By: Tess O’Donoghue ’28
Volume XI – Issue I – Fall 2025
I. INTRODUCTION
A functioning democracy relies on clear, timely communication between elected officials and the people. The President has a duty to engage with his constituents through presidential briefings, during which he makes critical announcements about public health, the economy, and impactful policy changes. Yet millions of Deaf Americans—who have been disproportionately affected by the policies of the Trump administration—are denied access to this communication daily.
In August 2020, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) sued the Trump administration for failing to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation during coronavirus-related press conferences and briefings. The complaint named President Trump, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the White House Office, the Office of the Vice President (OVP), and Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany as Defendants. The District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction in Plaintiffs’ favor, ordering the White House to include a qualified ASL interpreter in the White House Communications Agency feed for all coronavirus briefings. [1] Although the Trump administration appealed the order, the newly inaugurated Biden administration withdrew the appeal and instituted a policy that went further than NAD’s requests, providing ASL interpretation at all White House press briefings.
Beginning in 2021, in-frame, quality ASL interpretation was included in all briefings involving President Biden, VP Harris, the First Lady, the Second Gentlemen, or WH Press Secretary Karine JeanPierre for which public notice was provided. Footage with interpretation was posted on the website for White House livestreams, Facebook, Twitter/X, and YouTube, [2] and the White House shared the live feed with television networks. Certified Deaf Interpreters (CDIs), Deaf individuals trained to translate one form of sign language into another, were hired for large events. [3] In this article, the term “Deaf” refers to Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, Hard of Hearing, and Late-Deafened individuals who consider themselves to be a part of the Deaf community and who generally use sign language to communicate. The term “deaf” with a lowercase “d” refers to individuals who are medically deaf. [4]
When President Trump returned to office in 2025, the White House promptly stopped providing ASL interpretation at press briefings. In May 2025, the NAD once again filed suit, arguing that under the precedent established by the Biden administration, interpretation should be provided for all briefings, not only those concerning public health emergencies. On November 4, 2025, Judge Amir Ali of the D.C. District Court issued a preliminary injunction recognizing Plaintiffs’ private right of action under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the “clear and present” irreparable harm to Plaintiffs. He ordered the Trump White House to provide the “readily feasible” relief Plaintiffs had requested: simultaneous ASL interpretation for all White House press briefings conducted by the President or White House Press Secretary and announced in advance. [5] The White House interpreted the order to mean that it must provide interpretation for all press briefings, but not other speeches or ceremonies, announced at least 24 hours before. [6] Separately, it has appealed the injunction order, and, as of December 3, 2025, the D.C. Circuit has decided to hear the appeal.
The complaints in NAD I and II rely on three common counts: Foremost, both cases assert that the EOP, OVP, and the White House Office violated §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, for which they seek Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the EOP, White House Office, and OVP. They allege violation of the First Amendment, for which they seek declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants. Finally, they claim Mandamus Relief, for which they also seek declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants. They present non-statutory review as an additional basis for injunctive relief, which is available when a government entity has grossly exceeded its authority but a statutory cause of action is not available.
NAD I differs from NAD II in three critical ways. Primarily, NAD II concerns briefings on any topic, while NAD I was limited to coronavirus-related briefings. Secondly, while plaintiffs in both cases presented First Amendment claims in their complaints, Plaintiffs in NAD II also presented the First Amendment as an alternative path to a preliminary injunction.Thirdly, NAD II introduced an additional claim that all Defendants violated the Fifth Amendment, by denying Deaf individuals equal protection. Both preliminary injunctions rested solely on §504 and did not address Plaintiff’s claims regarding the First Amendment, mandamus, or non-statutory review, or, in the case of NAD II, the Fifth Amendment. [7]
This article will proceed in four parts. First, it briefly describes §504 and the facts motivating Plaintiffs’ claims in NAD I. Next, it summarizes the central debate of both cases—whether §504 provides a private right of action against Defendants. Then, it analyzes the parties’ arguments on whether Defendants' conduct violated §504§. Finally, the article explains the differences between NAD I and NAD II, considering how changes in jurisprudence and national circumstances informed Plaintiffs’ approach to NAD II. Such analysis will demonstrate how a nonprofit organization, having achieved an unprecedented policy change through a combination of litigation and activism, may attempt to enshrine such change in federal law on behalf of a protected class.
II. BACKGROUND AND FACTS
The law at the heart of NAD I and NAD II is §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits federal programs and activities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. §504 §holds federal programs and activities to the standards set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for communication access. The ADA requires public entities to ensure communications with people with disabilities are equally “effective,” [8] which in this context means that Defendants must ensure that Deaf people have an equal ability to “receive information from” Defendants. [9] Public entities may claim an exemption to this standard only if, after considering all resources available, it is clear that providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services “would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens.” [10]
Plaintiffs in NAD I and NAD II argued that, to ensure effective communication, the White House must provide ASL interpretation. Contrary to popular belief, ASL is not a representation of English words through gestures; it is a separate language with its own grammar and syntax, and it is the main form of communication for more than 700,000 people in the U.S. [11] ASL is “American” in the sense that it developed in the United States, but it is largely based on French Sign Language, meaning that ASLis a separate language with its own grammar and syntax. [12] And many Deaf people lack the resources to become fluent in English. Young Deaf children often do not have access to sign language or other necessary communication tools like hearing aids, and, as a result, they do not develop the language skills typically acquired in the first five years of life, which are critical to literacy and numeracy abilities. [13] As a result of this early language deprivation, many Deaf individuals cannot read, speak, or understand English, and the median English reading level of a deaf high school graduate in the United States is only that of a fourth grader. [14]
While the absence of interpretation had been a longstanding concern for the Deaf community, it became particularly urgent during the coronavirus pandemic. When NAD motioned for a preliminary injunction against Defendants in NAD I, the White House was not providing ASL interpretation for any press briefings, including more than fifty concerning the coronavirus pandemic. [15] Due to the lack of public health information in ASL, Deaf individuals were nearly five times more likely to report difficulty accessing COVID-19 information. [16] Deaf individuals voiced their concerns with NAD, who worked alongside the National Council on Disability, and thirty-four senators to request that interpreters be provided; their requests were ignored. [17]
Judge Boasberg, who was appointed to the D.C. District Court since 2011 and served as Chief Judge of the Court since 2023, presided over the case. [18] After deciding to grant a preliminary injunction, Judge Boasberg ordered both parties to file a Joint Proposed Injunction Order addressing the logistics of including interpreters in briefings. To secure this preliminary injunction, plaintiffs needed to demonstrate the following: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) plaintiffs are likely to suffer a likelihood of irreparable harm to plaintiffs in the absence of a preliminary injunction, (3) that the balance of hardships weighs heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor, and (4) that the public interest favors the injunction. In cases in which the government is the defendant, the third and fourth criteria are typically considered together. In both NAD I and II, plaintiffs used similar arguments with regard to the first criterion; they discussed whether §504 contains a private right of action and whether the failure to provide ASL interpretation therefore violated §504. However, arguments on the remaining factors differed somewhat between NAD I and II because NAD II sought broader and more permanent relief.
