U.S. Institute of Peace Sweeps to Victory In District Court As Supreme Court Hints At Humphrey’s Executor Future Obsolescence

On May 19, 2025, a federal judge ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the United States Institute of Peace, but subsequent Supreme Court action suggests this victory may be short-lived.

Judge Beryl Howell’s May 19 ruling dismantled the administration’s three-month occupation of USIP and declared all their subsequent actions “null and void,” calling Trump’s behavior “a gross usurpation of power.” The administration had used FBI agents and police officers to storm USIP’s headquarters in March, forcing staff out of the building.

View fullsize

Created by ChatGPT for satirical purposes. AI transparency disclosure.

However, since this ruling, the Supreme Court granted a stay in the case involving members of the NLRB and MSPB, finding that these officials were likely to show they “exercise considerable executive power” and therefore do not fit within the Humphrey’s Executor protections from presidential removal. This signals the Court may be further narrowing the already limited exceptions to presidential removal power established in Seila Law .

The USIP case initially highlighted how both sides misjudged their legal strategies. USIP hurt itself early by refusing to engage with the reality of its governmental connections. When seeking a temporary restraining order in March, the judge noted they “provided no argument… on the Court’s authority to issue an administrative stay” and failed to analyze “how to analyze the President’s removal authority if the Court concluded that defendants were correct that USIP was a governmental entity.”

Judge Howell criticized the Justice Department's “process-of-elimination reasoning” - since USIP isn’t judicial or legislative, it must be executive . The court rejected these “leaps to reach conclusions that are unsupported by the factual record and current jurisprudence.”

Judge Howell’s analysis explained that not everything in government fits neatly into the three branches. The court pointed to the Smithsonian Institution as an example that “does not exercise executive power” and “does not engage in adjudications or rulemaking,” with leadership from all three branches - members of Congress, the Chief Justice, and the Vice President sit on its Board of Regents. The grand jury was another example cited as “an independent entity not textually assigned to any of the branches described in the first three Articles” that operates “at arm’s length” from the judiciary.

The financial stakes were substantial. USIP’s headquarters, sitting prominently on Constitution Avenue near the Lincoln Memorial, was built with “$70 million of private contributions and $99 million of funds appropriated specially by Congress.” The Institute also had a $25 million endowment that the administration transferred to the General Services Administration.

The court agreed with USIP’s position that its value lies in its independence, which allows it to “meet with local stakeholders who are skeptical of the U.S. government” and work in places where official government representatives cannot go. Judge Howell emphasized that USIP’s independence is crucial to its mission and what enables it to engage with foreign entities that might otherwise distrust the U.S. government.

The administration chose “blunt force” rather than going through Congress to dissolve the organization, declaring it “unnecessary” despite continued Congressional funding - including during Trump’s first term. If USIP's pre-Trump leadership actually takes command of the agency, its efforts to recover its land, information, and other assets will be fascinating. Judge Howell recently denied the government's motion for a stay, but a higher court could

While the administration has appealed on the merits and likely will appeal the denial of a stay, it is difficult to say how the Supreme Court’s recent stay in the NLRB/MSPB case would affect this case. Even if the Court continues to find that traditional regulatory boards and commissions exercise considerable executive power, there may still be room for scholarly institutions like USIP, development banks, and advisory commissions that primarily conduct research, education, and information-gathering rather than enforcement or regulatory functions. The distinction between entities that exercise governmental power and those that support governmental functions through expertise and analysis could prove crucial in future cases.

*Historical note: Judge Howell mentions that “six of the same justices” who decided Myers in 1926 were also on the Court for Humphrey’s Executor in 1935. Research suggests this count includes Justices Brandeis and McReynolds, who actually dissented in Myers. Only four justices from the Myers majority were still on the Court for Humphrey’s.