Judge Rules Removal of U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Directors Was Illegal [UPDATED to Link to Full Opinion]

UPDATE 5/20/25 11:53 am: An excerpt from the full, 102-page opinion:

As an independent entity exercising inconsequential government power and de minimis, if any, executive power, Congress's ability to restrict the President's removal power is even greater than that outlined in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), and the Supreme Court's other seminal presidential removal power cases. Applying those cases, Congress's restrictions on the President's removal power of USIP Board members are squarely constitutional, and the President and his Administration's acts to the contrary are unlawful and ultra vires. The actions that have occurred since then—at the direction of the President to reduce USIP to its "statutory minimums"—including the removal of USIP's president, his replacement by officials affiliated with DOGE, the termination of nearly all of USIP's staff, and the transfer of USIP property to the General Services Administration ("GSA"), were thus effectuated by illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions, which must therefore be declared null and void.

ORIGINAL POST 5/19/25: Judge Beryl Howell's decision today [5/19/25] in United States Institute of Peace v. Jackson declares (see NBC News [Ryan J. Reilly] for more on the matter):

[T]he purported removal of members of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace ("USIP") duly appointed under 22 U.S.C. § 4605(b)(4), was unlawful, in violation of 22 U.S.C. § 4605(f), ultra vires, and therefore null, void, and without legal effect ….

[P]laintiff Board members who were purportedly terminated remain members of the USIP Board and may be removed by the United States President only pursuant to the terms of 22 U.S.C. § 4605(f) ….

[T]he purported removal of Ambassador George Moose as acting president of the Institute by a resolution adopted by less than a majority of the duly appointed Board of Directors of USIP was invalid, and therefore null, void, and without legal effect ….

[T]he purported appointments of Kenneth Jackson and Nate Cavanaugh to the positions of president of USIP pursuant to resolutions adopted by less than a majority of the duly appointed Board of Directors of USIP were invalid and therefore null, void, and without legal effect ….

Amb. Moose therefore remains president of USIP and may be removed only by a duly constituted Board of Directors, under 22 U.S.C. § 4606 ….

[A]ll actions taken or authorized by Kenneth Jackson or Nate Cavanaugh as acting presidents of USIP were invalid and therefore null, void, and without legal effect ….

[G]iven the illegitimate appointment of Nate Cavanaugh to the position as USIP president, the actions and documents by which he purportedly transferred USIP's headquarters, located at 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037, to the General Services Administration were invalid and therefore null, void, and without legal effect ….

[T]the transfer of USIP's other financial or physical assets to the General Services Administration was likewise invalid, null void, and without legal effect ….

[T]he resolution adopted by two ex officio Directors of USIP's Board purportedly appointing Adam Amar as president of the Endowment of the USIP Fund and authorizing and instructing him to transfer any and all of the Endowment's assets to USIP was invalid, null, void, and without any legal effect ….

The court also orders that:

plaintiff Board members duly appointed under 22 U.S.C. § 2605(b)(4) shall continue to serve in accordance with § 4605(e) and may not be removed or treated in any way as having been removed, or otherwise obstructed from carrying out their duties, except in accordance with § 4605(f); …

USIP Acting President Amb. Moose shall continue to serve in accordance with § 4606(a) and may not be removed or treated in any way as having been removed, or otherwise obstructed from carrying out his duties, except in accordance with §§ 4601-11; …

[D]efendants, except for the ex officio members of USIP's Board of Directors to the extent their official positions allow, are ENJOINED from further trespass against the real and personal property belonging to the Institute and its employees, contractors, agents, and other representatives; …

[D]efendants, except for the ex officio members of USIP's Board of Directors to the extent their official positions allow, are ENJOINED from maintaining, retaining, gaining, or exercising any access or control over the Institute's offices, facilities, computer systems, or any other records, files, or resources, and from acting or purporting to act in the name of Institute, and from using the Institute's name, emblem, badge, seal and any other mark of recognition of the Institute; …

[D]efendants who are ex officio members of USIP's Board of Directors may not act unilaterally or in any combination of the three of them together, without additional consent constituting a majority of members of the duly constituted USIP Board of Directors, to transfer any of USIP's assets ….