Judge Boasberg ultimately held that a qualified ASL interpreter must be provided for all briefings that are “reasonably expected” to address the coronavirus pandemic; announced in advance; conducted by the President, Vice President, or White House Press Secretary; and filmed by the White House Communications Agency on the grounds of the White House or any federal agency. [19] Notably, the order did not require interpretation for briefings on unrelated topics that happened to reference coronavirus during the question and answer portion. [20] The White House could choose to film the ASL interpreter standing next to the speaker or to use the picture-in-picture format, placing the video feed of the speaker and the interpreter side by side and simultaneously. Judge Boasberg also required the White House to make the video feed of the interpreter available to broadcast networks. [21] In NAD II, Judge Ali ordered “simultaneous and publicly accessible ASL interpretation by a qualified interpreter for all publicly announced White House press briefings conducted by the President or White House Press Secretary.” [22]
III. KEY ISSUES OF BOTH COMPLAINTS
i. Private Right of Action
To illustrate their likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs in NAD I and II first had to demonstrate that they could bring legal action under §504. In other words, they needed to identify a private right of action within §504 that empowers private individuals and organizations to pursue judicial relief.
Laws containing a private right of action have been subject to significant debate in recent years. Some legal scholars argue that private enforcement is essential to ensuring compliance when public agencies lack resources or mere political will. Others assert that private enforcement encourages frivolous litigation for profit and imposes excessive burdens on regulated entities. [23] In the context of laws that restrict government behavior, however, private citizens are often the only parties positioned to ensure the law is upheld. Within such laws, Congress may therefore create a private right of action to enable plaintiffs to pursue relief through the judicial system rather than solely administrative procedures managed by the defendant government entity.
Under twenty-first-century federal case law, courts must consider the text and structure of the statute, followed by the legislative history, to determine if Congress intended to create a private right and remedy; if so, an “implied” private right of action exists. [24] §504 begins by prohibiting any program or activity conducted by an executive agency from discriminating or excluding individuals due to disability. For the purposes of §504, the term “agencies” includes “all government entities which are not within either the legislative or judicial branches.” [25] The statute states:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in §705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. [26]
Congress added the phrase “or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service” to §504 in 1978. [27] The statute then directs federal agencies to establish regulations that execute the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978. [28]
However, §505(a)(2), which describes the remedies available for violations of §504, refers only to actions against “any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistance.” Because the remedies §does not refer directly to programs and activities that are neither providers nor recipients of federal assistance, Defendants argued in NAD I that the only part of §504 that holds them accountable is the sentence directing agencies to establish their own regulations, which the Executive Office of the President did in 1978. [29] The EOP also developed administrative complaint procedures, which operate outside of the judicial system. According to the Defendants, these procedures are the only mechanism for addressing disability discrimination in an executive agency’s program or activity. [30]
Defendants did acknowledge legal action could be brought against agencies through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which waives sovereign immunity and empowers parties to seek nonmonetary relief from agency action. However, they argued that the APA does not apply to the President, Vice President, or the President’s close advisors. [31] It also exempts the EOP because it is an auxiliary entity to the President, whose “sole function is to advise and assist the President.” [32] Permitting lawsuits against such an executive entity would allegedly threaten separation of powers. [33]
While Plaintiffs recognized that the APA does not provide relief against the particular Defendants in this case, nothing in the text, structure, or history of §504 precludes judicial intervention. [34] Plaintiffs in NAD II noted that the “overwhelming majority” of the types of relief provided by §505 specifically relate to employment claims, which are only a subset of §504 claims. [35] Congress’ decision to expand remedies available when plaintiffs challenge the federal government is in its position as an employer or recipient of federal funding does not affect remedies available when plaintiffs challenge government programming. In fact, §505 states that attorney’s fees are available for any violation of the act, regardless of whether the defendant is the federal government in its role as an employer, a recipient of federal funds, or another federal program or activity. [36] This illustrates that §505 is an addition to the private right of action created in §504, not a limitation of it.
