NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION v. VOUGHT
| District Of Columbia District Court | |
| Judge: | Amy Berman Jackson |
| Case #: | 1:25-cv-00381 |
| Nature of Suit | 899 Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| Cause | 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment |
| Case Filed: | Feb 09, 2025 |
| Last checked: Friday Aug 08, 2025 4:37 AM EDT |
|
Amicus
STATE OF DELAWARE
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF VERMONT
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF OREGON
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF NEW YORK
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF NEVADA
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF MINNESOTA
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF MICHIGAN
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF MARYLAND
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF MAINE
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF ILLINOIS
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF HAWAII
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF COLORADO
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF ARIZONA
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF WASHINGTON
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
STATE OF WISCONSIN
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
TZEDEK DC
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus
203 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
RUSSELL VOUGHT
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
CFPB EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
919 East Main Street suite 610
Richmond, VA 23219 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
TED STEEGE
|
Represented By
|
| TERMINATED PARTIES | |
|
Intervenor
JANICE WOLK GRENADIER
Terminated: 03/05/2025
15 West Spring Street
Alexandria, VA 22301 |
|
|
Plaintiff
EVA STEEGE
Terminated: 03/28/2025
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 12/15/2025 11:59 PM EST |
| Monday, December 15, 2025 | ||
| 163 | 163
REPLY to opposition to motion re148 Motion to Clarify, filed by CFPB EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, TED STEEGE, VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER. (Bennett, Jennifer) |
|
| Wednesday, December 10, 2025 | ||
| 162 | 162
AMICUS BRIEF by FORMER FEDERAL RESERVE OFFICIALS. (znmw) |
|
|
order
Order on Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief
Wed 12/10 11:43 AM
MINUTE ORDER granting156 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. On December 5, 2025, a group of former Federal Reserve Officials moved to submit an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs' pending motion to clarify148 . Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o)(2), the Court established a date by which any objection would be due, and the defendants have filed a timely response161 . The motion will be granted in the Court's discretion notwithstanding the defendants' suggestion that it was untimely under internal Department of Justice policy, which does not govern this Court. Defendants point to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and a non-binding ruling by a court in the Southern District of Mississippi which observed, "[w]hile no rule specifically governs amicus status in district court proceedings, courts typically apply Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure." In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, though, there is a specific rule that governs amicus status, and it includes no time limit; instead, it says, "[t]he amicus brief shall be filed within such time as the Court may allow." LCvR 7(o)(3). Moreover, defendants were not prejudiced by any supposed delay in the filing of the proposed amicus brief; the Court gave them time to review it and inform the Court of their position, and the timing was the only grounds cited for why it should not be received. Since the matters addressed in the proposed brief are directly relevant to the disposition of the motion, and the amici bring specialized knowledge and experience to the question to be decided, the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the amicus brief [156-1] on the docket. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/10/2025. (lcem) |
||
| Tuesday, December 09, 2025 | ||
| 161 | 161
RESPONSE re156 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify filed by CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, RUSSELL T. VOUGHT. (Roberts, Charles) |
|
| Monday, December 08, 2025 | ||
| 160 | 160
Memorandum in opposition to re148 MOTION to Clarify filed by CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, RUSSELL T. VOUGHT. (Roberts, Charles) |
|