Full Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMMON CAUSE, ROBERT HUNTER, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 32BJ, and EMPIRE STATE 32BJ SEIU PAC, Plaintiffs, -against- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Case No. 1:26-cv-08882 (JLR) SECURITY; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland OPINION AND ORDER Security, in his official capacity; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; RUSSELL VOUGHT, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in his official capacity, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; and SUSIE WILES, White House Chief of Staff, in her official capacity, Defendants. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Common Cause, Robert Hunter (“Hunter”), Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ (“SEIU 32BJ”), and Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC (“Empire PAC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Markwayne Mullin (“Mullin”), Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), Russell Vought (“Vought”), the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”), and Susie Wiles (“Wiles”). See Dkt. 1 (“Compl.” or the “Complaint”). Plaintiffs challenge the use of taxpayer funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security to finance a television advertisement campaign featuring President Donald Trump in the weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections, contending, among other things, that the expenditures exceed the purposes authorized by Congress and violate restrictions on appropriated funds being used for publicity and propaganda. Now before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiffs Hunter, SEIU 32BJ, and Empire PAC (the “Moving Plaintiffs”) on the evening of October 8, 2026, for a temporary restraining order and stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 705. Dkt. 25 (“Mot.”). The Court held a conference to discuss the motion on Friday, October 9, 2026, the morning after the motion was filed, because the Moving Plaintiffs sought expedited relief before the weekend, when the challenged advertisements would continue to be shown. See October 9, 2026 Transcript (“Tr.”). Defendants expressed that they needed more time to address the substantive merits of the motion and gather the relevant factual information. Tr. at 4:1-4, 8:3-5, 19:2-4. The Court therefore permitted them additional time to respond to the motion, ordering expedited briefing through the weekend and a follow-up conference on October 13, 2026. See Dkt. 33. Such briefing concluded by midday on Sunday, October 11, 2026. Dkts. 37-40. In their opposition, Defendants did not contest that the placements for the challenged advertisements were paid for by taxpayer appropriated funds for border security, technology, and screening and did not dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that use of those funds violated the Purpose Act and the Appropriations Act. Instead, Defendants argued that mootness and lack of standing deprived the Court of jurisdiction to grant relief. After reviewing the parties’ papers and arguments, the Court informed the parties that it did not require the additional October 13, 2026 conference and issued an Order GRANTING the Moving Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunctive relief in the early evening of Sunday, October 11, 2026, stating that an opinion would follow shortly (the “October 11, 2026 Order”). See Dkt. 41. This is the opinion in support of the October 11, 2026 Order. BACKGROUND “When considering a motion for [injunctive relief], . . . the Court need not accept as true the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff[s’] [C]omplaint.” Nat’l Coal. on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl, 498 F. Supp. 3d 457, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Victorio v. Sammy’s Fishbox Realty Co., No. 14-cv-08678 (CM), 2014 WL 7180220, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2014)); see also AIM Int’l Trading LLC v. Valcucine SpA., 188 F. Supp. 2d 384, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“The standard for granting a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Procedure are identical.”). Instead, the “[C]ourt may consider the entire record including affidavits and other hearsay evidence.” Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. OptumRx, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 3d 127, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Newport Lorillard, No. 01-cv-09587 (SAS), 2003 WL 169797, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2003)). “Rule 52(a)’s requirement of findings of fact and conclusions of law upon the issuance of interlocutory injunctions does not apply to a [temporary restraining order].” Romer v. Green Point Sav. Bank, 27 F.3d 12, 16 (2d Cir. 1994). I. Factual Background The present dispute concerns an advertising campaign praising the United States and President Donald Trump and describing certain political ideologies and perceived adversaries in sharply negative terms. In short, Plaintiffs allege that, at the direction of the EOP, federal officials and agencies redirected taxpayer funds appropriated for border-security purposes to finance an advertising campaign in advance of the November 3, 2026 midterm elections. See Compl. ¶¶ 1-6, 41-47. The evidence before the Court consists of public reporting and declarations from the Moving Plaintiffs concerning the advertisements and their asserted effect on candidates and political organizations, as well as declarations from Defendants concerning the allocation and use of federal funds for the advertisements. A. Funding the Advertisements with Taxpayer Appropriated Funds In its May 20, 2025 report accompanying H.R. 1, the House Committee on the Budget proposed approximately $6.266 billion in separately specified appropriations for border security technology and related activities. See H.R. Rep. No. 119-106, at 790-92 (2025). One such appropriation was for “commemorative events honoring meritorious contributions and achievements related to border security, including events recognizing victims of crimes.” Id. at 792. Identified “[e]xamples of such events include[d] Line-of-Duty death memorials, Department or agency anniversaries, and commendation ceremonies,” with funding to be “used for venue and setup, program materials, commemoratives (e.g., plaques, flags, awards)[,] and personnel services (e.g., honor guard, officiants, security).” Id. As enacted in July 2025, Congress reduced the total appropriation to $6.168 billion and consolidated the separate allocations into a single lump-sum appropriation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), a component of DHS, for specified expenses related to “border security, technology, and screening,” to remain available for obligation through September 30, 2029. See Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21, § 90004, 139 Stat. 72, 359 (2025) (H.R. 1) (“[T]here is appropriated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for fiscal year 2025 . . . to remain available until September 30, 2029, $6,168,000,000 for the following[.]”). The listed expenses track the allocations identified in the House report but at a higher level of generality: “[p]rocurement and integration of new nonintrusive inspection equipment and associated civil works,” “upgrading and procurement of new platforms for rapid air and marine response capabilities,” “[u]pgrades and procurement of border surveillance technologies,” “[s]creening persons entering or exiting the United States,” “combating drug trafficking,” and “[c]ommemorating efforts and events related to border security.” Id. The final category is the subject of the parties’ dispute. OMB initially apportioned $500,000 towards the commemorative category in November 2025.1 On September 19, 2026, at 6:15 p.m., CBP submitted a request to OMB to reapportion funds that were appropriated by section 90004 of the Working Families Tax Cut Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) within CBP’s “Operations and Support” account. Dkt. 39 (“Woolf Decl.”) ¶ 3. The CBP request sought to make an additional $20 million available for obligations under line 6043 for “commemorative events” by reallocating funds from the following fiscal year. Id. ¶ 4. The request was approved by OMB that evening, less two hours later, at 7:50 p.m. Id. ¶ 5. OMB increased the commemorative events line item by $20 million.2 Id. ¶¶ 3-5. The following day, on September 20, 2026, CBP issued a $20 million purchase order to Lepugh, Inc. d/b/a LMD Agency, Inc. (“LMD”) for a “National Media Campaign” (the “PO”),3 pursuant to a “previously awarded” blanket purchase agreement. Dkt. 38 (“Mehringer Decl.”) ¶ 3. Holly Mehringer (“Mehringer”), the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Chief Financial Officer for DHS, attests that the PO, funded by the appropriation for commemorative events, covers only the placement — not the creation or production — of the advertisements at issue. Mehringer Decl. 1 See OpenOMB, Operations and Support, Protect Democracy Project, https://perma.cc/3LH8- 6BXF (last visited Oct. 11, 2026); see also Compl. ¶ 77 n.24; OpenOMB, Operations and Support, Protect Democracy Project, https://perma.cc/7SKN-8B7L (last visited Oct. 11, 2026). The Court here relies on Protect Democracy Project’s OpenOMB searchable database of federal spending authorization, the underlying data for which comes directly from OMB. See OpenOMB, Operations and Support, Protect Democracy Project, https://perma.cc/3LH8-6BXF (providing “[d]ownload primary source” link); see also Approved Apportionments, OMB, https://apportionment-public.max.gov (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) (“The public release of apportionment documents on this website fulfills the requirement in Public Law 117-103 for [OMB] to post each document apportioning an appropriation.”). 2 OpenOMB, Operations and Support, Protect Democracy Project, https://perma.cc/7SKN-8B7L (last visited Oct. 11, 2026). 