Plaintiffs also suggested that requiring injured parties to seek relief through administrative procedures alone would be nonsensical. During the hearing in NAD I, attorney for Plaintiffs, Mr. Ian Hoffman stated, “To accept the government's argument would mean that there is zero judicial redress for executive agencies, at least the ones that we're talking about here.” [37] Therefore, it would be nonsensical, Plaintiffs argue, if Congress had intended for administrative procedures to be the only avenue of relief given that agencies are the only judges of complaints against themselves. [38] Plaintiffs in NAD II reinforced that any attempt for administrative relief would be futile because the letters the NAD sent to the administration would be reviewed by Defendants in this case, who clearly had no intention to provide interpretation. [39] Judge Boasberg and Judge Ali agreed with this reasoning, concluding that the inability to proceed under the APA does not eliminate judicial review where Congress created enforceable statutory rights. [40]
Plaintiffs’ motion also relied heavily on judicial precedent to demonstrate a private right of action. Courts in the District of Columbia and across the country have long permitted private plaintiffs to seek injunctive and declaratory relief against executive agencies under §504. For example, in American Council of the Blind v. Paulson, the D.C. Circuit allowed a national advocacy group to pursue injunctive relief from the absence of currency that is distinguishable by blind individuals. [41] This demonstrated that a private plaintiff who brings a §504 claim against an Executive agency for injunctive relief does not violate sovereign immunity. [42] Though Defendants cited Lane v. Pena, in which the Supreme Court established that a regulation must explicitly waive sovereign immunity to allow money damages against the federal government, Judge Boasberg noted in his order that the Lane Court did not address plaintiffs’ ability to secure injunctive relief, rather than monetary damages, under a statute that does not explicitly waive sovereign immunity. [43] Rather, Judge Boasberg recognized that courts in DC and across the country have recognized that plaintiffs can pursue injunctive and declaratory relief against executive agencies under §504. [44]
Finally, Plaintiffs in both cases pointed to §504’s legislative history. When the Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1974, “a senate report said that §504 and the amendments would ensure administrative due process and permit a judicial remedy through a private action.” [45] After the Department of Justice issued an opinion suggesting that the federal government was exempt from the Act, Congress responded by amending §504 to include the phrase “any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency” in 1978. In 1991, the Second Circuit explicitly recognized that Congress passed this amendment to clarify its intent to permit suits against federal agencies themselves, not only the entities they fund. [46] Judge Boasberg’s order additionally references a conversation between Senator Bayh and Senator Cranston, who co-sponsored the bill, regarding “the continuing intention of Congress that private actions be allowed under Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,” which includes §504. [47]
To further understand the purpose of §504, Plaintiffs considered a similar law enacted less than a decade before, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act use identical language to describe the rights of victims of disability discrimination, in the former, and victims of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, in the latter: “[n]o [person]... shall… be subjected to discrimination.” [48] The Supreme Court has consistently categorized this phrase as rights-creating language, and Judge Ali stressed that it is found in the same sentence the phrase “any program or activity,” [49] demonstrating that Congress intended to create a private right of action. [50] He also asked Defendants to provide alternative language that Congress would have included– if not the language found in the statute– to create a claim for injunctive relief, but Defendants could not. [51] Thus, both NAD I and NAD II concluded that the text, structure, and history of §504 support an implied private right of action.
ii. Defendants Violated §504
To determine whether Defendants violated §504, both parties addressed two questions. First, must the White House provide ASL interpretation for live press briefings to establish effective communication with Deaf individuals and to ensure that they may partake in the benefits of briefings? Second, can the government do so without fundamentally altering the nature of briefings or experiencing undue financial and administrative burdens?
In NAD I and II, Plaintiffs clearly argued that the aid that the government did provide, closed captioning during the briefing and a transcript afterward, failed to supply Deaf individuals with equal opportunity to gain the benefit afforded to others. [52] Many Deaf persons cannot speak or read English and consider it to be “a foreign language.” [53] Those who do find it very difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of captioning, which is auto-generated by YouTube [54] and often inaccurate. [55] Transcripts are a poor alternative because they are only available to those with internet access, which many individuals with hearing loss lack due to the fact that they are 1.58 times more likely to be low-income. [56] Furthermore, neither captioning nor transcripts capture tone, [57] which is conveyed in ASL through “facial expressions, sign choice, and demeanor.” [58] When the briefing involves complex and infrequently used political and scientific terminology, understanding captions is all the more difficult. Even plaintiffs with significant education could not meaningfully access information solely from captions or transcripts. [59]
Defendants rejected this argument, failing to acknowledge that, as Judge Ali noted, “many deaf Americans have no proficiency in English” and instead insisting that ASL interpretation is a “preferable” accommodation rather than an essential one. [60] They emphasized that in addition to captioning, the White provides a transcript on its website and to the media . [61] Defendants also denied responsibility for ensuring access to transcripts by noting that Internet access does not fall within the “physical and mental impairments” covered by the Rehabilitation Act. [62] In NAD II, Defendants insisted that “On a commonsense level, transcripts are simply a different—and for many, perhaps more accessible—type of aid than captioning because transcripts can be consumed more easily at the reader’s preferred pace.” [63] However, Defendants provide no evidence to suggest that transcripts are “more accessible” than ASL interpretation provided simultaneously with and alongside a briefing. Further, by suggesting that accommodations are simply “preferable,” Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ framing treats Deaf Americans’ limited access to written English as a personal preference rather than a consequence of a language deprivation tied to deafness itself.
