Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

One of the immediate priorities of the second Trump administration has been the termination of a slew of federal contracts and grants. This, predictably, has led to litigation, mostly filed in the U.S. District Courts, which as we have previously&nbsp;<a href="https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2025/04/16/supreme-court-lifts-restraining-order-on-grant-terminations/#more-4286">written</a>, have authority to grant equitable relief. The government has been arguing that these cases belong in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where only monetary damages are available (and only upon meeting the high burden of establishing that the government acted in bad faith). On April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an emergency&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf">stay</a>&nbsp;of a District Court’s preliminary injunction in a case challenging grant terminations, with the five-justice majority suggesting that the termination case belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. But since then, two U.S. District Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled—contrary to the Supreme Court’s emergency stay order—that there is indeed district court jurisdiction in cases challenging contract and grant terminations. As Judge Young of the District Court of Massachusetts stated, “…this Court, after careful reflection, finds itself in the somewhat awkward position of agreeing with the Supreme Court dissenters and considering itself bound by the still authoritative decision of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit…” which ruled that the Tucker Act did not apply, and that the government’s actions were reviewable under the Administrative Procedures Act.

core/paragraph

Read the full post on our&nbsp;<a href="https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2025/05/22/disagreeing-with-the-supreme-court-the-ninth-circuit-and-two-district-courts-find-apa-jurisdiction-in-challenges-to-federal-contract-and-grant-terminations/">Government Contracts Navigator</a>&nbsp;blog.

core/separator

This alert was published in <a href="https://www.blankrome.com/sites/default/files/2025-08/casimir.pdf">Government Contracting Law Report</a>, Volume 11 Number 8, on July 31, 2025.

core/spacer

core/button

core/buttons

Download The Article

Aerospace, Defense & Government Services

Dominique L. Casimir

Sara N. Gerber

Government Contracts

Claims

Blog Post

Publications

Trump Administration Resource Hub

Disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and Two District Courts Find APA Jurisdiction in Challenges to Federal Contract and Grant Terminations

Disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and Two District Courts Find APA Jurisdiction in Challenges to Federal Contract and Grant Terminations

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Disagreeing with the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit and Two District Courts Find APA Jurisdiction in Challenges to Federal Contract and Grant Terminations

Offices

Stay Connected