3 Contract Summary, USASpending.Gov, https://perma.cc/MB53-7CCC (last visited Oct. 11, 2026). ¶¶ 1, 4-6. The advertisements began airing three days later, on September 23, 2026. See Dkt. 26-4 (“Ward-Packard Decl.”) ¶ 4. The PO’s “period of performance” is “September 20, 2026 through September 19, 2027, or until all deliverables and media placements have occurred.” Mehringer Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs assert that the decision to use federal funds to finance these advertisements came from the White House. Relying on reporting from the New York Times,4 Plaintiffs claim that one month before this reapportionment of funds and the purchase order with LMD, on August 7, 2026, President Trump, along with Wiles and others, met with Republican political strategists to discuss the upcoming elections and the use of funds from MAGA Inc., a political action committee, to support Republican candidates in the midterm elections.5 Compl. ¶ 41. During that meeting, President Trump reportedly expressed a desire to promote his administration and showed the strategists videos of himself, including footage later incorporated into one of the challenged advertisements.6 Id. ¶¶ 42-43. Plaintiffs allege that the President subsequently instructed Vought, OMB’s Director, to find government funds to pay for the advertisements.7 Id. ¶ 45. Defendants do not deny that this meeting took place or dispute the reported substance of the various discussions, even though the Court expressly asked Defendants 4 Maggie Haberman et al., Trump Directed Use of Taxpayer Money for Ads Praising His Presidency, N.Y. Times (Oct. 2, 2026), https://perma.cc/8J9D-MLN2 (last visited October 11, 2026). Per the Times, the “article [wa]s based on interviews with 12 people familiar with the president’s interest in the ads and how they came to be,” who “spoke on the condition of anonymity.” Id. at 2. 5 See id. at 4-5. 6 See id. 7 See id. at 1. during the TRO conference on October 9, 2026 to address whether they disputed the reports of this meeting. See Tr. at 18:20-19:4, 24:23-25:3. B. The Advertisements and Their Dissemination Plaintiffs challenge the five government-funded advertisements that have aired to date. See Compl. ¶¶ 46, 48, 58, 62, 67, 71. Samuel Ward-Packard (“Ward-Packard”), counsel for Plaintiffs, states that he used AdImpact’s AdMo+ database on the morning of October 8, 2026 to examine the government’s advertising campaign. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.8 He identifies the five advertisements that aired between September 23 and October 8, 2026 as: “The Country He Loves,” “Celebrating the Enduring Spirit,” “Final Battle,” “To the Great Proud People of Iran,” and “Maduro.” Id. ¶ 6.9 Two are thirty seconds long and three are sixty seconds long. Id. ¶ 7.10 Each contains a concluding statement that reads, “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”11 “The Country He Loves.” This 30-second advertisement first aired on September 23, 2026. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. It features images and footage of President Trump interspersed with statements touting his administration’s accomplishments, including the “largest 8 Ward-Packard represents that “AdImpact is a paid subscription service that provides detailed, current, highly reliable data about political advertising.” Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 3. The “[s]pending and impression figures” available on AdImpact’s AdMo+ dashboard are ultimately “AdImpact estimates.” Id. ¶ 5. 9 See AdImpact Politics (@AdImpact_Pol), X (Sept. 24, 2026, at 11:30 ET), https://perma.cc/C56Z-SQXW (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) [hereinafter The Country He Loves]; AdImpact Politics (@AdImpact_Pol), X (Sept. 25, 2026, at 08:21 ET), https://perma.cc/6DBD- 65QA (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) [hereinafter Celebrating the Enduring Spirit]; AdImpact Politics (@AdImpact_Pol), X (Sept. 28, 2026, at 12:50 ET), https://perma.cc/8E36-2D9N (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) [hereinafter Final Battle]; To the Great Proud People of Iran, AdImpact, https://perma.cc/S5G3-P736 (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) [hereinafter To the Great Proud People of Iran]; Maduro, AdImpact, https://perma.cc/P4LX-C23R (last visited Oct. 11, 2026) [hereinafter Maduro]. 10 See supra note 9. 11 See supra note 9. tax cuts in history,” “reigniting American manufacturing,” and “defend[ing] law and order and police.” See The Country He Loves, at 00:11, 00:13, 00:16 (capitalization omitted). The advertisement also includes the President declaring that “[t]ogether we will defeat Communism, Socialism, and Marxism in America,” id. at 00:00-00:04 (capitalization omitted), and that “America will never be a Communist country,” id. at 00:04-00:07 (capitalization omitted). It concludes with remarks by Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), describing President Trump as “the toughest, most resilient person [he has] ever met.” See id. at 00:19-00:23 (capitalization omitted). During the final portion of the advertisement, a disclaimer states that it was “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” Id. at 00:20-00:30. Ward-Packard reports that, as of 11:00 a.m. Eastern time on October 8, 2026, “The Country He Loves” had aired approximately 1,315 times, generating an estimated 95 million impressions, at an estimated cost of more than $1.37 million. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 8. “Celebrating the Enduring Spirit.” This 60-second advertisement first aired on September 24, 2026. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. It combines footage of Mount Rushmore, service members, and President Trump with excerpts from a speech in which the President celebrates America’s 250th anniversary. See Celebrating the Enduring Spirit. In the advertisement, President Trump describes the United States as “the freest people on Earth” and “the most successful, most accomplished, most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history.” Id. at 00:10-00:12, 00:16-00:24. The advertisement also bears the government-funding disclaimer. Id. at 00:50- 01:00. Ward-Packard reports that, by October 8, 2026, the advertisement had aired approximately 3,190 times, generating an estimated 360 million impressions at an estimated cost exceeding $2.84 million. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 9. “Final Battle.” This approximately 30-second advertisement began airing on September 26, 2026. Id. ¶¶ 7, 10. This advertisement is essentially identical to one used during President Trump’s 2024 campaign, except that the current advertisement omits the call to support Trump in the 2024 election and now identifies the United States government as the advertisement’s funder. Compl. ¶ 62.12 The advertisement features black-and-white footage of the President walking down a hallway, accompanied by recordings of his statements about his political adversaries. See The Final Battle. Among other things, he promises to “demolish the deep state,” id. at 00:03-00:04, “drive out the globalists,” id. at 00:07-00:09, “cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists,” id. at 00:09-00:12, “throw off the sick political class that hates our country,” id. at 00:13-00:16, and “rout the fake news media,” id. at 00:17-00:19. The advertisement concludes with the government-funding disclaimer. See id. at 00:19-00:28. Of the five advertisements identified by Ward-Packard, “Final Battle” accounts for the largest estimated distribution. By October 8, 2026, it had aired approximately 9,679 times, generating an estimated 972 million impressions at an estimated cost exceeding $9.09 million. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 10. “To the Great Proud People of Iran.” This 60-second advertisement, which first aired on October 1, 2026, id. ¶¶ 7, 11, concerns United States military operations in Iran. See To the Great Proud People of Iran. It combines footage of the administration’s military operations with statements by administration officials, including Pete Hegseth’s declaration that “[i]f you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation, and we will kill you.” Id. at 00:24-00:34. The advertisement closes with a message from President Trump “to the great proud people of Iran,” urging them to “take over [their] government” once the United States “[is] finished.” Id. at 00:51-01:00. As the 12 Compare Final Battle with Pollock and Pollock News Channel, Donald Trump 2024 Presidential Pounding Powerful Ad “The Final Battle”, YouTube (Apr. 14, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxZwMG3hse4 (last visited October 11, 2026) (2024 campaign ad). President’s closing message plays, the government-funding disclaimer appears on screen. Id. By October 8, 2026, Ward-Packard estimates that the advertisement had aired 782 times, generating approximately 37 million impressions at an estimated cost exceeding $595,000. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 11. “Maduro.” This 60-second advertisement began airing on October 6, 2026. Id. ¶¶ 7, 12. It concerns the operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and includes footage and statements by administration officials relating to that operation. See Maduro. The end of the advertisement features a speech from Marco Rubio describing President Trump as “not a president that just talks and does letters and press conferences,” id. at 00:47-00:50, and warning “[d]on’t play games when this president’s in office because it’s not gonna turn out well,” id. at 00:54-00:57. That latter warning is followed by a clip of Maduro in handcuffs. Id. at 00:58. Like the others, this advertisement bears a disclaimer identifying the United States government as its sponsor. Id. at 00:50-01:00. As of October 8, 2026, Ward-Packard reports approximately 1,288 airings, 103 million estimated impressions, and advertising costs exceeding $1.47 million. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 12. In all, Ward-Packard estimates at least 16,254 airings, 1.56 billion impressions, and $15.4 million in advertising expenditures for the advertisements at issue through 11:00 a.m. on October 8, 2026. Id. ¶ 13. The campaign has appeared on nationwide broadcasts and local television in New York and Alabama, among other markets. Id. ¶¶ 14-17. It is reported that this advertising campaign also includes at least eight additional ads, all with similar content, that have yet to air.13 See Compl. ¶ 83. Even though the Court asked Defendants to expressly address the 13 See Betsy Klein, ‘God made Trump’ ad and at least 12 others are part of controversial taxpayerfunded ad campaign, CNN (Oct. 2, 2026), https://perma.cc/6BPJ-A223. accuracy of this report and the additional ads, see Tr. at 20:25-21:8, Defendants do not dispute this report in their opposition submissions. C. Statements Concerning Continued Funding On October 5, 2026, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he would begin paying for the advertisements himself and “with money [he] raised for MAGA, Inc.” after the “Radical Left” expressed disapproval of his decision to “pay[] for [advertisements] with U.S.A. money.”14 Notwithstanding this posting, the advertisements continued to air after October 5, 2026, with the statement “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” Ward-Packard reports that “Final Battle” aired 773 times on October 6 and 921 times on October 7. Ward-Packard Decl. ¶ 19. By 11:00 a.m. on October 8, it had aired more than 500 additional times, including 195 times during Good Morning America. Id. Likewise, “Maduro” began airing on October 6, the day after the President’s announcement, and had aired 1,288 times by October 8. Id. ¶ 20. The advertisements also continued to appear in the markets where the Moving Plaintiffs conduct political activities. Between early October 6 and 11:00 a.m. on October 8, 2026, “Final Battle” aired in 1,439 national network spots, fourteen local New York spots, and at least six local Alabama spots. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Defendants do not address funding of the advertising campaign by MAGA, Inc. or President Trump. Instead, they state that LMD has “currently purchased media buys under the terms of the [September 20, 2026 PO] through Sunday, October 11, 2026, at an approximate cost of $19,000,000.” Mehringer Decl. ¶ 8. According to DHS, it has “directed [LMD] not to make any media buys past October 11” and it “expects that [LMD] will submit its final invoice for services already performed under the [September 20, 2026 PO] after that date.” Id. DHS states 14 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Oct. 5, 2026, at 18:25 ET), https://perma.cc/Y3PJ-JC2W (last visited Oct. 11, 2026). that any residual funding left under the PO after the final invoice is paid will be de-obligated. Id. ¶ 9. Finally, Mehringer attests that as of October 10, 2026, “to the best of [her] knowledge and belief, [DHS] has no plans to make any additional media buys under the [September 20, 2026 PO,] . . . to renew the [September 20, 2026 PO,] or otherwise to use DHS appropriated funds on any similar contracts for the creation or distribution of the media that is the subject of this lawsuit[.]” Id. ¶ 10. D. The Moving Plaintiffs Hunter is a resident of Gadsden, Alabama, and the Democratic nominee for Alabama House District 28. See Dkt. 26-1 (“Hunter Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-2. He identifies as a democratic socialist, having co-founded the North Alabama chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (“DSA”). Id. ¶¶ 3-4. The DSA has endorsed and financially contributed to his campaign. Id. ¶ 5. Hunter’s campaign has spent $1,812 on advertising, including $168 for a newspaper advertisement, $549 for postcards, and $895 for a billboard. Id. ¶ 7. His postcards and canvassing materials identify him as a socialist. Id. SEIU 32BJ is a labor union representing more than 185,000 building and service workers across several states, including New York. Dkt. 26-3 (“Tall Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-4. Candis Tall, the union’s Executive Vice President and Political Director, oversees its efforts to advance legislation concerning workers and to elect candidates who support SEIU 32BJ’s priorities. See id. ¶¶ 1, 6. To support those candidates, SEIU 32BJ contributes financial resources, organizes volunteers, communicates with members, and operates political action committees in multiple states, including “New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Florida, Kentucky, and Washington D.C.” Id. ¶¶ 8-14. Tall identifies two candidates whom the union supports in New York: Cait Conley, the Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives in New York’s Seventeenth Congressional District, and Tom Suozzi, the Democratic nominee in the Third Congressional District. Id. ¶ 16. According to Tall, the National Republican Congressional Committee has described Conley as a “radical Democrat” who is “cozying up to socialists” and has referred to Suozzi as “Socialist Suozzi.” Id. Tall also describes statements in which President Trump has characterized other candidates endorsed by SEIU 32BJ as socialists, communists, or unamerican. Id. ¶ 17. Empire PAC is an independent expenditure political action committee associated with SEIU 32BJ. Dkt. 26-2 (“Banks Decl.”) ¶ 3. Kyron Banks, the union’s Deputy Political Director for New York, states that Empire PAC seeks to elect candidates who support improved working conditions and economic opportunities for workers. See id. ¶¶ 1, 5-6. It makes expenditures independently of candidates and political party committees. Id. ¶ 6. For the 2026 general election, Empire PAC has spent approximately $20,000 thus far supporting candidates including Kathy Hochul (“Hochul”), Letitia James (“James”), Cait Conley (“Conley”), Tom Suozzi (“Suozzi”), and Laura Gillen (“Gillen”). Id. ¶ 7. Among them, Banks identifies Conley and Suozzi as candidates whom political opponents have associated with socialism. Id. ¶ 14. II. Procedural History Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 7, 2026. See Compl. The Complaint asserts nine counts arising from the funding and dissemination of the challenged advertisements, including claims under the APA, an equal protection theory, and non-statutory ultra vires review. See generally id. On the evening of October 8, 2026, Hunter, SEIU 32BJ, and Empire PAC requested emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705. See Mot.; Dkt. 26 (“Br.”); Hunter Decl.; Banks Decl.; Tall Decl.; Ward-Packard Decl. The Moving Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to suspend the alleged $20 million advertising contract and OMB apportionment, prevent further use of DHS funds for the advertisements, and require cancellation of scheduled placements and compliance reporting. See Dkt. 27 (“Proposed Order”) at 1-2. The parties appeared before the Court on the morning of October 9, 2026 for a conference on the motion and the Court set an expedited briefing schedule. Dkt. 33. In accordance with that schedule, Defendants submitted their opposition brief and supporting declarations on October 10, 2026, Dkt. 37 (“Opp.”); Mehringer Decl.; Woolf Decl., and the Moving Plaintiffs replied on October 11, 2026, Dkt. 40 (“Reply”). The motion is fully briefed. LEGAL STANDARD I. Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) “A temporary restraining order . . . is an extraordinary remedy that will not be granted lightly.” Ilin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 26-cv-04816 (DEH), 2026 WL 2410796, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2026) (quoting Jackson v. Johnson, 962 F. Supp. 391, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)). In considering the appropriateness of a temporary restraining order, courts “must examine whether the movant[ ] ha[s] demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm that will occur immediately to justify a temporary restraining order, while the temporal context of a preliminary injunction takes a longer view.” Omnistone Corp. v. Cuomo, 485 F. Supp. 3d 365, 367-68 (E.D.N.Y. 2020). Thus, a “plaintiff’s demonstration of irreparable harm must be considered in conjunction with the time frame involved.” Id. at 367. Aside from the issue of immediate relief, the standard for granting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is the same. See Andino v. Fischer, 555 F. Supp. 2d 418, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“It is well established that in this Circuit the standard for an entry of a TRO is the same as for a preliminary injunction.”). “To obtain a preliminary injunction . . . the [movant] must establish (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the balance of the equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the injunction serves the public interest.” SAM Party of N.Y. v. Kosinski, 987 F.3d 267, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2021); accord Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A heightened showing applies where, as here, a movant seeks a mandatory injunction — an injunction that “requires the non-movant to take some action.” Daileader v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861, 96 F.4th 351, 356 (2d Cir. 2024); see Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Ent., Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (“A mandatory injunction, in contrast, is said to alter the status quo by commanding some positive act.”); see also Proposed Order at 1-2 (compelling cessation of payments and broadcasts, cancellation of placements, and reporting requirements). In such a case, the movant must “show a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits and make a strong showing of irreparable harm.” Daileader, 96 F.4th at 356 (quoting New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 650 (2d Cir. 2015)). II. Stay Under APA § 705 Section 705 of the APA provides that, “[o]n such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury,” a reviewing court “may issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings.” 5 U.S.C. § 705. The provision authorizes interim protection pending judicial review, not a final decision on the validity of agency action. See id. Its terms require the Court to identify the agency action whose operation would be postponed and to tailor any process to what is necessary to preserve the relevant rights. See id. Courts considering relief under Section 705 commonly apply the traditional preliminary injunction factors: likelihood of success, irreparable injury, the balance of equities, and the public interest. See, e.g., Rural & Migrant Ministry v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 565 F. Supp. 3d 578, 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“The standard for a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 is the same as or similar to the