The second question, whether an accommodation imposes undue financial and administrative burdens, is less straightforward. The ADA only provides vague guidelines, directing courts to consider “(1) the overall size of the recipient’s program with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget; (2) the type of the recipient’s operation, including the composition and structure of the recipient’s workforce; and (3) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed.” [64] Historically, courts have expected entities of the federal government to bear significant costs to accommodate individuals with disabilities while also recognizing the undue burden defense. In Gardner v. Morris, the Eighth Circuit ruled that a civil engineer with manic depressive disorder did not have a right to be promoted and transferred to Saudi Arabia because the transfer would require the Army Corps of Engineers to set up a new medical facility overseas, incurring a cost that was grossly disproportionate to its costs of hiring an engineer. [65] On the other hand, in Nelson v. Thornburgh (1983), three blind employees of Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare argued that their employer should cover the costs of the reading services that they needed to do their jobs. A federal district court judge ordered the department, which had a $300 million administrative budget to hire part-time readers at a cost of $6,683 per year for each plaintiff, which amounts to $19,914 in 1983 and $64,745. [66] In NAD, Plaintiffs request a similar accommodation for communication access– yet rather than serving three employees, ASL interpretation could potentially benefit 11 million Deaf individuals in the U.S. [67]
However, in NAD I and NAD II, it is clear that interpretation services do not impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon the federal government. The median annual income for a full-time interpreter is $57,090, which is miniscule in comparison to other White House expenses [68] and interpreters need not be hired on a full-time basis. Furthermore, Plaintiffs in both cases noted that providing ASL interpretation was standard practice for many other governments. When Plaintiffs filed their complaint in NAD I, all fifty states had provided ASL interpreters for COVID-19 briefings, and most were doing so consistently; the complaints also lists 53 other countries that have used on-screen native sign language interpreters during coronavirus briefings. [69] In NAD II, Plaintiffs further argued that the Biden administration’s policy around interpreters proves that interpretation is not an undue financial or administrative burden for the White House specifically. [70]
Although Plaintiffs note that federal agencies have used ASL interpreters in the past, such as when FEMA briefed the public on hurricanes Irma and Harvey, [71] President Biden’s policy was unprecedented within the White House. Defendants argue that by providing interpretation at all briefings, President Biden was simply exercising his discretion to implement his preferred communication practices, not fulfilling a §504 obligation. [72] As such, the government argued, enshrining this policy in the law would fundamentally alter the nature of White House press briefings, noting that Plaintiff’s interpretation of §504 “suggests that some of the most high-profile presidential speeches in American history… were unlawfully presented… The suggestion that Congress imposed that substantial obligation on the President (and other executive agencies) in 1978, and yet no one noticed that it was being systematically violated until now, is implausible.” [73]
If courts rejected petitions for relief simply because they were unprecedented, injured plaintiffs would have few opportunities to present their claims. Indeed, it is not uncommon for Congress to enact statutes that do not fulfill their intended purpose until years later, when their meaning is clarified and applied in court. Plaintiffs stressed that §504 was passed to address discrimination that results from, “thoughtlessness and indifference of benign neglect,” not necessarily “invidious animus.” Such discrimination may persist for years unaddressed, but still may create irreparable harm. [74] Additionally, the fact that in this case the Trump administration ignored repeated requests for accommodation– particularly as technology has made the accommodation more feasible [75]– is very significant, and Defendants do not mention any such requests made by former administrations.
Indeed, though the requested relief has not been standard practice historically, Defendants did not show relief would cause undue administrative or financial burden. When asked if there is a practical justification for the White House’s failure to provide interpreters, Mr. Morrell, attorney for the government, responded that he did not “have a precise answer.” [76] In this case Defendants’ inability to point to undue financial or administrative burdens directly contributed to Judge Boasberg’s ruling. He affirmed that the Rehabilitation Act requires the government to grant people with disabilities “meaningful access” to its programs and activities, which means they “are as a practical matter able to access benefits to which they are legally entitled.” [77]
In NAD II, Defendants acknowledge that ASL is a feasible accommodation [78] but focus instead on the burden of the requested relief, stressing “serious institutional and other costs associated with forcing a presidential administration to present its message and image in a particular way.” [79] Using the phrase “in a particular way” instead of referring to ASL interpretation specifically suggests that Defendants’ main concern is not the financial or logistical costs of providing ASL interpretation, which the Biden administration managed for years prior. Rather, Defendants reject Plaintiffs’ more expansive definition of Defendants’ legal obligation to ensure equal access to White House communications. They fear future court challenges that may arise from Plaintiffs’ interpretation of §504, broadly insisting that a court may not direct an administration to veer from its preferred communication practices.
Defendants may also use “other costs” to refer to how providing disability-related accommodations could impact the President’s image. Defendants stress that the administration has a “perogativ[e]” to decide how it “present[s] its messaging.” [80] Requiring the President to appear alongside an ASL interpreter would “fundamelntal[ly] alte[r] the nature of the program” in ways that Defendants do not specify. Perhaps the administration believes ASL interpretation is a reminder of disability that, in the eyes of some viewers, associates the President with weakness; as Jude Ali put it, Defendants with to avoid any “association with accessibility for people with disabilities.” [81] In reality, ASL interpretation is a symbol of inclusivity and unity, in addition to a practical tool that strengthens the nation that empowers people to make well-informed decisions.
During oral argument, Defendants noted that the White House included an interpreter at the White House Easter Egg Roll, a live event, because it knew some Deaf people would be in attendance. [82] The presence of an interpreter at a fun holiday event in no way compensates for the Deaf community’s lack of access to critical information about the administration’s policies, but it does suggest a potential explanation for the absence of interpretation at briefings; perhaps the President does not wish to share the screen and shrink the size of his own figure in the frame.
While the Administration’s central motivation is not clear, the courts in both cases decided that none of these costs are “financial or administrative burdens” that would relieve the government of its §504 obligations. [83] Rather, Defendants’ argument rests on an expansive understanding of presidential power that is characteristic of the Trump administration but detached from the law. Their tone throughout the case reflects a callous indifference to the needs of the Deaf individuals and perhaps even disdain for the interpreters they rely on.
IV. PLAINTIFF’S APPROACH TO NAD II
i. How Broader Requested Relief Shaped NAD II
In NAD I, establishing the remaining preliminary injunction factors, a demonstration that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction and that the balance of hardships and public interest clearly weigh in Plaintiffs’ favor, was a fairly straightforward task. Plaintiffs argued that without an injunction, Deaf individuals would be unable to access rapidly evolving public health guidance during a global pandemic, risking substantial harm to personal and public health. [84] During the pandemic, scientists frequently uncovered new information about the virus, and policymakers updated their guidance often. Millions of Americans relied on press briefings for up-to-date, reliable information. If anyone did not have access to such information, and, as a result, did not adhere to health guidelines, that could contribute to the spread of the virus, at the peril of those individuals and of the population at large. [85] Judge Boasberg agreed, concluding that ensuring Deaf individuals' access to timely and accurate pandemic-related information served both individual and collective welfare. He therefore held that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in Plaintiff’s favor.” [86]
However, neither the parties nor the Court treated the pandemic as the only circumstance in which such access would be necessary. Judge Boasberg’s discussion of irreparable harm in his order focused on “health and safety,” but it also referred more broadly to the need to comply with government guidance, understand the current status of the economy, and prepare for changing circumstances. It did not mention the pandemic specifically. [87] In the hearing, Mr. Morrell noted that the relief requested would be “extraordinary” because it departs from historical White House norms, requires Defendants to begin a new practice rather than simply ceasing a current practice, and, perhaps most importantly, could be used to argue for broader, more dramatic relief. [88]
Subsequently, Mr. Morrell, Judge Boasberg, and Mr. Hoffman all acknowledged that the law did not draw a clear line between communication access in briefings that cover coronavirus and those that do not. Judge Boasberg said that the injunction would make it difficult “to distinguish the importance of a Corona briefing from a briefing on a war or natural disaster or anything else, right? … [I]t's hard to say why [Plaintiffs] wouldn't be entitled to relief on those cases?” Mr. Hoffman simply said in response, “Your Honor, I think I'll save different cases for a different day.” [89]
When that day came in 2025, Plaintiffs demanded significantly more from the White House. They sought the provision of “qualified ASL interpreters, including Certified Deaf Interpreters, at all White House press briefings, press conferences, and related events conducted by the President, Vice President, First Lady, Second Lady, or White House Press Secretary” that are announced in advance and filmed by the White House. [90] “Related events” would include nationally televised speeches to Congress. [91] As a result, showing irreparable harm became much more challenging.
Instead of pandemic health guidelines, vaccine updates, and “the impact of the pandemic on the economy and the country as a whole,” [92] topics of concern for Plaintiffs now include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, DEI, gender issues, the economy, and other topics “impacting Americans in general.” Plaintiffs argued that the content of presidential press briefings in 2025 remains “complex” [93] and that this case is similarly about access to essential information and “the equal opportunity to participate in American society.” [94] An informed pubic benefits all, and it is in the public interest for Deaf people, like all other members of the public, to have access to timely information about international and domestic policy and events benefits. [95]
Plaintiffs also explain how the content of President Trump’s press briefings has been particularly consequential compared to past administrations and disproportionately concerns Deaf persons and others with disabilities. Plaintiffs note the rapid pace of changes to economic and foreign policies, federal agencies, and government spending. [96] The motion specifically mentions Trump’s 150 executive orders in his second term, some of which closed DEI offices that provided workplace accommodations to Deaf federal employees, shrunk the federal workforce, and dismantled agencies. [97] Indeed, though the nation is no longer at the height of a global pandemic, cuts to the federal programs and funding that millions of Deaf people rely on puts their health, safety, and financial well-being of people with disabilities are once again at grave risk. In fact, President Trump issued 130 executive orders in the first 100 days of his second term, almost seven times the median of the last sixteen presidents. [98]
During the hearing, Defendants emphasized that injunctive relief must be narrowly tailored to address the harm and urged Judge Ali to limit his order to briefings on particular topics. [99] In response, the NAD asserted that topic-specific relief would not be appropriate due to the NAD’s associational standing and the wide range of issues of concern to Deaf individuals, further noting that briefings often cover emergencies and disasters shortly after they occur, so ASL interpretation must be guaranteed in advance. [100] For his part, Judge Ali commented that topic-specific relief would be unfeasible because it was not clear how the White House would distinguish between briefings that did and did not require interpretation. In the beginning of his opinion, a critical portion in which he must clearly and concisely convey his reasoning, Jude Ali writes, states, “White House press briefings engage the American people on important issues affecting their daily lives–in recent months, war, the economy, and healthcare, and, in recent years, a global pandemic.” [101] The main clause of this sentence focuses on “important issues affecting th[e] daily lives” of the American people, and the reference to events of “recent months” and years, which themselves are broadly defined, is only ancillary. The lack of specificity in this operative portion of the opinion suggests that while the Trump administration’s recent policies add urgency to Plaintiff’s request, their right to and need for access to press briefings does not depend on the Administration in power.
Defendants also criticized the scope of the requested relief in NAD II by stressing the unprecedented nature of the Biden administration’s policies. During the hearing, Defendants claimed that the fact that the NAD didn’t sue for interpreters at all briefings in 2020 casts down on their current claim of irreparable harm [102] However, not all practices that cause irreparable harm are equally harmful. In 2020, the NAD’s members were contacting the organization about their inability to access information about the pandemic, and the NAD recognized that such information was particularly pressing given the circumstances. The NAD’s strategic decision to focus its advocacy on a policy that immediately and directly impacted the health of its members in no way indicates that lack of access to other information has not also created irreparable harm.