I don't know enough about the dispute to opine it, but I thought the news was worth passing along.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Add this case to the stack of unitary executive petitions headed towards the Supreme Court. I think the judge has the statute right. Whether the statute unconstitionally restrains the big boss depends on what the goat entrails tell the undecided justices a year or two from now when the cases start landing.

[William of Brooklyn]

This is nuts. When, O Lord, are we going to accept that ANY PSA appointment, other than members of the Judiciary, serve at the pleasure of the president? ANY and ALL. So simple. Actual accountability. And only three branches of our government.

[Joe_dallas]

United States Institute of Peace. The USIP is an independent, nonprofit, national institution tasked with promoting conflict resolution and prevention worldwide.

Is the organization actually promoting peace and conflict resolution or is just another slush fund for the employees without performing any substantive work?

[Speaking for normal people]

A bombshell report by the U.S. Office of Government Efficiency, under the leadership of Elon Musk, has exposed massive financial mismanagement within the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), revealing that over the past decade, $13 million in public funds were misappropriated for personal expenses. One of the recipients of these questionable payments is Mohammad Qasim Halimi, Afghanistan’s former Minister of Hajj and Religious Affairs and a former Taliban official, who reportedly received $132,000 from the institute.

[Joe_dallas]

Thats what I recall, lots of corruption, waste, little or no substantive work. Just couldnt find a quick link since the google search got dominated with judges decision in the hits.

[SRG2]

You don't provide a link to the report so we have no way of knowing how accurate the claim. Given that DOGE is wont to exaggerate its findings, more than a little scepticism is warranted.

[Joe_dallas]

https://x.com/DOGE/status/1906848257705443758?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1906848257705443758%7Ctwgr%5E30074955a980a4272d0c38627c9687c8d3779df5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetrumpet.com%2F31261-doge-shuts-down-us-institute-of-peace

[Incunabulum]

The latter. They're all the latter. Without exception.

[MollyGodiva]

USIP was a private organization, not part of the Executive branch. Also this ruling will have little effect since all the employees have been fired and the building transferred to the federal government. This is another example of the courts moving too slow, the damage to USIP is already done.

[John F. Carr]

As long as the building has not been sold off by the federal government the transfer can be undone.

[MollyGodiva]

Nope.
https://www.globest.com/2025/04/02/judge-clears-path-for-gsa-to-acquire-usips-prime-dc-headquarters-at-no-cost/

[OpinionsVary]

You're posting articles from a month ago as if it can contradict the ruling we just got right now.

The ruling that was just issued (and linked in the article) found that the removal of the board members was ultra vires (i.e. unlawful so it never happened) and, as a result, the remaining board members lacked a legally constituted board. This meant the actions they took (like selling the building) were also ultra vires.

"Second, plaintiffs request that “the transfer of USIP’s financial assets to GSA be declared unlawful, null and void, and without legal effect.” Pls.’ Proposed Order at 2. Given that transfers of any USIP assets effectuated by Jackson or Cavanaugh were indeed invalid for the same reason as just explained, the transfers must be considered void."

So, as of this ruling, the building is owned by USIP and always has been. There is no need to give it back. It was never taken in the first place. Same reason you can't sell your neighbour's house.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Not part of the executive branch? Then who does it answer to? It gets money from Congress, but who administers it? It has been my understanding that Congress and judges only administer their own staffs, and that all other agencies are administered by the executive branch.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe USIP isn't an agency.

You could research this yourself, you know.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Do you believe Congress can create a non-agency that's not part of the Executive to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the US independently?

[mulched]

It is not a private organization. It was created by statute, it's funded by Congress and its board is appointed by the president.

It's supposedly independent. One could take the position that a president can't fire presidential appointees of an independent agency, but that position is on thin ice the last few years.

Lucky for us, Beryl Howell's jurisprudence is easy to understand. Whatever side Trump's on, pick the other one.

[Sarcastr0]

One could take the position that a president can't fire presidential appointees of an independent agency, but that position is on thin ice the last few years.

Until the Supreme Court finds otherwise, that's the binding law.

[Also USIP was not a federal agency.]

[MaddogEngineer]

Um, how do you think "binding law" gets changed?

You're not this obtuse. This is why people are alarmed, because Trump is challenging the binding law to obtain court decisions which change them.

You know, just like Obama tried to make a recess appointment when the Senate was not actually in recess. He tried, didn't get the participation trophy he was hoping for. Or maybe you're going to claim that there was no binding law when he tried, so that doesn't count.

[Sarcastr0]

Binding law does not get changed by lower courts ignoring current precedent, and then the Supreme Court validating their choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, pretty sure exactly that does happen from time to time.

[Bwaaah]

Right. Another opinion from BrettLaw.

(Just trying to save the gnat from having to think of a response.)

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, I'm pretty sure vertical stare is still mandatory, and a court would be in trouble if they didn't follow it.

That's a broader requirement than courts needing to follow your personal opinion on what precedent says, no matter how strongly you feel it's the only reasonable one.

[Lee Moore]

Actually, even Beryl accepts that "USIP is part of the
federal government such that constitutional separation-of-powers principles apply."

The "ratio" of her decision is that "USIP does not exercise executive powers and is not part of the Executive branch."

As you can see, she starts strong on this point, but loses confidence towards the end :

At the same time, USIP does not exercise governmental, let alone executive, power under the Constitution and is not part of the Executive branch. Instead, USIP supports both the Executive and Legislative branches as an independent think tank that carries out its own international peace research, education and
training, and information services. As an independent entity exercising inconsequential government power and de minimis, if any, executive power,..

Sadly, "inconsequential" and "de minimis" kinda torpedo the effort.

Back in reality, an agency, department, whatev of the federal government doesn't need to exercise executive power in order to be part of the executive branch. It just needs to be executing stuff. Researching the weather and publishing forecasts is execution. There is no requirement that you can actually unleash thunderbolts on the public. Teaching Greek to sophomores is execution, and if it's done by a federal whatev, it's part of the federal executive branch.

So Beryl's appeal to "power" is a lemon anyway.

If the CIA did nothing but surveiilance and spying, and writing reports for the President, and had no special legal powers to get secret warrants etc, it would still be part of the executve branch.

Beryl's going down on this one. Even the SCOTUS squishes won't buy "not part of the executive branch." They might buy Humphreys Executor with the magic sauce of ancient precedent defying the obvious logic that there's no separation of powers difference between a single headed agency and a hydra agency. But I suspect that's going down too. Logic plays a small part in the law, I accept, but SCOTUS Justices tend to be on the pompous side and they don't like to look too absurd.

[Sarcastr0]

My point was Humphry's is still good law.

Your angels on the head of a pin 'doing anything means you're part of the executive' is proving way too much. The CBO is part of the executive. So are Congressional investigatory committees.

You may want to go back and come in again.

[William of Brooklyn]

Say again? Congressional committees are part of the Executive? Since when?

[MaddogEngineer]

As private as the Kennedy Center?

I'm honestly asking, I really don't know.

[MaddogEngineer]

Except, AFAIK, the Kennedy Center is not granted authorization by statute access to classified information.

[Sarcastr0]

That access has no bearing on whether an institution is a federal agency.

Otherwise UARCs are all federal agencies.

[Bwaaah]

Your parse of the term "agency" does nothing to clarify the uncertainties here.

[CindyF]

Well, that decision will be reversed. Beryl Howard is one of the top 3 anti-Trump judges on the circuit so she was going to rule no other way. But a ruling that the Executive branch can't be in charge of executive agencies means that voting is a useless task. Anyway, the agency is kaput now so it doesn't really matter for the moment.

I believe this was the agency that had an administrator embezzling grant funds and sending those funds to a friend, who then deposited a portion in the administrator's banking account.