standard for a preliminary injunction.”); E. Air Lines, Inc v. C a B, 261 F.2d 830, 830 (2d Cir. 1958) (per curiam) (“[S]tay of an order of an administrative agency may be granted when the following conditions are met: (a) [w]here the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal; (b) [w]here the petitioner has shown that without a stay it will suffer irreparable injury; (c) [w]here there is no substantial harm to other interested persons; and (d) [w]here the public interest will not be harmed.”); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009) (setting out the factors governing stays pending review). Although a stay and an injunction are distinct forms of relief, see Nken, 556 U.S. at 428-29, the parties’ requests overlap here because each seeks to prevent further operation of the challenged advertising arrangements while the case proceeds. DISCUSSION The Moving Plaintiffs seek immediate relief in the form of a TRO and a Section 705 stay. They first requested relief on October 8, 2026, see Mot., and renewed their request following expedited briefing, urging the Court to act by October 11, 2026, before the advertisements reached millions of additional viewers during evening programming. Reply at 1-2. Defendants do not contest the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, Defendants argue that injunctive relief is unwarranted because the “alleged offending conduct will end [on October 11, 2026].” Opp. at 1. Alternatively, Defendants contend that the Moving Plaintiffs lack standing and that even if Hunter has standing, venue is improper. Id. at 1-2. For the reasons that follow, the Court rejected these arguments and granted the TRO and Section 705 stay on October 11, 2026. See Dkt. 41. I. Mootness The Moving Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and Section 705 stay is not moot. “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Conn. Citizens Def. League, Inc. v. Lamont, 6 F.4th 439, 444 (2d Cir. 2021) (“A case becomes moot ‘when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” (quoting Janakievski v. Exec. Dir., Rochester Psychiatric Ctr., 955 F.3d 314, 319 (2d Cir. 2020))). Generally, mere “voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not . . . make the case moot.” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (“It is well settled that ‘a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.’”); accord City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 n.10 (1982). Under this standard, “‘voluntary cessation of a challenged practice’ will moot a case only if the defendant can show that the practice cannot ‘reasonably be expected to recur.’” Fed. Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234, 241 (2024) (quoting Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189). This is a “formidable burden.” Id. In other words, “[a] case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Exp. Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968) (emphasis added). “[S]o long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the[y] remain under a constant threat that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged [action].” Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. 61, 63 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Defendants contend that the TRO request is moot because “there is no basis for th[e] Court to grant injunctive relief for challenged conduct that will cease after [October 11, 2026].” Opp. at 13. The Court disagrees for several reasons. First, Defendants acknowledged that, as of October 11, 2026, when the Court issued the TRO, advertisements purchased using misappropriated government funds were set to run through the end of October 11, 2026, and media buys were already purchased for evening broadcasts from 4 p.m. through 11 p.m. Mehringer Decl. ¶ 8 (“The Vendor has currently purchased media buys under the terms of the [PO] through Sunday, October 11, 2026.”); id. at ¶ 5 (detailing media buys for evening programming). Because the challenged conduct was ongoing when the Court issued the TRO, the Moving Plaintiffs’ claims presented a live controversy warranting judicial intervention. See, e.g., Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 811 (1974) (“The essential controversy is therefore not moot, but very much alive.”). In addition, Defendants represented that DHS had “directed [LMD] not to make any additional media buys past October 11,” Mehringer Decl. ¶ 8 (emphasis added). But this representation is somewhat unclear and leaves open whether LMD has already purchased ad placements scheduled to air after October 11, thereby continuing the alleged harm to Plaintiffs. Given this lack of clarity, Defendants have not provided the Court with a reasonable assurance that future transmissions of the advertisements purchased with funds concededly appropriated to DHS will cease as of October 11. Even if LMD has not purchased any further media buys for placement after October 11, Defendants have not shown that the “allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189. The blanket purchase agreement with LMD is still in effect, Mehringer Decl. ¶ 3, the “period of performance” of the PO itsel