govinfo:USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-00688-1

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 

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 

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 3 3 ( 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 

Passage view · GavelSight