United States Court of Appeals
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                        ____________
No. 25-5124                                                   September Term, 2024
                                                                          1:25-cv-00766-JEB
                                                          Filed On: April 18, 2025
J.G.G., et al.,

                  Appellees

       v.

Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, et al.,

                  Appellants

       BEFORE:          Pillard*, Katsas, and Rao, Circuit Judges

ORDER

       Upon consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal or, in the
alternative, a writ of mandamus, it is

        ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the district court’s contempt-related
order entered on April 16, 2025, be administratively stayed pending further order of the
court. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity
to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal or a writ of mandamus and
should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion. See D.C.
Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024). It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that appellees file a response to the emergency motion
by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. Any reply is due by noon on Friday, April
25, 2025.

                                          Per Curiam

                                                            FOR THE COURT:
                                                            Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

                                                    BY:     /s/
                                                            Scott H. Atchue
                                                            Deputy Clerk

* Judge Pillard would not administratively stay the challenged order. In the absence of
an appealable order or any clear and indisputable right to relief that would support
mandamus, there is no ground for an administrative stay.