• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shock and Law

NWRatCon

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
32,608
Reaction score
32,688
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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 start a new thread to consolidate some of those cases and opinions, as they appear to be coming fast and furiously. Like the "Just the Trump Legal Issues" thread, this is not intended to be a partisan playground, but a forum to post decisions, motions and comment on the substance.

"Over the past two weeks, Musk’s team has moved to dismantle some U.S. agencies, push out hundreds of thousands of civil servants and gain access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive payment systems. Musk has said these changes are necessary to overhaul what he’s characterized as a sclerotic federal bureaucracy and to stop payments that he says are bankrupting the country and driving inflation.

But many of these moves appear to violate federal law, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, one audio recording, and several internal messages obtained by The Washington Post. Internal legal objections have been raised at the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the White House budget office, among others.

“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School." WaPo gift article


I'm not at home, but will try to post documents as I can. There have already been, I think, 5 decisions. Still tracking them down. In the interim:


www.nbcnews.com

Trump administration agrees to restrict DOGE access to Treasury Department payment systems

The agreement came in response to a lawsuit accusing Treasury of committing an "unlawful action" by giving private info to Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

www.nbcnews.com

Federal judge issues injunction on birthright citizenship, putting it further on hold

The preliminary injunction is the second temporary hold against Trump’s executive order and puts efforts to end birthright citizenship on indefinite pause.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Musk and his puppet Trump are just throwing s**t against the wall and seeing how much will stick. Thank you for outlining some of the insanity.
 
Most poignant post I've seen in some time. I watched all of it. It all comes down to Trump's fragile ego. Thanks for sharing.
 
NWRatCon said:
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 start a new thread to consolidate some of those cases and opinions, as they appear to be coming fast and furiously. Like the "Just the Trump Legal Issues" thread, this is not intended to be a partisan playground, but a forum to post decisions, motions and comment on the substance.

"Over the past two weeks, Musk’s team has moved to dismantle some U.S. agencies, push out hundreds of thousands of civil servants and gain access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive payment systems. Musk has said these changes are necessary to overhaul what he’s characterized as a sclerotic federal bureaucracy and to stop payments that he says are bankrupting the country and driving inflation.

But many of these moves appear to violate federal law, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, one audio recording, and several internal messages obtained by The Washington Post. Internal legal objections have been raised at the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the White House budget office, among others.

“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School." WaPo gift article


I'm not at home, but will try to post documents as I can. There have already been, I think, 5 decisions. Still tracking them down. In the interim:


www.nbcnews.com

Trump administration agrees to restrict DOGE access to Treasury Department payment systems

The agreement came in response to a lawsuit accusing Treasury of committing an "unlawful action" by giving private info to Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

www.nbcnews.com

Federal judge issues injunction on birthright citizenship, putting it further on hold

The preliminary injunction is the second temporary hold against Trump’s executive order and puts efforts to end birthright citizenship on indefinite pause.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Regardless what Musk says, he is doing nothing but collecting data and making suggestions. And actions based on the data or his suggestions is being done by the Trump administration.

Trump hasn't done anything illegal.
 
Mycroft said:
Regardless what Musk says, he is doing nothing but collecting data and making suggestions. And actions based on the data or his suggestions is being done by the Trump administration.

Trump hasn't done anything illegal.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of nonsense I'd hoped to avoid. Facts, and law, that's what the thread is for, not partisan blathering and lies. So far, no judge agrees with your claim. Be well.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is the kind of nonsense I'd hoped to avoid. Facts, and law, that's what the thread is for, not partisan blathering and lies. So far, no judge agrees with your claim. Be well.
Click to expand...
A lot of judges are known to be biased idiots.
 
NWRatCon said:
“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School." WaPo gift article
Click to expand...

I hear echoes of Steve Bannon telling them to “flood the zone with shit”.

That’s probably where the strategy is coming from.

www.wral.com

This infamous Steve Bannon quote is key to understanding America's crazy politics

A version of this article first appeared in the "Reliable Sources" newsletter. You can sign up for free right here.
www.wral.com www.wral.com
 
Trump's sweeping agenda is hitting legal roadblocks (NBC)

The courts are slamming the brakes on some of President Donald Trump's efforts to quickly trim and transform the federal government.

In his first weeks in office, Trump has signed more than 50 executive orders aimed at reshaping the government, from targeting birthright citizenship to changing how transgender inmates are housed. Government agencies have also used the orders to try to freeze federal funding nationwide and offer buyouts to the bulk of government employees.

