It's a good way to identify the issues in a broad thread like this.
Really well-crafted Motion.Case 1:21-mc-00046-BAH
Video evidence of January 6 Capitol attack missing from US government website
THE PRESS COALITION’S MOTION TO ENFORCE STANDING ORDER 21-28
They've been ordered not to remove any Jan. 6 videos and to identify videos that have already been removed.
Thank you. When I first started posting these, i didn't realize quite what I was getting in to, but soon found that we needed some sort of structure. This is what I came up with, but am open to any other suggestions.I appreciate your identification of the issue like this:
It's a good way to identify the issues in a broad thread like this.
The Merit Systems Protection Board is an independent federal agency. Plaintiff
Cathy A. Harris has been a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board since June 1, 2022,
following her nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. She is entitled to
continue to serve as a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board for the remainder of her
term until March 1, 2028 and may be removed by the President “only for inefficiency,
neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 5 U.S.C. § 1202(d).
2. On February 10, 2025, President Trump disregarded that clear statutory
language and, in a one-sentence email, purported to terminate Ms. Harris. That email made no
attempt to comply with the statute’sfor-cause removal protection. Itstated simply: “On behalf of
President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position on the Merit Systems
Protection Board is terminated, effective immediately.”
3. President Trump’s purported removal of Ms. Harris is unlawful. It has no basis
in fact and thus cannot be squared with the statutory text. And it is in direct conflict with
nearly a century of precedent that defines the standard for removal of independent agency
officials and upholds the legality of virtually identical for-cause removal protections for
members of independent agencies.
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on the matter on February 13, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 23A. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendants with a copy of this order immediately upon receipt. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/12/2025. (lcrc3)
1 Defendants contend that the February 8 TRO raised Constitutional concerns to the extent it
prohibited the Secretary and other senior officers from exercising their oversight responsibilities
over Treasury Department operations, or from receiving information necessary to advise the
President. Defs. Mem. at 5-6. It is far from clear that the February 8 TRO prevented the
Secretary from “gathering information within the Department” or receiving information in the
form of briefings from career employees. Id. Even so, in light of the modifications the Court
has made to clarify the scope of the February 8 TRO, the Court need not reach the Constitutional
questions presented in the motion.
It is very good to see federal judges doing their job.Case 1:25-cv-01144-JAV
DOGE in Treasury Systems
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Footnote 1
Complaint at this post:
Shock and Law
Federal District Courts are beginning to rein in some of the worst, most obviously illegal actions of the Trump administration. They are fighting an uphill battle. It appears that Trump functionaries are also starting to ignore those orders and really pissing off the judges. I thought I might...debatepolitics.com
I like your approach and it provides clarity to all who are reading this thread,Thank you. When I first started posting these, i didn't realize quite what I was getting in to, but soon found that we needed some sort of structure. This is what I came up with, but am open to any other suggestions.
Among the IGs purportedly removed were the eight plaintiffs here: the Inspectors
General of the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State,
Education, Agriculture, and Labor, and the Small Business Administration. Together, these IGs
are charged by law with conducting and facilitating oversight with respect to more than $5 trillion
dollars of appropriated funds annually (the vast majority of the annual federal budget) and more
than 3.5 million federal employees (approximately 80% of the federal workforce).
As explained by the Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE), in a letter in response to the emails purporting to remove the IGs, the attempted
removal was contrary to law and therefore a nullity.
Despite the obvious illegality of these purported terminations, the head of each
affected agency—including the eight heads of plaintiffs’ respective agencies—effectuated and
continue to effectuate the purported removals. For example, the eight agencies saw to it that their
IGs lost access to their government email accounts and computer systems, government-issued
phones, Personal Identity Verification cards, and computers. The IGs were also physically disabled
from entering the government buildings where they are assigned to work. These actions have had
their intended effect of making it impossible for the IGs to perform their lawful duties. Because
the purported removals were illegal and hence a nullity, the actions just described constituted
illegal interference with the IGs’ official duties.
Neither President Trump nor anyone else in his administration has claimed that the
purported removals complied with the IG Act. Instead, President Trump falsely claimed after the
fact that such removals were “a very common thing to do” and “a very standard thing to do, very much like the U.S. attorneys.”
President Trump is wrong to claim these actions were “common” or “standard.” To
the contrary, since 1980, there has been a bipartisan consensus that it is improper for a new
presidential administration to remove IGs en masse. In fact, in every transition to a new
administration beginning in 1989, presidents of both major political parties—including President
Trump during his first term—uniformly refrained from removing IGs upon taking office.
1. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent federal agency led by the Special
Counsel. Plaintiff Hampton Dellinger has held the office of Special Counsel since March 6, 2024,
following his nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. He is entitled to
continue to serve as Special Counsel for the remainder of his five-year term and may be removed
by the President “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 1211(b).