ii.Enjoining the President
Due to the separation of powers doctrine, courts often hesitate to recognize a private right of action in suits against the federal government. Claims against the President himself, albeit in his official capacity, are subject to particular concern. During the hearing in NAD I, Judge Boasberg stated that to verify Plaintiffs’ standing, he needed to confirm that the injury was redressable, meaning that a ruling in the Plaintiff’s favor would likely rectify the injury. [103] In this case, Judge Boasberg was uncertain whether issuing relief against the President and Vice President would violate the separation of powers because, as Mr. Hoffman had conceded, ruling against the other Defendants alone would achieve a similar effect. [104] Consequently, he “sidestep[ped]” the question of whether a federal district court may enjoin the President or Vice President with an order to take a specific action. Because enjoining the other Defendants– the Executive Offices of the President and Vice-President, the White House Office, and Press Secretary McEnany– could provide appropriate relief, his order for injunctive relief did not include the President. [105]
In Trump v. CASA (2025), which addressed the validity of universal injunctions against President Trump’s termination of birthright citizenship, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court decided that universal injunctions may not be “broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.” [106] This decision will dramatically reduce the scope of relief district courts may issue, transforming advocates’ approach to claims against the federal government. Why, in light of Trump v. Casa, as well as the district court’s decision not to enjoin the President in 2020, did Plaintiffs name President Trump in their 2025 claim? There are three main reasons.
Firstly, Trump v. CASA does not prevent associations from suing on behalf of all members. [107] During NAD I, the D.C. District Court recognized NAD’s associational standing and ability to pursue relief from the alleged injury for its members. [108] Since then, Justice Alito’s concurrence in Trump v. CASA asserted that associational standing should only be recognized in select circumstances, when the association demonstrates that it “has a ‘close relationship’ to the right holder and that there is some ‘hindrance’ to the right holder’s ability to ‘protect his own interests.’” [109] The NAD meets both of these requirements: its mission is to advocate for the “civil, human, and linguistic rights” of the Deaf, [110] and the language barrier between its members and hearing individuals prevents its members from advocating for themselves.
Secondly, the Court confirmed in its 2020 order that it may issue declaratory relief against a President in some circumstances. [111] During the hearing, Mr. Hoffman cited Mr. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump to demonstrate the history of declaratory relief running against the President. [112] Declaratory relief clarifies the rights of each party under the law without requiring Defendants to take a particular action. [113] Granting Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief under the First and Fifth Amendments could discourage Defendants from taking similar actions that may infringe the right of Deaf individuals to access government communications. It could also influence executive policy toward individuals with disabilities more broadly.
Thirdly, naming President Trump in the complaint could serve as a reminder of the President’s other attacks on people with disabilities, which make Plaintiff’s request all the more urgent. According to the Center for American Progress, an independent nonpartisan policy institute, the first six months of the Trump administration have constituted an “all-out war against disabled people,” marked by decisions to freeze or terminate grants for disability research, cut $1 trillion from Medicaid through the Big, Beautiful Bill Act, [114] prevent federal agencies from recognizing disparate impact litigation, and incapacitate civil rights entities such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces nondiscrimination laws, by firing staff. [115] Although President Trump does not bear full responsibility for the policies initiated by his administration, he has been particularly vocal in his contempt for people with disabilities and his enthusiasm for shrinking programs relied on by low-income Americans and disabled people. Only two days into his term, he proudly proclaimed in a speech to the World Economic Forum, “My administration has taken action to abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion nonsense — and these are policies that were absolute nonsense — throughout the government and the private sector.” [116] There are also ample reports of his callous behavior toward people with disabilities, which includes mocking a journalist for her physical disability and using the phrase “retarded.” He also blamed a tragic plane crash on the disability-inclusive policies of the Federal Aviation Administration, which he grossly misrepresented, [117] and directed the FAA to rescind all DEI initiatives in hiring. [118]
Given this attitude, it is very possible that President Trump was personally responsible for the change in policy. Regardless, by naming President Trump in their complaint, Plaintiffs remind the Court and the public of the other actions the Trump administration has taken against disabled and low-income Americans, many of which have been announced at press briefings and related events. In turn, the Court and the public can recognize the Deaf community’s acute need to access this administration’s briefings, which justifies the breadth of the requested relief and their decision to motion for a preliminary injunction.
iii. Fifth Amendment Claim
In NAD II, Plaintiffs additionally claimed that all Defendants violated the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that “no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process ensures that the federal government may not interfere with fundamental constitutional rights. The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments use the same language, and the Supreme Court has decided that both clauses impose the same limitations, despite that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states. [119]
Accordingly, Plaintiffs in NAD II argue that the Fifth Amendment ensures “equal protection of the laws” and consequently prohibits the federal government from discriminating. By intentionally treating Deaf individuals differently, Defendants denied the Deaf community equal protection in the context of a fundamental right, the First Amendment rights to receive speech and petition the government for grievances. [120]
iv. First Amendment Claim
In NAD I, Plaintiffs briefly described Plaintiffs’ right to receive government speech under the First Amendment in their complaint but not in their motion for a preliminary injunction, so the First Amendment was not discussed in the hearing or Judge Boasberg’s order. [121] In NAD II, however, the First Amendment claim took a much more central role and was included in both the complaint and the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs discussed an additional First Amendment protection: the right to petition the government for grievances.
To support the right to receive speech, Plaintiffs cited Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., which struck down a statute that described advertising prescription drug prices as “unprofessional conduct.” The Supreme Court established that the First Amendment, in addition to preserving free speech, contains an equal and “reciprocal right to receive” speech. [122] According to the Court, the First Amendment contributes to “the flow of accurate and reliable information relevant to public and private decisionmaking.” The dissemination of information on prescription drugs, even when such information is commercial in nature, is protected by the First Amendment because it shapes “public health, safety, and welfare” [123] and is thus is a “matter of public interest.” [124] As a result, government policies may not deny access to such information. Indeed, if the First Amendment rejects statutes that inhibit public access to commercial information about health, safety, and welfare, it follows that the Amendment would also protect access to information that public entities provide about such topics.
