National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell T. Vought | Docket

National Treasury Employees Union v. Russell T. Vought

In this en banc appeal concerning a preliminary injunction against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the appellants sought to modify the stay pending appeal, obtain a limited remand, and hold the appeal in abeyance after the Bureau issued a revised reduction-in-force plan. The court denied modification of the stay and a proposed 45-day remand limit, granted a limited remand for the district court to consider specified intervening developments, and held the appeal in abeyance while retaining jurisdiction.

Docket

Court

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Court level

appellate

Jurisdiction

Federal

Date filed

June 19, 2026

Parties

Russell T. Vought · appellantNational Treasury Employees Union · appelleeConsumer Financial Protection Bureau · appellant

Judges

Srinivasan · majorityHenderson · majorityMillett · majorityPillard · majorityWilkins · majorityKatsas · majorityRao · majorityWalker · majorityChilds · majorityPan · majorityGarcia · majority

Status

published

Disposition

Motion to modify the stay denied; limited remand granted; request for a 45-day remand limit denied; motion to hold the appeal in abeyance granted.

Opinion type

combined

Format

order

Nature of suit

Other Statutes APA/Review Agency

Date argued

February 24, 2026

Source

View PDF

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 25-5091 September Term, 2025

1:25-cv-00381-ABJ

Filed On: June 19, 2026

National Treasury Employees Union, et al., Appellees v. Russell T. Vought, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Appellants

BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge; Henderson, Millett*, Pillard*, Wilkins, Katsas, Rao, Walker, Childs*, Pan*, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion to modify the stay pending appeal, for a limited remand, and to place the appeal in abeyance, the response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion to modify the stay pending appeal be denied and the motion for a limited remand be granted. The court will remand the record for the district court to decide in the first instance whether to modify, suspend, or dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s issuance of a revised reduction-in-force plan and the other intervening developments identified in the appellants’ motion. See Mot. 2, 12–17. The appellees do not oppose a remand for that purpose, see Resp. 6–8, and the remand is limited to enabling the district court to consider only those intervening developments identified in the appellants’ motion. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the appellants’ request to impose a 45-day limit on the remand, which the appellees oppose, be denied. See Mot. 12; Resp. 7–8. The district court has moved expeditiously throughout this litigation, see Reply 11, and it is assumed that the court would continue to do so on remand. It is

Page 2FURTHER ORDERED that the appellants' unopposed motion to hold this appeal in abeyance be granted. See Mot. 18; Resp. 7. The en banc court will retain jurisdiction over this appeal. See D.C. Cir. R. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice & Internal Procedures 35-36 (2025). The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court. The district court is requested to notify this court promptly upon deciding the issues presented by the limited remand. Absent further direction from this court, the parties are directed to file motions to govern future proceedings in this court no later than 21 days following the district court’s decision.

Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Scott H. Atchue Deputy Clerk

Footnotes

* Because this court is retaining jurisdiction over the case, Judges Millett, Pillard, Childs, and Pan would wait until the legal questions pending before the en banc court are resolved before remanding to the district court.