L.C. et al v. TRUMP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
L.C., a minor child, by and through
her father MASSIMILIANO CALI,
MASSIMILIANO CALI,
Plaintiffs,
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Civil Case No. 26-688 (RJL)
)
)
)
)
)
)
- 	---- 	--- 	--- )
""-MEMORANDUM ORDER
May '2.o , 2026 [Dkt. #51]
On May 13, 2026, I granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. 	See
Mem. Op. [Dkt. #48]; Order [Dkt. #49]. Defendants now seek a stay ofmy order pending
appeal or, in the alternative, a fourteen-day administrative stay. Defs.' Mot. for Stay [Dkt.
#51]. 	Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 	Pis.' Opp'n to Mot. for Stay [Dkt. #52]. 	Having
considered defendants' arguments, I conclude that a stay is not warranted. 	Defendants'
motion is therefore DENIED.
Courts consider the following four factors when considering whether to stay an
order pending appeal: "(l) whether the applicant has made a 'strong showing that [it] is
likely to succeed on the merits' of its appeal; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably
harmed without the requested stay; (3) whether the stay 'will substantially injure other
1
Case 1:26-cv-00688-RJL Document 55 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 3

parties interested in the proceeding'; and (4) 'where the public interest lies."' 	Friends of
Cap. Crescent Trail v. Fed. 	Transit Admin., 263 F. Supp. 3d 144, 147 (D.D.C. 2017)
(alteration in original) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425-26 (2009)). The party
seeking the stay "bears the burden of 'justify[ing] the exercise of such an extraordinary
remedy."' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Cuomo v. US. Nuclear Regul. Comm 'n, 772
F.2d 972, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).
Defendants argue they are likely to succeed on appeal for three reasons: (1) the First
Amendment does not apply to foreign nationals living abroad; (2) the injunction interferes
with the Executive Branch's exercise of foreign affairs authority; and (3) the injunction is
overbroad. Unfortunately for defendants, all three arguments fail. 	How so?
As to defendants' First Amendment argument, I disagree for the reasons articulated
in my prior opinion. 	See Mem. Op. at 15-22. 1 	Regarding defendants' separation-of-
powers concerns, there is no question that the Executive Branch enjoys broad discretion
and deference in the realm of foreign policy. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654,
660-62 (1981). 	But, as I previously noted, even legitimate national security concerns "do
not warrant abdication of the judicial role." 	Mem. 	Op. 	at 21 	(quoting Holder 	v.
Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. 	I, 34 (2010)). 	The President's broad authority in
foreign 	affairs 	must be 	exercised 	in harmony with other constitutional 	limitations,
1 Plaintiffs clarify that while Albanese and Cali once took out a mortgage on their Washington, D.C. home
with a U.S. bank, they have now paid off the mortgage and fully own the home. Opp'n at 7 n.3. My opinion
suggested, incorrectly, that Albanese and Cali continue to pay off the mortgage. 	See Mem. Op. at 16.
However, they continue to pay HOA fees and property taxes on the home. Opp'n at 7 n.3. In any event,
this clarification does not alter my conclusion that Albanese has "substantial connections" to the United
States to warrant First Amendment protection for the speech at issue in this case. Mem. Op. at 16-18.
2
Case 1:26-cv-00688-RJL Document 55 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 3

including the First Amendment. 	As to whether the injunction is overbroad, I agam
disagree. 	Plaintiffs' injuries stem from Albanese's designation as such, not just from
defendants' enforcement of Albanese's designation against plaintiffs. 	See Mem. Op. at 6
(describing injuries due to "ongoing external pressure resulting from the sanctions"). As I
have already explained, see Mem. Op. at 25 n.5, enjoining Albanese's designation in its
entirety is therefore necessary to afford plaintiffs complete relief.
The 	equitable 	factors-irreparable 	harm, 	balance 	of the 	equities, 	and public
interest-also do not warrant a stay pending appeal. 	Defendants are not harmed by "an
injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice." 	TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d
92, 115 (D.D.C. 2020). 	Plaintiffs, meanwhile, would face concrete, irreparable harms
every day the injunction is stayed-including harms to their freedom of travel, property
rights, and constitutionally protected familial relations. 	See Mem. Op. at 22-23.
Defendants argue, in the alternative, that a fourteen-day administrative stay is
warranted. Whether to issue an administrative stay pending appeal is "not a matter of right"
but "an exercise of judicial discretion." Nken, 5 56 U.S. at 4 33 (citation omitted). For the
same reasons articulated above, I will not issue an administrative stay here.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' [Dkt. #51] Motion to Stay
Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, for a Temporary Administrative Stay is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
~ 	LEON
United States District Judge
3
Case 1:26-cv-00688-RJL Document 55 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 3