American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:25-cv-03657
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In American Council of Learned Societies v. Michdel McDonald, ACLS sought resumed discovery; Judge McMahon’s ruling is not included.
The ACLS Plaintiffs, their members, and the defendants in the case are affected by the unresolved request concerning whether discovery may proceed.
What happened
In American Council of Learned Societies v. Michdel McDonald, the ACLS Plaintiffs asked the court to lift a stay and allow discovery to continue. They said the chief judge’s amended standing order now allowed parties to seek relief from the stay.
The ACLS Plaintiffs also argued that Department of Justice lawyers could work on the case if the court ordered it to continue, and that other defendants could participate. They said prompt discovery was needed because of alleged unlawful terminations of awards and continuing harm.
The provided text is a letter from the ACLS Plaintiffs’ lawyers, not an order deciding the request. Judge McMahon’s decision on whether to lift the stay is not included.
The detailed version
- American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald · No. 1:25-cv-03657
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 14, 2025
Document and posture
The provided text is a letter dated October 9, 2025, from counsel for the ACLS Plaintiffs to Judge Colleen McMahon. The letter asks the court to renew the plaintiffs’ request to permit discovery to proceed. The text does not include a court order or a ruling on that request.
Plaintiffs’ request
The ACLS Plaintiffs ask the court to lift a stay on discovery. They state that the court previously denied their letter motion because an October 1 standing order by the chief judge stayed civil matters and the court believed it could not countermand that order.
The plaintiffs identify three developments they say support reconsidering the request:
- The chief judge amended the standing order on October 2 to allow a party to seek relief from the stay in a particular civil action.
- The Department of Justice stated in its contingency plan that its attorneys could work on a civil matter if a court ordered the matter to continue.
- Another court in the Southern District of New York denied a request to stay discovery in a civil antitrust case, and the plaintiffs cited additional orders from other courts that denied or lifted stays.
The plaintiffs also argue that the National Endowment for the Humanities’ funds remained available, that two defendants were no longer federal employees, and that the Executive Office of the President’s contingency plan classified the relevant office and its employees as exempt from the shutdown. They contend that no impediment would prevent the defendants from participating in discovery if the court ordered discovery to proceed.
Relief requested and disposition
The ACLS Plaintiffs assert that they and their members continue to suffer irreparable harm from what they call unlawful terminations of awards. They request prompt discovery, which they say is necessary to advance the case toward final resolution and concerns information of significant public importance.
The provided text contains no ruling by Judge McMahon. It therefore does not state whether the stay was lifted, whether discovery was permitted to proceed, or whether the request was granted or denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.