[TheAmazingEmu]

Sounds like the President should try complying with § 4605(f).

[CindyF]

"“The Institute of Peace was one of them, which is why our team went into trying to understand what was going on. And that’s when we found all the craziness, like the weapons in their armory. We found the payments to the Taliban,” the DOGE team member said. “So just a few hours after we got into their headquarters, we found that their chief accountant had actually deleted over a terabyte of accounting records from several leaders. So you’d have to ask the question, well, why would somebody do that?”"

https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/01/elon-musk-doge-team-institute-peace-taliban/

[MollyGodiva]

Why would anyone believe what DOGE says, they have been caught lying so many times.

[Joe_dallas]

Who are we to believe ?

DOGE ?
The Biden circle that covered up his mental and medical issues?
The Media that assisted in the cover up?

[Speaking for normal people]

Molly, you believe literally who you want to believe. And how illogical to take such an important case and say 'Because of other times lying I will let this pass" If you could only see how you appear on here

[bernard11]

And how illogical to take such an important case and say 'Because of other times lying I will let this pass"

Nothing illogical about it. When a frequent liar tells you something that is in dispute it's wise not to accept it immediately.

This is not the same as saying the statement is false, just that it is not reliable, and should be given no probative value.

[Joe_dallas]

Frequent liar - As if the media wasnt highly active in covering up bidens mental and medical health issues.

[David Nieporent]

Correct. Unintentionally so, but correct.

[Joe_dallas]

there was no "unintentionally" in the coverup

[David Nieporent]

None of you people can read. I said that bookkeeper_joe was unintentionally correct when he said that the media wasn't covering anything up.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Good God you can't even play naive well!

[Commenter_XY]

Unintentionally, my ass. You will never live it down.

Enfeebled, lmao.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You mean frequent liars like MollyGodiva?

[bernard11]

moved

[Bored Lawyer]

The statute says

(b) Membership
The Board shall consist of fifteen voting members as follows:

(1) The Secretary of State (or if the Secretary so designates, another officer of the Department of State who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate).

(2) The Secretary of Defense (or if the Secretary so designates, another officer of the Department of Defense who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate).

(3) The president of the National Defense University (or if the president so designates, the vice president of the National Defense University).

(4) Twelve individuals appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The issue in the case is Board Members appointed under subsection (4). Given that they require advice and consent of the Senate, and they spend money promoting American ideals of peace (at least that's their mission), I don't see how this survives Myer and its progeny.

[Bored Lawyer]

The powers and duties of this Board are defined in 22 USC 4604. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-section4604&num=0&edition=prelim

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes, from everything described under 4604, it only sounds "independent" as in an independent government agency, not under any particular cabinet secretary. Not a stand-alone federally chartered NGO. But definitely intertwined with government operations, intentionally so. How many private NGO's (not already three letter agency affiliated) are given statutory authorization and encouragement to access classified information?

Now I'm curious enough to go read the district court's opinion, to see how it justified coming to a differing conclusion.

[MaddogEngineer]

Of course, upon further reflection, this takeover attempt may be an opening tactical legal maneuver, laying the groundwork for the real target, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

The success of that eventually depends on whether central banking operations are an executive government function.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Maddog Engineer — The Federal Reserve Banks are creatures of Congress, owned by commercial banks through peculiar stock arrangements, and required by law to deposit earnings in the U.S. Treasury. You and I are also required by law to deposit earnings in the U.S. Treasury.

If SCOTUS decrees that to make the Federal Reserve part of the Executive, then SCOTUS will be doing it wrong.

[William of Brooklyn]

That's an interesting and completely baffling conclusion. The Federal Reserve *banks,* as national banks (since 1863) or as Bank Holding Companies are given a charter by Congress. I'm not sure what calling them "creatures of Congress" means. National banks are required to *obey* the law, but they do not *execute* it. The Fed, on the other hand, full of federal employees and with a dot gov website, is most emphatically tasked with executing the laws, and therefore it is indeed part of the EXECUTIVE branch, and its not-in-the-Constitution framework will eventually succumb to logic and the law.