The First Amendment also contains the right to petition, or to seek relief from government action through administrative or judicial means (LII First Amendment). [125] If individuals are not informed about recent government action, they cannot know when the government is violating their rights and, in turn, when to make a petition. [126] This right is particularly relevant to NAD II because Plaintiffs requested interpretation for all briefings, which cover many topics that Deaf individuals may want to challenge. When the speech takes place in a designated public forum, which is a section of public property that the government has designated as open for public expression, [127] restrictions must serve a significant state interest and be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. [128] Plaintiffs argue that denying access to communications provided by elected representatives fails this test. [129]
In response, Defendants argued in NAD II that briefings should not be considered public forums for First Amendment purposes because Defendants are attempting to receive speech, not to speak. They additionally asserted that Defendants have not violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to receive information because they have not implemented restrictions or taken direct action to limit access; rather, they have simply failed to take “additional” steps to make their speech “more accessible.” [130] However, eliminating a policy that was supporting access for Deaf individuals constitutes an affirmative, direct limitation of their right to receive speech.
V. CONCLUSION
During the pandemic, the NAD responded to its members’ immediate need for information to protect their health by effectively securing ASL interpretation at coronavirus-related press briefings. However, as the hearing in NAD I makes clear, the organization never relinquished the goal of equal access to White House communications– a need and a right for the Deaf community, regardless of the administration in office. NAD’s persistence and strong arguments throughout NAD I encouraged the Biden administration to go beyond the court’s order, providing communication access that was long overdue. President Trump dismantled the policy without any legitimate justification, all while announcing cuts to critical programs for low-income people with disabilities. Judge Ali’s injunction recognizes that amidst these attacks against the Deaf community, the need for information access is no less urgent than during the pandemic. Yet regardless of the content of press briefings, when the government denies its citizens equal access to timely information, it denies the dignity of the Deaf community and undermines the informed public at the core of every democracy.
Endnotes
[1] Order: The Court Orders that Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 09/23/2020. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 09/23/2020), National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. September 23, 2020, Filed).
[2] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Settlement Agreement, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 10.
[3] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Trump, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, 2025 LX 557106 (D.D.C. November 4, 2025, Filed), at 12–13.
[4] National Association of the Deaf.=, “Community and Culture - Frequently Asked Questions,” 2025, https://www.nad.org/resources/american-sign-language/community-and-culture-frequently-asked-questions/. Rachel Cooper, “Can It Be a Good Thing to Be Deaf?”, Gallaudet University, accessed December 4, 2025, https://ssl.gallaudet.edu/gupress/excerpts/DE.html.
[5] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 2.
[6] Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Trump, Notice of Efforts to Comply with Preliminary Injunction, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, 2025 LX 557106 (D.D.C. November 7, 2025, Filed).
[7] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Settlement Agreement, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 8. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 20.
[8] 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
[9] ADA.Gov, “ADA Requirements: Effective Communication,” February 28, 2020, https://www.ada.gov/resources/effective-communication/.
[10] 28 C.F.R. § 35.164.
[11] Wright, Kristin, “The White House Is Sued over Lack of Sign Language Interpreters at Press Briefings,” NPR, May 29, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/05/29/nx-s1-5415687/deaf-sign-language-trump-white-house-lawsuit.
[12] “American Sign Language,” State of Rhode Island Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CDHH), accessed November 23, 2025, https://cdhh.ri.gov/information-referral/american-sign-language.php.
[13] “Implications of Language Deprivation for Young Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, and Hard of Hearing Children,” NAD - National Association of the Deaf, n.d., accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.nad.org/implications-of-language-deprivation-for-young-deaf-deafblind-deafdisabled-and-hard-ofhearing-children/.
[14] Amy Lederberg, “Special Education Research and Development Center on Reading Instruction for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students | IES,” Institute of Education Sciences, accessed November 23, 2025, https://ies.ed.gov/usework/awards/special-education-research-and-development-center-reading-instruction-deaf-and-hard-hearingstudents.
[15] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 9.
[16] Tiffany L. Panko et al., “The Deaf Community’s Experiences Navigating COVID-19 Pandemic Information,” HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice 5, no. 2 (n.d.): e162–70, https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307- 20210503-01.
[17] id. at 12–13.
[18] “Chief Judge James E. Boasberg | District of Columbia | United States District Court,” United States District Court District of Columbia, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/chief-judge-jamese-boasberg.
[19] Order: The Court Orders that Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 09/23/2020. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 09/23/2020), National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. September 23, 2020, Filed), at 1.
[20] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 10–11.
[21] Order: The Court Orders that Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 09/23/2020. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 09/23/2020), National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. September 23, 2020, Filed), at 2.
[22] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 2.
[23] Karen Harned, “State and Federal ‘Private Right of Action’ Legislation: Are These Mechanisms Wise or Worrisome? – Law & Economics Center,” George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law, June 9, 2023, at 6:10, https://masonlec.org/events/state-and-federal-private-right-of-action-legislation-are-these-mechanisms-wiseor-worrisome/.
[24] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 11.
[25] id. at 14. Memorandum from Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal Counsel, “Applicability of §504 of the RehabilitationAct to Certain Governmental Entities” (May 3, 1983), https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinions?search_api_fulltext=applicability+of+section+504&start_date=1983-05- 01&end_date=1983-05-31&sort_by=field_date.
[26] Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 794.
[27] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 5.
[28] Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U. S. C. § 794
[29] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 7.
[30] id. at 13.
[31] id. at 8–9.
[32] id. at 16.
[33] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 13.
[34] id. at 15.
[35] id. at 28–29.
[36] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 12–15.
[37] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 49.
[38] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 15.
[39] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Amir Ali held on 7-02-2025, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:25-cv-01683 (D.D.C. July 6, 2025, Filed), at 64.
[40] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 14. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 11. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 18.
[41] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 8.
[42] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 15.
[43] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 13.
[44] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168.
[45] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 18.
[46] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 5.
[47] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 13.
[48] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 4–5.
