Berenson v. Biden, Jr.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-03048
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Berenson v. Biden, Jr., Judge Clarke converted a scheduled oral argument into a conference on the Government’s requested three-month stay, without ruling on the stay.
The plaintiff, the federal defendants, and the co-defendants are affected by the change from oral argument to a conference; the provided order does not decide whether the case will be stayed.
What happened
In Berenson v. Biden, Jr., the federal defendants asked the court to pause the case for three months. They said the Justice Department needed time to assess its position after a presidential executive order concerning federal action and free speech.
The plaintiff agreed to the requested pause, but the other defendants opposed applying it to the claims against them. The federal defendants also said a pause would give individual defendants time to consider whether they needed separate lawyers and proposed filing a status report before the pause ended.
Judge Clarke did not decide the stay request in this order. Instead, she changed the April 23, 2025 oral argument into a conference about the Government’s motion because not all parties agreed to the request, and indicated that a Microsoft Teams conference could be considered upon request.
The detailed version
- Berenson v. Biden, Jr. · No. 1:23-cv-03048
- Clarke
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
The federal defendants submitted a letter asking the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the action for three months. The letter said that the plaintiff consented to the request, while co-defendants opposed a stay as to the claims against them.
The federal defendants relied on Executive Order 14149, issued on January 20, 2025, and its direction that the Attorney General investigate certain federal activities during the prior four years and prepare a report with recommendations. They said new Justice Department leadership was continuing to determine the Department’s position regarding the defendants sued in their official capacities. They also said a stay would give defendants sued in their individual capacities time to assess whether they might need separate counsel.
Requested Relief
The federal defendants asked the court to pause the entire action for three months and proposed filing a status report one week before the requested stay expired. They argued that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced because he consented to the request, and that the requested pause would serve the interests of the defendants, the court, nonparties, and the public.
Court’s Action
Judge Clarke did not grant or deny the requested three-month stay in the provided order. Because not all parties consented, the court converted the oral argument scheduled for April 23, 2025, into a conference on the Government’s motion. The court also indicated that, upon request, it could consider holding the conference through Microsoft Teams to reduce the burden on the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.