and threw this out on their wire service before finally putting it on their main website.

It was on the air, heard locally on an AM-FM radio that I turned on to see if I could venture out to the Harris-Teeter, but there was nothing online. I posted seconds after I saw it on the AP, which of course can't be trusted, due to their stylebook.

but wasn't an actual linked article on their main website until later.

(and lol )

I thought that a judge just informed them yesterday that they had to release the funds they impounded for USAID--all of the funds. He stopped short of issuing an injunction.

An absolutely disgusting mess.

That is what got me going crazy when I got a breaking banner from AP on it but couldn't find it actually on AP's website until later. Was trying to see which judge they were talking about and which case.

that was why I edited my original post because if they release the impounded funds, who is still around to utilize the funds since they basically fired everyone and shut down USAID.

What a cop-out by this judge. He could have issued a temporary injunction to move it into a different court.

In the meantime, people are dying without this aid and lots of employees don't know whether they are coming or going.

This is beyond upsetting to me.

where they are demanding that the organization show "harm" (to that organization) vs the individuals, and if that is not explained well enough, then the request is denied.

I *think* what was often done in the past with these types of suits is that they will have at least one individual (or a little group of them) ALONG WITH the Union or organization, doing the "suing".

This is also why some of those "fired" Board members have been reinstated because THEY (as individuals) sued vs someone like the ACLU and others "alone", etc.