agency leadership. AliKhan's observation during oral arguments was that the government's stance might "eviscerate" the Appointments Clause, a caution that adds weight to the ongoing legal debate. The U.S. government maintained that Aviel could not prove she suffered irreparable harm from the changes, therefore was not deserving of an injunction. However, Judge AliKhan dismissed this position with his ruling.
AliKhan wrote, “Then the President could appoint an ‘acting’ board member indefinitely without ever needing to seek the advice and consent of the Senate. That reading eviscerates the Appointments Clause. When the court pressed Defendants’ counsel for a limiting principle at oral argument, Defendants had no response — convincing or otherwise.”
AliKhan’s decision brings temporary stability to the Inter-American Foundation amid unfolding legal scrutiny. Both the IAF's current state and future are now in a pivotal phase as court deliberations continue.
In summary, Judge Loren AliKhan has placed a hold on Trump's orders to control the Inter-American Foundation, reinstating Sara Aviel and freezing actions by Peter Marocco. This case raises vital questions about the extent of presidential powers and the sanctity of constitutional provisions like the Appointments Clause. The outcome remains critical as the lawsuit makes its way through the judicial process.