[ScottK]

Congress is also full of federal employees and has a .gov website. And Congress authorized the President to remove the Governors for cause.

[William of Brooklyn]

Right. And no one would argue that they are part of some "private" or "independent" anything. Unlike some arguments heard about the Fed.

[John F. Carr]

The status of USIP is discussed in the full opinion at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278529/gov.uscourts.dcd.278529.40.0_2.pdf

USIP is part of the government but is not part of the executive branch.

"As an independent entity exercising inconsequential government power and de minimis, if any, executive power, Congress’s ability to restrict the President’s removal power is even greater than that outlined in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), and the Supreme Court’s other seminal presidential removal power cases."

[mulched]

Despite Judge Howell claiming USIP is part of the government but not part of the executive branch, there is no fourth branch of government.

It's not legislative, nor judicial. USIP spends appropriated money to run domestic and foreign programs under the leadership of presidential appointees.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Despite Judge Howell claiming USIP is part of the government but not part of the executive branch, there is no fourth branch of government.

So what? Not everything done with appropriated money is done by government. NGOs funded by government are a thing. The Federal Reserve is a thing. Harvard University is a thing. Whether any of those are under a president's jurisdiction to control is a currently fraught question. I doubt that question will turn out to have a simple answer, equally applicable to all of them. The USIP strikes me as a potentially collateral example with those others.

[mulched]

I see that your jurisprudence is as straightforward as Judge Howell's.

[ScottK]

Autocracy is much simpler, I'll grant you that.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yeah, I find it myself before you posted.

I don't buy the argument that supplying information also to the legislative branch makes it an independent agency. That would seem to be an executive function, akin to intelligence gathering, not a de minimis function in matters of war and peace. Not one member of the board has any statutory legislative connection (recommended for appointment by the speaker or majority leader). An independent funding scheme didn't make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "independent" of presidential control, so I don't get the approving citation to Seila Law, which recognized a greater removal power by the president despite a novel funding mechanism which bypassed the president and OMB.

Plenty of executive branch agencies are required by law to make reports to Congress. Informally, any agency denying a committee chair information with spending authority is not a smart political move.

[Stephen Lathrop]

MaddogEngineer — Either a judge or a member of Congress could do something which was not, "a smart political move," without thereby putting him/herself under presidential jurisdiction. I think your last sentence begs the question, what status does the USIP hold?

[MaddogEngineer]

My last sentence had nothing to do with the merits of this judicial opinion. I was describing the normal interactions between the executive and legislative branches. Or even the judiciary, which requires funding from Congress. Which is why the novelty of the USIP "independence" is not special, justifying it's special protection or legal separation of powers deference. Congress already has the Congressional Research Service it created in the legislative branch to provide members with info. It's unworkable to that an agency such as the USIP that deals in classified information could somehow be outside the president's control.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, less workable for a run-wild president, maybe. Why unworkable for the American people?

[Seamus]

"As an independent entity exercising inconsequential government power and de minimis, if any, executive power, Congress's ability to restrict the President's removal power is even greater than that outlined in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), and the Supreme Court's other seminal presidential removal power cases."

The way that sentence is written, it appears that the judge believes that Congress's ability to restrict the President's removal power is an independent entity exercising inconsequential power.

[William of Brooklyn]

I guess the fundamental question is what possible meaning the word "independent" can have in such questions. Yes, each of the three branches are independent of each other, but that's it. One searches the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Joseph Story's Commentaries in vain for not just any mention, but any conceptual framework that would support the notion of a federal government entity NOT part of one of the three branches.

[Bob from Ohio]

The decision is loony toons but the following should be pretty easy to get:

"(3) upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and a majority of the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate."

I guess the board wants their "daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS–18 of the General Schedule".

[thesafesurfer]

According to former Attorney General Bill Barr, federal courts issued a total of 27 nationwide injunctions in the entire 20th century, but they’ve issued 79 against Trump alone this century.