Tuesday, May 20, 2025

On May 19th, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a summary judgment in the closely watched (at least here) case involving the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). The court found that the removal of board members, the attempted replacement of leadership, and the transfer of real, financial, and personal property were all unlawful, ultra vires, and without legal effect.

This ruling’s order isn’t just about internal politics at a (somewhat) government-funded institution. It’s a case that touches on foundational legal principles: the sanctity of private property, the importance of observing charter documents, and the need for those in power—any power—to follow the rules.

In previous posts, we walked through the events that led to this legal battle, where a group of duly appointed board members were abruptly replaced, the acting president ousted, and both the physical headquarters and endowment cash funds of the Institute were effectively seized and transferred to the government. (If you missed that summary, you can catch up here.) And in The Means Must Matter, we reflected on how even well-intentioned outcomes cannot justify bypassing proper process.

This week’s full memorandum opinion affirms just that. Even in the name of reform or efficiency, the law requires adherence to governing statutes, foundational documents, and proper authority. USIP’s founding statute spells out who may serve, who may remove, and how assets are to be controlled. Those rules weren’t followed—and that matters.

It’s a reminder with implications far beyond this case. Whether it’s a nonprofit, an LLC, or a family trust, real estate professionals must never skip over the operating agreement, charter, or trust instrument. These documents tell us who can buy, sell, or even encumber property—and under what conditions. If ignored, transactions can unravel, and ownership can be thrown into dispute.

The court’s summary judgment sends a clear message: private property—whether real property, money, or even office equipment—can’t be claimed without legal authority. Not even by a board. Not even by the government.

One final note: this is a final and appealable order, so the legal story may not be entirely over. But for now, the clarity of the court’s judgment offers a powerful endorsement of process, restraint, private property rights, and the rule of law.

Until Next Time,

Mary Schuster
Chief Knowledge Officer
October Research, LLC