The flood of orders has led to over two dozen lawsuits to date and a number of court decisions halting — at least temporarily — some of Trump's actions. At least three such decisions were released Thursday.
____
Can the Courts Manage the Trump Blitzkrieg? (Regulatory review)
Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States still good law? If so, President Donald J. Trump’s removal of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member without cause is unconstitutional. Is birthright citizenship protected by the 14th Amendment? If not, President Trump’s executive order that prohibits birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Can the President unilaterally offer federal employees an early retirement buyout? If not, the Administration’s letter to two million federal employees offering them eight months’ pay for doing nothing if they decide to resign is invalid and unenforceable.

Those are just three of the scores of major constitutional law questions that President Trump has raised in his first weeks in office. Each issue should be the subject of careful research, briefing, oral argument, and deliberation, followed by well-reasoned opinions, in federal district courts, federal appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. That is impossible, however, because each question must be answered quickly.
_____
According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 20 nationwide injunctions against the first Trump Administration in its first year alone, and as of early 2020 had issued 55 such injunctions. He's set to break several records already.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is the kind of nonsense I'd hoped to avoid. Facts, and law, that's what the thread is for, not partisan blathering and lies. So far, no judge agrees with your claim. Be well.
Click to expand...

That is not what the judges have been saying. With the exception of the birthright citizenship ruling, they have been putting on brakes to give time to consider.
 
www.pbs.org

How the courts have (so far) pushed back on Trump's attempts to expand presidential power

Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

"A familiar pattern has emerged since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: He makes a brash proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.

It's happened with Trump's attempts to freeze certain federal funding, undermine birthright citizenship and push out government workers.

READ MORE: What you need to know about impoundment, and how Trump vows to use it

Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president, who is determined to expand the limits of his power — sometimes by simply ignoring the laws.

Although Democrats may be encouraged by the initial round of judicial resistance, the legal battles are only beginning. Lawsuits that originated in more liberal jurisdictions like Boston, Seattle and Washington, D.C., could find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent.

"What's constitutional or not is only as good as the latest court decision," said Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland public policy professor."

But some of these judges, in both Seattle and DC, are staunch conservatives, judicially speaking. It also speaks to the brazen illegality of the attempts to arrogate power to the presidency denied by the Constitution.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That is not what the judges have been saying. With the exception of the birthright citizenship ruling, they have been putting on brakes to give time to consider.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't read the opinions, which is why I created this thread, so disinformation like yours won't get purchase.
 
NWRatCon said:
You obviously haven't read the opinions, which is why I created this thread, so disinformation like yours won't get purchase.
Click to expand...

First paragraph Post #13 kinda backs up what I said.
 

Federal Judge Orders White House to Keep Money Flowing to 22 States​


"Because of the breadth and ambiguity of the “pause,” the Court must consider
the States’ TRO motion today based on the effect it will have on many—but perhaps
not all—grants and programs it is intended to cover. Are there some aspects of the
pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take?
The Court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in
the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous “pause” of
critical funding that are not. The Court must act in these early stages of the litigation under the “worst case scenario” because the breadth and ambiguity of the Executive’s action makes it impossible to do otherwise.

The Court finds that, based on the evidence before it now, some of which is set
forth below, the States are likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, their
claims."
....
"The Executive’s statement that the Executive Branch has a duty “to align
Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed
through Presidential priorities,” (ECF No. 48-1 at 11) (emphasis added) is a
constitutionally flawed statement. The Executive Branch has a duty to align federal
spending and action with the will of the people as expressed through congressional
appropriations, not through “Presidential priorities.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, cl. 3
(establishing that the Executive must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed
. . .”). Federal law specifies how the Executive should act if it believes that
appropriations are inconsistent with the President’s priorities–it must ask Congress,
not act unilaterally. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the
President may ask that Congress rescind appropriated funds.3 Here, there is no
evidence that the Executive has followed the law by notifying Congress and thereby
effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called “pause.”
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Regardless what Musk says, he is doing nothing but collecting data and making suggestions. And actions based on the data or his suggestions is being done by the Trump administration.

Trump hasn't done anything illegal.
Click to expand...

