Although the D.C. Circuit didn’t issue any opinions last week, it denied a motion for an emergency stay in Abramowitz v. Lake—another case testing the scope of the President’s power to remove inferior officers.

The case concerns the Director of the Voice of America, which is the U.S. government’s international broadcaster. The Director reports to the CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, who is responsible for appointing and removing the Director. But the CEO can’t act alone: under federal law, both the appointment and removal of the Director must be approved by a separate Executive Branch agency known as the International Broadcasting Advisory Board.

Earlier this year, VOA Director Michael Abramowitz was placed on administrative leave and then reassigned to a different position. When he declined to accept the reassignment, he was removed from the directorship without the Advisory Board’s approval. (At the time, the Board lacked a quorum because its members had also been removed.) Abramowitz challenged his removal in federal district court, which enjoined the government from removing him.

The government sought a stay from the D.C. Circuit pending appeal. The government argued that it was likely to prevail on the merits because (among other things) the restrictions on the director’s removal were unconstitutional under Article II. The government also argued that, in Trump v. Boyle, 145 S. Ct. 2653 (2025), and Trump v. Wilcox, 145 S. Ct. 1415 (2025), the Supreme Court had held that the equities favor allowing the Executive Branch to remove officials while litigation proceeds.

In a unanimous order joined by Judges Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, the D.C. Circuit denied the motion, holding that the government had failed to show irreparable harm. First, the court distinguished Boyle and Wilcox. In those cases, the Supreme Court faced a risk of harm when removed officers “continue[d] exercising the executive power.” But Abramowitz couldn’t exercise any executive power here, the court said, because he had been placed on administrative leave. Second, the court explained that allowing Abramowitz to retain the title of Director wouldn’t disrupt the Executive Branch, since the government could appoint an acting director to perform the office’s duties. The court also noted that the government couldn’t appoint a permanent Director at this point, because the Advisory Board lacked a quorum and therefore couldn’t approve any such appointment. Thus, allowing Abramowitz to remain nominally in the position wouldn’t impede a lawful appointment.