2. On the night of February 7, 2025, President Trump disregarded that clear statutory
language and, in a one-sentence email, purported to terminate Special Counsel Dellinger. That
email made no attempt to comply with the Special Counsel’s for-cause removal protection. It stated
simply: “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as
Special Counsel of the US Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately.”
5 By hanging their hat on Sampson, defendants imply that it would be too disruptive to the
business of the agency to have Special Counsel Dellinger resume his work. But any disruption to
the work of the agency was occasioned by the White House. It’s as if the bull in the china shop
looked back over his shoulder and said, “What a mess!” Moreover, any disruption caused by the
proposed temporary restraining order would be minimal; plaintiff served as Special Counsel from
March 6, 2024 through the end of the workday on Friday, February 7, 2025. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 30, He
received the email announcing that his position was terminated later that evening, and according
to defendants, the Acting Special Counsel took over on Monday morning. By Monday night, this
Court had already entered an administrative stay restoring the Special Counsel to the position he’d
occupied for the prior year. See Minute Order (Feb. 10, 2025). Defendants have not proffered any
facts to show that maintaining this rapid return of the torch will affect agency operations.
156. Under the U.S. Constitution, it is the President’s and the Executive
Branch’s duty to “take Care that the laws by faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II,
§ 3. Of course, the laws that must be faithfully executed are those that have “passed
the House of Representatives and the Senate” and then “presented to the President
of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 7.
Since around January 27, 2025, federal agencies have restricted
Pennsylvania agencies’ ability to access funding for grant programs that, in total,
obligated over $3.1 billion to Pennsylvania for fiscal years 2022 to 2026.
Pennsylvania agencies have over $2.5 billion remaining under grant
programs that are now suspended or for which reimbursement of authorized
expenses now requires some federal agency review that is not contained within the
terms of Congress’ statutes or any funding agreements, and which has not been
described to Commonwealth agencies. Over $1 billion of the $2.5 billion of available
money has already been obligated, including to subrecipients performing work under
the various grants now at risk.
Plaintiffs respectfully ask that this Court enter the following relief:
a. Declare that Defendant agencies’ implementation of President Trump’s
executive orders, or of OMB’s directives implementing those executive orders, by
withholding congressionally appropriated federal funds that have been obligated to
the Pennsylvania agencies is contrary to law;
For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request permanent and preliminary injunctive
relief from this Court, enjoining Defendant Musk and his DOGE subordinates from performing
their significant and wide-ranging duties unless and until Defendant Musk is properly appointed
pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
Since Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) in
the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the agency’s opponents have tried repeatedly to
abolish it through legislation in Congress and legal challenges in the Courts.
The Trump administration—acting through Defendants CFPB and its Acting
Director, Russell Vought—now seeks to do by fiat what opponents of the CFPB were
unable to do in Congress or the courts. Specifically, Defendants seek to use the CFPB’s
statutory funding mechanism, by which it draws funds directly from the Federal Reserve
System of which it is a part, see 12 U.S.C. 5491, 5497, to effectively defund the CFPB
and leave it unable to carry out its congressionally mandated mission and specific
statutory responsibilities.
Defendants have already announced their intention not to draw additional funds
for the CFPB, claiming that the agency’s existing operating reserves are sufficient. Now
Defendants are poised to transfer away those operating reserves, leaving the CFPB
defunded and dead in the water.
For the first time in U.S. history, the federal government has moved noncitizens
apprehended and detained in the United States on civil immigration charges to the Naval Station
at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (“Guantánamo”). And it is holding them incommunicado, without
access to attorneys, family, or the outside world.
4. Even in the face of significant public concern about this unprecedented action, the
government has offered no legal authority for the transfer of individuals in immigration custody
from within the United States to Guantánamo. Journalists have reported that the government is
ramping up transfers to Guantánamo, even as government attorneys continue to evaluate the
legality of these actions.
The government has also withheld information regarding the legal basis for theseindividuals’ transfers and confinement at Guantánamo, the likelihood of their continued detention,the immigration status of the transferred individuals, the nature of any legal proceedings againstthem, the conditions of their confinement, and the government’s treatment of and plans for theseindividuals.
. . . ENJOINED from implementing and
enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American
Citizenship,” against plaintiff O. Doe, or against any member of La Colaborativa or the
Brazilian Worker Center.
Here, the stated purpose in implementing the suspension of all foreign aid is to provide the
opportunity to review programs for their efficiency and consistency with priorities. However, at
least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all
congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests
for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country,
was a rational precursor to reviewing programs. The most Defendants offer is the possibility that
some of the abruptly terminated contracts might have had clauses which allowed termination in
certain circumstances; however, as noted, Defendants have acknowledged that they implemented
a blanket suspension that was not based on the presence or consideration of such contractual terms.
To be sure, there is nothing arbitrary and capricious about executive agencies conducting a review
of programs. But there has been no explanation offered in the record, let alone a “satisfactory
explanation . . . including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” as
to why reviewing programs—many longstanding and taking place pursuant to contractual terms—
required an immediate and wholesale suspension of appropriated foreign aid.
Plaintiffs have also shown that implementation of the blanket suspension is likely arbitrary
and capricious given the apparent failure to consider immense reliance interests, including among
businesses and other organizations across the country. No aspect of the implemented policies or
submissions offered by Defendants at the hearing suggests they considered and had a rational
reason for disregarding the massive reliance interests of the countless small and large businesses
that would have to shutter programs or shutter their businesses altogether and furlough or lay off
swaths of Americans in the process.
. . . it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants Marco
Rubio, Peter Marocco, Russell Vought, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Agency for
International Development, and the Office of Management and Budget (the “Restrained
Defendants”) and their agents are temporarily enjoined from enforcing or giving effect to Sections
1, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of Dep’t of State, Memorandum, 25 STATE 6828 (Jan. 24, 2025) and any other
directives that implement Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of Executive Order Number 14169,
On February 12 – ahead of its own schedule – the Court issued a temporary restraining
order, again calling for the restoration of the duly appointed Special Counsel, i.e., the status quo,
until it rules on the request for a preliminary injunction. See Order [Dkt. # 14]. In the same order,
the Court set a prompt hearing date for the preliminary injunction, which is to be held on February
26, 2025. And again, defendants have moved for a stay while they appeal what is also an order of
limited duration that is not subject to appeal.
Defendants’ position is that the statutory restrictions on the Special Counsel’s removal are
unconstitutional. They are eager to have that issue heard and resolved by a higher court. They
will have that opportunity in due course, but first, the issue has to be fully briefed in this Court,
where the case is pending. There has to be a hearing, and this Court has to issue an appealable
order. In the meantime, defendants must appreciate that moving for a stay is not the same thing
as receiving a stay. Indeed, as the Order issued on February 12 observes, the defendants have not
identified any harm to themselves or the public that could flow from the Special Counsel’s
continuing to perform his statutory duty to protect whistleblowers in the federal government on a
non-partisan basis.
For all of these reasons, defendants’ motion to stay the February 12, 2025 temporary
restraining order is DENIED.
Trump hasn't done anything illegal.
Lawfare. Irrelevant.Psssst.
Donald Trump found guilty of all 34 charges in hush money trial
- A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his hush money criminal trial, an unprecedented and historic verdict that makes him the first former president in US history to be convicted of a felony.
Translation: Trump has done something illegal.Lawfare. Irrelevant.
Evidently you don't know what lawfare is.Mycroft said:
Trump hasn't done anything illegal.
Logician Man said:
Psssst.
Donald Trump found guilty of all 34 charges in hush money trial
- A Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his hush money criminal trial, an unprecedented and historic verdict that makes him the first former president in US history to be convicted of a felony.
Translation: Trump has done something illegal.
Evidently you don't know what lawfare is.
Proves you do. So do JUSTICE attorneys (and most of the rest of us):Trump's conviction intensifies his calls for retribution in a second ...
Former President Donald Trump continues to center his third presidential campaign on retribution against his political allies, saying in a recent interview that at times revenge is "justified" -- comments that President Joe Biden's campaign seized on Friday to point to Trump's focus on personal and political retribution.
"Donald Trump is back on [the] trail -- now a convicted felon but still unhinged and consumed by his obsession with revenge," the Biden campaign's Ammar Moussa said in a statement to ABC News.
Trump is a "diminished, small man who only cares about himself, his billionaire donors, and his own revenge," Moussa said in the statement.
Despite purporting to be the head of DOGE, taking credit for its activities, and
making statements based on non-public information available to DOGE, Musk is not the USDS
Administrator. “A White House record seen by Business Insider says his job is simply ‘unlisted.’
Though Musk has a White House access badge as of January 20 and has been widely described
as the leader of DOGE, the White House has not officially confirmed Musk’s title.” Jack
Newsham, Elon Musk’s newest job title is literally “unlisted” Bus. Insider (Feb. 6, 2025),
available at https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-job-title-unlisted-2025-2 (last
accessed Feb. 12, 2025).
96. A 6 February Congressional Research Service report stated, “CRS is not aware
that a USDS administrator has been named publicly.”
97. All of these allegations are supported by the public statement that Sen. James
Lankford—a “founding member of the Congressional DOGE Caucus”—made on 21 January
2025, a day after President Trump established the U.S. DOGE Service in Executive Order
14,158: “DOGE is not a real department. It’s an idea. It’s an internal conversation within the
White House. It’s Elon Musk actually trying to be able to drive a messaging piece to say, if we
are going to be better with our tax dollars, to literally waste less and then spend less as well, then
let’s start this idea. The Legislative Branch has got a thing, Executive Branch has got a thing, go
do your thing.” Elon Musk’s DOGE faces lawsuit minutes after inauguration Fox News (Jan. 21,
2025), available at https://www.foxnews.com/video/6367443500112 (last accessed Feb. 13,
2025).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?