Eccarius v. United States
- Charles Breyer
- 3:25-cv-04668
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Eccarius v. United States, Judge Breyer denied Eccarius’s temporary restraining order motion because he did not show particularized harm.
The ruling directly affected Anthony Carl Eccarius’s request for a temporary restraining order against the President of the United States and the entity he called the “Department of Governmental Enforcement.”
What happened
In Eccarius v. United States, Anthony Carl Eccarius asked the court to immediately stop the President and what he called the “Department of Governmental Enforcement” from operating, receiving funding, taking regulatory or enforcement actions, and using the military or National Guard for law enforcement and surveillance. He also requested $21 million in symbolic damages.
Eccarius said he faced irreparable harm, but he did not explain how he personally would be harmed. The court said his concerns about federal power and federalism were not specific to him. His complaint described a 2021 labor dispute and claimed that it led to a denial of due process.
The court denied the temporary restraining order because the requested relief went far beyond the due-process claim and Eccarius could not pursue it on that motion. Judge Charles R. Breyer noted that, read generously, the due-process claim was not obviously outside the court’s jurisdiction, but the order did not decide that claim’s merits.
The detailed version
- Eccarius v. United States · No. 3:25-cv-04668
- Charles Breyer
- June 24, 2025
Background
Anthony Carl Eccarius sought an ex parte temporary restraining order against the President of the United States and the “Department of Governmental Enforcement,” which the court understood him to mean the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. He asked the court to stop those entities from conducting operations, receiving funding, taking regulatory or enforcement actions, and using the military or National Guard for law enforcement and surveillance functions. He also sought $21 million in “symbolic damages.”
Eccarius’s complaint described a 2021 labor dispute that he said gave rise to the case. The complaint purported to state a due-process claim based on that dispute.
Court’s analysis
To obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show, among other things, an injury that is particularized to the plaintiff, fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Eccarius stated that he faced irreparable harm but did not identify how he personally would be harmed. The court found that his concerns about unchecked federal enforcement, federalism, and the balance among the people, the states, and the Constitution were not particularized to him.
The court also stated that it was far from clear that Eccarius’s labor dispute was connected to the requested restrictions on the military or National Guard. Construed liberally, Eccarius’s due-process claim did not obviously fail for lack of jurisdiction. But the temporary restraining order motion sought relief far beyond that claim, and the court stated that Eccarius could not pursue that relief.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Eccarius’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order did not decide the merits of Eccarius’s due-process claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.