WASHINGTON–A District Court just denied the government’s motion to stay an order to reinstate NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka to the agency’s board.
Judge Amir Ali of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, who had ruled earlier that Harper and Otsuka should be reinstated to their jobs after being fired by President Trump in mid-April, said the government’s arguments seeking to stay the decision did not recognize the unique nature of NCUA.
The earlier ruling allowed Harper and Otsuka to participate in the NCUA Board meeting on Thursday—with Harper participating virtually and Otsuka attending in person at the agency’s Alexandria, Va. headquarters—their first appearance at a board meeting in three months.
Two of the three regularly scheduled monthly board meetings were cancelled; the lone board member, Republican Kyle Hauptman, oversaw the one board meeting that did occur.
In a posting on LinkedIn, Brandy Bruyere, regulatory compliance attorney, Consumer Financial Services & Credit Unions + Partner at Honigman, LLP, wrote, “We’ll see how the appeals court handles an appeal, but at least for now, the Board will remain with three members.”
What Judge Ruled
In denying the government’s request for a stay, Judge Ali wrote, “The government’s motion does not satisfy the stay criteria. The stay motion and reply, like the government’s merits arguments, fail to appreciate that the NCUA’s predominant role is overseeing financial institutions in a manner similar to the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, rather than exercising ‘considerable executive power’ Trump v. Wilcox 2025.”
The judge cited Nken v. Holder in 2009, “A stay is an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review and accordingly is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant,” and further wrote that the court considers “1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
‘Not Satisfied the Criteria’
“The government,” the judge wrote, “has not satisfied those criteria.”
Ali further stated that cases cited by the government involving the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board involve agencies that do “not resemble” the NCUA Board..
“The government does not explain why its stay arguments would not apply equally to removal of the Chair of the Federal Reserve or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Board members—indeed, neither its stay motion nor reply mentions the agencies, let alone propose a meaningful limiting principal.”
The CU Daily has extensive coverage of the judge’s ruling in the case here.