[49] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 15.
[50] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 12. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 10–11.
[51] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Amir Ali held on 7-02-2025, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:25-cv-01683 (D.D.C. July 6, 2025, Filed), at 44.
[52] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 15–16.
[53] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 1.
[54] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 12.
[55] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 4–5.
[56] Susan D. Emmett and Howard W. Francis, “The Socioeconomic Impact of Hearing Loss in US Adults,” Otology & Neurotology : Official Publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 36, no. 3 (2015): 545–50, https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000562.
[57] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 13.
[58] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 14.
[59] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 4–7.
[60] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 19.
[61] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 5.
[62] id. at 23.
[63] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 24.
[64] Nicole Buonocore Porter, “A New Look at the ADA’s Undue Hardship Defense,” Missouri Law Review 84 (2019): 130.
[65] id. at 133.
[66] id. at 129–130. “CPI Inflation Calculator,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
[67] Joan Naturale, “InfoGuides: Deaf Demographics and Employment: Demographics Statistics,” Rochester Institute of Technology, accessed November 23, 2025, https://infoguides.rit.edu/deafemploy/demographics.
[68] “Interpreters and Translators,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed December 4, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes273091.htm.
[69] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 2, 11.
[70] id. at 19.
[71] id. at 11.
[72] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Amir Ali held on 7-02-2025, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:25-cv-01683 (D.D.C. July 6, 2025, Filed), at 59.
[73] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 27.
[74] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Amir Ali held on 7-02-2025, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:25-cv-01683 (D.D.C. July 6, 2025, Filed), at 30.
[75] id. at 12
[76] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 27.
[77] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 19.
[78] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 1.
[79] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 2–3.
[80] id. at 26–27.
[81] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 20.
[82] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 54.
[83] id. at 3.
[84] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 25.
[85] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 4.
[86] id. at 22.
[87] id. at 21.
[88] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 51–52.
[89] id. at 52.
[90] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 23.
[91] id. at 14.
[92] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 5.
[93] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 4–5.
[94] id. at 16.
[95] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 4.
[96] id. at 2.
[97] id. at 11.
[98] Damali Ramirez, “Here’s How Many Executive Orders Presidents Issued,” WDSU, January 17, 2025, https://www.wdsu.com/article/executive-orders-presidential-history-comparison-get-the-facts/63424275.
[99] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Amir Ali held on 7-02-2025, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:25-cv-01683 (D.D.C. July 6, 2025, Filed), at 24–25.
[100] id. at 66.
[101] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 2.
[102] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Amir Ali held on 7-02-2025, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:25-cv-01683 (D.D.C. July 6, 2025, Filed), at 38.
[103] “Standing,” Cornell University Legal Information Institute, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing#:~:text=Redressability%3A%20It%20must%20be%20likely,court%20wil l%20redress%20the%20injury.
[104] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 44.
[105] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 23.
[106] “Declaratory Relief,” Cornell University Legal Information Institute, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief.
[107] Christopher Walker, “What Trump v. CASA Means for the Future of Universal Relief in Administrative Law,” Notice and Comment: A Blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation, June 29, 2025, https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/what-trump-v-casa-means-for-the-future-of-universal-relief-in-administrative-law/.
[108] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 4.
[109] Walker, “What Trump v. CASA Means for the Future of Universal Relief in Administrative Law.”
[110] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Trump, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 4.
[111] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 22.
[112] Transcript of Proceedings before Judge James E. Boasberg held on 8-26-2020, National Association Of The Deaf Et Al V. Trump Et Al, 1:20cv2107 (D.D.C. August 28, 2020, Filed), at 44.
[113] Cornell University Legal Information Institute, “Declaratory Relief.”
[114] Micah Johnson and Andrea Ducas, “$1 Trillion in Medicaid Cuts—$1 Trillion in Tax Giveaways for the Richest 1 Percent: The One Big ‘Beautiful’ Bill’s Budget Math,” Center for American Progress, July 3, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/1-trillion-in-medicaid-cuts-1-trillion-in-tax-giveaways-for-the-richest-1- percent-the-one-big-beautiful-bills-budget-math/.
[115] Mia Ives-Rublee and Casey Doherty, “The Trump Administration’s War on Disability,” Center for American Progress, July 28, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-war-on-disability/.
[116] Niall Stanage, “Trump Goes Full-Bore Against DEI,” The Hill, January 24, 2025, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5104168-trump-attacks-diversity-equity-inclusion/.
[117] “Trump’s Denigration of People With Disabilities Is Unacceptable. It’s Incumbent on All of Us to Stand Up To It.,” Creative Spirit, February 4, 2025, https://www.creativespirit-us.org/trumps-denigration-of-people-withdisabilities-is-unacceptable-its-incumbent-on-all-of-us-to-stand-up-to-it/.
[118] Sean Michael Newhouse, “FAA Employees with Disabilities Targeted by Trump’s Anti-DEI Push,” Government Executive, January 23, 2025, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/01/faa-employees-disabilities-targetedtrumps-anti-dei-push/402444/.
[119] Cong. Rsch. Serv., Amdt5.5.1 Overview of Due Process, Constitution Annotated, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-5-1/ALDE_00013721/ (last visited Nov 23, 2025).
[120] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Trump, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 21.
[121] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 5.
[122] Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-895 (last visited Nov 23, 2025). Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Complaint, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164168, at 18.
[123] Virginia State Board of Pharmacy et al. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., et al., 425 U.S. 748, 750, 753 (1976).
[124] id. at 762.
[125] “First Amendment,” Cornell University Legal Information Institute, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment.
[126] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Trump, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 20.
[127] “Forums,” Cornell University Legal Information Institute, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums.
[128] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 23.
[129] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Trump, Complaint, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 20.
[130] Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf, Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220827, at 29–30.