Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake | Docket

Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake

In four consolidated appeals arising from district-court orders concerning employees placed on administrative leave, the court denied motions to dismiss two appeals as moot because the challenged orders extended beyond the vacated compliance deadline. The court granted stays pending appeal to the extent the orders required employees placed on administrative leave under the March 2025 directive to return to work, dismissed the requests for administrative stays as moot, and set briefing and response schedules.

Docket

Court

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Court level

appellate

Jurisdiction

Federal

Date filed

March 31, 2026

Parties

Kari Lake · appellantMichael Abramowitz · appelleePatsy Widakuswara · appellee

Judges

Henderson · majorityWilkins · majorityKatsas · majority

Status

published

Disposition

Motions to consolidate granted; motions to dismiss or strike denied; stays pending appeal granted in part; administrative-stay motions dismissed as moot; briefing and response schedules ordered.

Opinion type

combined

Format

order

Nature of suit

Other Statutes APA/Review Agency

Source

View PDF

1:25-cv-01015-RCL

Filed On: March 31, 2026

Patsy Widakuswara, et al., Appellees v. Kari Lake, in her official capacity as Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, et al., Appellants

No. 25-5145 1:25-cv-00887-RCL

Michael Abramowitz, in his official capacity as Director of Voice of America, et al., Appellees v. Kari Lake, in her official capacity as Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of the United States Agency for Global Media, et al., Appellants

Page 21:25-cv-00887-RCL

No. 26-5087 1:25-cv-01015-RCL

Patsy Widakuswara, et al., Appellees v. Kari Lake, in her official capacity as Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, et al., Appellants

Page 3BEFORE: Henderson, Wilkins, and Katsas, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motions to consolidate the above-captioned cases, the oppositions thereto, and the replies; the emergency motions for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay filed in Nos. 26-5086 and 26-5087, the oppositions thereto and supplement, and the replies; the motions to dismiss Nos. 265086 and 26-5087 as moot or to strike the motions for stay filed in those cases, the oppositions thereto, and the replies; the letters filed in Nos. 26-5086 and 26-5087; and the suggestions of mootness filed in Nos. 25-5144 and 25-5145, it is

ORDERED that the motions to consolidate be granted and that the abovecaptioned cases be consolidated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss Nos. 26-5086 and 26-5087 as moot or to strike the motions for stay filed in those cases be denied. The district court’s vacatur of the March 23, 2026 compliance deadline set out in its March 17, 2026 orders did not moot these appeals or invalidate the stay motions, as appellants challenge and seek to stay broader aspects of the district court’s orders. See, e.g., 3/19/26 Notice of Appeal, 1:25-cv-887-RCL, Abramowitz v. Lake, ECF #137; 3/19/26 Notice of Appeal, Widakuswara v. Lake, 1:25-cv-1015-RCL, ECF #224; Motions for Stay at 1, 3, 8. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for a stay pending appeal be granted. The district court’s orders entered on March 17, 2026, in 1:25-cv-887-RCL, Abramowitz v. Lake, and 1:25-cv-1015-RCL, Widakuswara v. Lake, are stayed to the extent that they require that “all employees placed on administrative leave pursuant to defendants’ March 2025 directive shall return to work.” Appellants have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2025). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for an administrative stay be dismissed as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter a briefing schedule for Nos. 26-5086 and 26-5087. It is

Page 4FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this order, appellants file a response to the suggestions of mootness filed in Nos. 25-5144 and 255145. The response may not exceed 3,900 words. Any reply is due within fourteen days after the filing of the response and may not exceed 1,950 words.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Scott H. Atchue Deputy Clerk