Fourth Circuit Holds that Alleged Structural Defects in Agency Adjudication Do Not Automatically Establish Irreparable Harm for Injunctive Relief
Commentary on Joe Manis v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 4th Cir. No. 24-1367 (Aug. 18 2025)

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has delivered an unpublished but highly instructive decision in Joe Manis v. USDA. Though lacking precedential force under Local Rule 36, the opinion clarifies an increasingly litigated question that emerged after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC: Does mere exposure to an allegedly unconstitutional administrative adjudication constitute per se irreparable harm sufficient to satisfy the second prong of Winter v. NRDC for preliminary injunctive relief? The Fourth Circuit answers “no.”

The case arises out of civil enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA) against Tennessee Walking Horse owner Joe Manis. Manis attacked the Department of Agriculture’s in-house adjudicatory system on several constitutional grounds and simultaneously sought a preliminary injunction to halt the ongoing administrative proceedings. The district court denied that request; the Fourth Circuit has now affirmed, holding that Manis failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm—irrespective of any potential merits strength of his structural constitutional claims.

Summary of the Judgment

• Relief sought: Preliminary injunction to stay USDA proceedings alleging HPA violations.
• District court’s ruling: Denied; found insufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
• Fourth Circuit focus: Affirmed solely on the irreparable harm factor, declining to reach likelihood-of-success or other Winter factors.
• Key holding: Participation in an administrative process that is allegedly unconstitutional does not, without more, establish irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunctive relief. The panel distinguishes Supreme Court precedent in Axon Enterprise, limiting that case to the jurisdictional question it actually answered.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023)
   – Recognized district-court jurisdiction for structural constitutional challenges to agency adjudications despite concurrent administrative proceedings.
   – Fourth Circuit: Axon concerned jurisdiction, not injunctive standards; its “here-and-now injury” language does not compel a per-se finding of irreparable harm.
2. Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)
   – Sets four-factor test for preliminary injunctions. The Fourth Circuit applies Winter rigidly, emphasizing that failure on any one factor is dispositive.
3. Henderson v. Bluefield Hospital Co., 902 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2018)
   – Confirms that lack of irreparable harm alone justifies denial of preliminary relief.
4. Alpine Securities Corp. v. FINRA, 121 F.4th 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2024) & Leachco v. CPSC, 103 F.4th 748 (10th Cir. 2024)
   – Sister-circuit precedents issued after Axon; both rejected the notion that structural claims automatically satisfy irreparable-harm. The Fourth Circuit aligns itself with these rulings, bolstering emerging inter-circuit consensus.
5. Other cited authorities (e.g., Frazier, Di Biase) mainly reiterate standard of review or define “extraordinary remedy.”

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Framing the Issue. The panel narrows the appellate question to one element of the Winter test—irreparable harm—because the district court’s denial can stand on that ground alone.
2. Distinguishing Axon. The court notes that Axon resolved a jurisdictional conflict over whether district courts may hear structural challenges during an ongoing agency case. It did not craft a substantive standard for equitable relief. Therefore, permitting a collateral lawsuit (as Axon does) does not equate to granting a preliminary injunction to halt the agency proceeding.
3. No Per-Se Rule. Accepting Manis’s theory would effectively convert every post-Axon structural challenge into an automatic stay of agency enforcement, undermining Congress’s chosen administrative scheme and trivializing the “extraordinary” nature of injunctive relief.
4. Practical Considerations. The administrative penalty already imposed ($10 fine + one-year disqualification) is appealable within the agency and then to a federal appellate court. Monetary penalties are low; reputational or industry participation harms are typical litigation injuries correctable on review. Thus, no concrete, non-speculative irreparable injury appears.

C. Potential Impact of the Decision

• Separation-of-Powers Litigation: The ruling tempers the litigation strategy of invoking Axon to automatically freeze agency cases. Litigants must now articulate a distinct, non-speculative harm beyond the mere existence of an allegedly defective tribunal.
• Preliminary-Injunction Practice: District courts in the Fourth Circuit have clear guidance that Winter remains dispositive, and structural constitutional claims do not short-circuit traditional equitable considerations.
• Administrative Enforcement: Agencies—especially USDA, SEC, FTC, and similar bodies—retain operational latitude despite ongoing constitutional skirmishes over their ALJs and removal protections.
• Inter-Circuit Alignment: The Fourth Circuit joins the D.C. and Tenth Circuits in refusing a per-se irreparable-harm rule, decreasing odds of a circuit split likely to attract Supreme Court review. Conversely, if other circuits disagree later, this opinion will be a traceable source of conflict.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Appointments Clause

Requires that “principal officers” of the United States be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation. Manis argues the USDA’s Judicial Officer exercises principal-officer power without such appointment.

Dual-Layer Removal Protection

Some officials (here, Administrative Law Judges) can be dismissed only for cause, and the decision on whether cause exists is itself made by officials (MSPB members) who also enjoy for-cause protection. The Supreme Court has questioned whether two layers unduly restrict presidential control (Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB).

Irreparable Harm

An injury that cannot be remedied by monetary damages or legal relief at the end of the case. Courts require clear proof that the harm is imminent and non-compensable.

Preliminary Injunction

A court order issued early in litigation to maintain the status quo and prevent harm before an ultimate decision. Granted only if the moving party meets all four Winter factors.

Unpublished Opinion

Under Fourth Circuit rules, unpublished decisions are not binding precedent, though they can be cited for persuasive value.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Joe Manis v. USDA provides consequential clarification for litigants challenging the constitutional structure of administrative adjudications. While Axon opened the courthouse doors for such challenges, Manis closes the shortcut to automatic injunctive relief. A plaintiff must still satisfy the rigorous Winter test—particularly the showing of irreparable harm—before federal courts will halt ongoing agency proceedings. The opinion reinforces separation-of-powers jurisprudence without destabilizing administrative enforcement and underscores the judiciary’s continuing commitment to equitable principles in granting extraordinary remedies. Future litigants must craft concrete evidentiary showings of imminent, non-compensable injury, rather than rely on the mere allegation of structural infirmity, if they wish to secure preliminary injunctions in the Fourth Circuit.