Musk is unelected and should not have access to government data.
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Plaintiffs Jerald Lentini, Joshua Erlich, and National Security Counselors, Inc.,

COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jerald Lentini, Joshua Erlich, and National Security Counselors, Inc., bring this action against Defendants pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), 5 U.S.C.app. 2 §§ 1-16, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief compelling Defendants to comply with the nondiscretionary requirements of FACA, a declaration that Defendants haveviolated FACA, and other declaratory and injunctive relief which would have the effect of prohibiting Defendant Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) from operating further—and prohibit Defendants Office of Management and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and Executive Office of the President from interacting with DOGE—until DOGE has complied with FACA.
Click to expand...
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS, et al.,Plaintiffs,V. Civil Action No. 25-0313 (CKK)SCOTT BESSENT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (the Bureau) is an agency within the
Department of the Treasury (the Department) that manages the federal
government’s payment and collections system. The Bureau is not a policymaking body
and has no discretion to decide what payments the federal government should make
or what revenues it should collect—that is the work of federal agencies charged by
Congress with implementing federal programs. The Bureau’s primary function is to
ensure that the federal government’s financial transactions are processed in an
orderly manner.
To fulfill its processing function, the Bureau collects and maintains sensitive
personal and financial information about every individual—every citizen, every
retiree, every taxpayer, every employee, every company—who makes a payment to or
receives a payment from the federal government. The Bureau has recognized the
sensitivity of the information it maintains on individuals, and has assured the public
that “[o]nly employees whose official duties require access are allowed to view,
administer, and control these records.” 85 Fed. Reg. 11766 (Feb. 27, 2020).
Until last week.
Click to expand...
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the Court DEFERS RULING on the Plaintiffs' [8] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and ORDERS as follows:
• The Defendants will not provide access to any payment record or payment system ofrecords maintained by or within the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, except that the Defendants may provide access to any of the following people:
o Mr. Tom Krause, a Special Government Employee in the Department of the Treasury, as needed for the performance of his duties, provided that such access to payment records will be "read only";
o Mr. Marko Elez, a Special Government Employee in the Department of the Treasury, as needed for the performance of his duties, provided that such access to payment records will be "read only";
o Any person who is an employee (but not a Special Government Employee) of the Department of the Treasury and who has a need for the record or system of records in the performance of their duties;
Click to expand...
 
PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC. v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00164)
District Court, District of Columbia

Case details
The case is a review or appeal of an agency decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The case involves the Department of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Trump administration
The case is about the failure to file a charter that reflects the status of the Domestic Policy Council (DOGE) as an advisory committee
The case alleges that the failure to file the charter violated the Freedom of Access to Government Information Act (FACA)
The case alleges that the failure to file the charter prevented plaintiffs from exercising their rights to obtain DOGE documents and attend meetings

COMPLAINT

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF ARIZONA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE
OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAII, STATE OF
ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF
MARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF
OREGON, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE
OF VERMONT, and STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; and SCOTT BESSENT, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 65(B)
The U.S. Treasury Department maintains and safeguards our nation’s central bank
account. Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Services (“BFS”) receives coded payment instructions in
the form of payment files from a host of federal agencies to disburse funds to tens of millions of
Americans every year – money they depend on to live. These funds include social security
benefits, veteran’s benefits, childcare tax credits, federal employee wages, and federal tax
refunds. Plaintiff States also receive billions of dollars in funds every year directly from Treasury
through BFS under federal grant programs. The States rely on these federal programs to provide
vital services for their residents, including Medicaid (the single largest federal funding stream to
the Plaintiffs), FEMA funds for disaster relief and management, Edward Byrne JAG grants
essential to law enforcement and criminal justice programs, education funding, and foster care programs.
Click to expand...

ORDER
 
District Court, District of Columbia
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1:25-cv-00339)

COMPLAINT
1. Since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20, the “U.S. DOGE Service,” led by White House official Elon Musk, has launched a sweeping campaign to access highlysensitive information systems and dismantle and restructure multiple federal agencies
unilaterally.
2. The speed of these efforts is core to the project. At every step, DOGE is violating
multiple laws, from constitutional limits on executive power, to laws protecting civil servants
from arbitrary threats and adverse action, to crucial protections for government data collected
and stored on hundreds of millions of Americans.
3. DOGE seeks to gain access to sensitive systems before courts can stop them,
dismantle agencies before Congress can assert its prerogatives in the federal budget, and
intimidate and threaten employees who stand in their way, worrying about the consequences
later.
4. The results have already been catastrophic. DOGE has seized control of some of
the most carefully-protected information systems housed at the Treasury Department, taken hold
of all sensitive personnel information at the Office of Personnel Management, and dismantled an
entire agency within a week.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom