Case Explained: VIKTOR AGATHA; CHASTAIN ANDERSON; BELLA BOE; DAVID DOE; AC GOLDBERG; RAY GORLIN; DREW HALL; CHELLE LEBLANC; ASHTON ORR; ZAYA PERYSIAN; SAWYER SOE; and REID SOLOMON-LANE v. DONALD J. TRUMP

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: 2026-06-05 The First Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal of district court orders that preliminarily enjoined the U.S. Department of State from enforcing a “Passport Policy” requiring passports to state the biological sex of their bearer at birth. The court applied the four-factor test established in *Nken v. Holder* and *Does 1-3 v. Mills*, which requires the moving party to demonstrate (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a stay, (3) that the stay will not substantially injure other parties, and (4) that the public interest favors the stay. Regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, the court found the government failed to make a strong showing. The district court had preliminarily enjoined the policy based on claims that it was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and violated the Equal Protection Clause through unconstitutional animus toward transgender Americans. The government argued the policy was unreviewable under the APA because it was compelled by a presidential executive order or committed to the President’s sole discretion under 22 U.S.C. § 211a. The court rejected these arguments, noting that agency action implementing a presidential directive is ordinarily subject to APA review and that the Department retained independent discretion in formulating the policy. Furthermore, the government failed to develop its legal argument regarding unreviewability or provide sufficient support for its assertion that the policy would pass muster under the APA. Regarding the Equal Protection claim, the court observed that the government’s stay motion addressed the district court’s animus analysis only cursorily and failed to engage with the four specific prongs of reasoning underlying the lower court’s finding of likely success. On the balance of harms and public interest, the court determined these factors also did not favor a stay. While the government cited institutional interests, the district court had made factual findings that the plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable harm, including an increased risk of harassment and violence while traveling abroad. The government failed to contest this evidence or demonstrate that the balance of equities favored upending the status quo. Consequently, the motion for a stay was denied, leaving the preliminary injunction in place pending the outcome of the appeal on the merits. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.