Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A831

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ET AL. v. AIDS VACCINE ADVOCACY COALITION, ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[March 5, 2025]

On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.

*****

ALITO, J., dissenting

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting from the denial of the application to vacate order.

Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic "No," but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

I

In capsule form, this is what happened. Respondents are a group of American businesses and nonprofits that receive foreign-assistance funds from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. They brought suit and claimed that the current administration’s temporary pause of foreign-assistance payments is unlawful. On February 13, 2025, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Government to halt its funding pause. It based that decision on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed in showing that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). After issuing the TRO, the District Judge grew frustrated with the pace at which funds were being disbursed, and on February 25, he issued a second order requiring the Government to pay out approximately $2 billion. The judge brushed aside the Government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order, and he took two steps that, unless corrected, would prevent any higher court from reviewing and possibly stopping the payments. First, he labeled the order as a non-appealable TRO, and second, he demanded that the money be paid within 36 hours.

This left the Government little time to try to obtain some review of what it regarded as a lawless order. The Government moved for a stay pending appeal in the District Court. But the judge shrugged off the Government’s sovereign immunity argument and ignored the Government’s representation that most of the money in question, once disbursed, could probably not be recovered. See App. to Application to Vacate Order 93a.

The Government quickly filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. But, with only four hours to spare before the payment deadline, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the Government’s appeal because it took the District Court’s "TRO" label at face value and determined it lacked appellate jurisdiction.

With nowhere else to turn and the deadline fast approaching, the Government asked this Court to intervene. At the last moment, THE CHIEF JUSTICE issued an administrative stay. Unfortunately, a majority has now undone that stay. As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. [!!! ] As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility.

II

Time does not allow a lengthy discussion of the legal issues presented by this case, but a brief summary suffices to show that the District Court’s order should be vacated or, at the very least, stayed.

To start, it is clear that the District Court’s enforcement order should be construed as an appealable preliminary injunction, not a mere TRO. A TRO, as its name suggests, is "temporary," and its proper role is to "restrain" challenged conduct for a short time while the court considers whether more lasting relief is warranted. See 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3922.1 (3d ed. 2012). The order here, which commanded the payment of a vast sum that in all likelihood can never be fully recovered, is in no sense "temporary." Nor did the order merely "restrain" the Government’s challenged action in order to "preserve the status quo." Northeast Ohio Coalition for Homeless and Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell, 467 F. 3d 999, 1006 (CA6 2006). Rather, it "act[s] as a mandatory injunction requiring affirmative action" by the Government. Ibid. And given its likely irreversibility, the District Court’s enforcement order effectively gave respondents a portion of the ultimate relief they seek.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the Government’s appeal, and we have jurisdiction to review and summarily vacate that court’s erroneous judgment.

III

Even if the majority is unwilling to vacate the District Court’s order, it should at least stay the District Court’s enforcement order until the Government is able to petition for a writ of certiorari. In considering whether to issue such a stay, we ask, at a minimum, (1) whether the moving party is likely to prevail on the merits and (2) whether that moving party is likely to suffer irreparable harm.* See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 425 (2009); Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U. S. 308, 327 (1999). In "close cases," we also take into account other equitable considerations. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). Here, these factors weigh in favor of a stay.

FN: *To the extent that likelihood of certiorari is a relevant factor, John Does 1–3 v. Mills, 595 U. S ___, ___ (2021) (BARRETT, J., concurring in the denial of application for injunctive relief) (slip op., at 1), it is met here. Recent years have seen a sharp increase in district-court orders enjoining important Government initiatives, and some of these have been labeled as unappealable TROs. See Dellinger v. Bessent, 2025 WL 559669 (CADC, Feb. 15, 2025); id., at *10–*17 (Katsas, J., dissenting). Clarification of the standards for distinguishing between a TRO and a preliminary injunction is a matter that deserves this Court’s attention at the present time. The same is true regarding the scope of the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. End FN

Likelihood of success. The Government has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its argument that sovereign immunity deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to enter its enforcement order.

Sovereign immunity bars "a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the . . . treasury." Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 663 (1974). But that is exactly what the District Court ordered here. See App. to Application to Vacate Order 85a–86a ("[T]he restrained defendants shall pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests on all contracts for work completed prior to the entry of the Court’s TRO on February13").

Sovereign immunity may be waived, but "[t]o sustain a claim that the Government is liable for awards of monetary damages, the waiver of sovereign immunity must extend unambiguously to such monetary claims." Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996). Attempting to satisfy this strict requirement, respondents point to the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity for certain actions "seeking relief other than money damages." 5 U. S. C. §702. That language, as we have explained, distinguishes "between specific relief," which is permitted under the APA, and "compensatory, or substitute, relief," which is not. Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U. S. 255, 261 (1999). But the relief here more closely resembles a compensatory money judgment rather than an order for specific relief that might have been available in equity. See Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204, 210–211 (2002) ("[A]n injunction to compel the payment of money past due under a contract, or specific performance of a past due monetary obligation, was not typically available in equity"). Sovereign immunity thus appears to bar the sort of compensatory relief that the District Court ordered here.

Hoping to escape that conclusion, respondents point to Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879 (1988). In that case, we held that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity covered a District Court’s judgment reversing a final order of the Secretary of Health and Human Services refusing to reimburse Massachusetts for certain Medicaid expenditures. Unlike the District Court’s order here, that "judgment did not purport to . . . order that any payment be made" by the United States. Id., at 888. Rather, Bowen simply recognized a basic reality of APA review: after a court sets aside an agency action, a natural consequence may be the release of funds to the plaintiff down the road. Indeed, we have since clarified that "Bowen has no bearing on the unavailability of an injunction to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money past due"—the sort of relief that appears to have been ordered here. Knudson, 534 U. S., at 212.

The District Court, however, failed to mention (much less reckon with) Bowen or Knudson before plowing ahead with its $2 billion order. Nor did it take account of our previous suggestion that the proper remedy for an agency’s recalcitrant failure to pay out may be to "seek specific sums already calculated" and "past due" in the Court of Federal Claims. Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 590 U. S. 296, 327 (2020); Bowen, 487 U. S., at 890, n. 13 (invoking the First Circuit’s suggestion that if an agency "‘persist[s] in withholding reimbursement for reasons inconsistent with our decision’" under the APA, the "‘remedy would be a suit for money past due under the Tucker Act in the Claims Court’"). The most that can be said is that in the District Court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, it cited but did not analyze a handful of cases echoing Bowen’s discussion of the APA’s conscribed waiver of sovereign immunity. One might expect more care from a federal court before it so blithely discards "sovereign dignity." Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999).

Finally, the Government has a stronger argument that the District Court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is "more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to" redress the plaintiff ’s injuries. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 702 (1979). In this case, the District Court’s enforcement order functions as a "universal injunction def[ying] these foundational" limits on equitable jurisdiction. Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___ (2024) (GORSUCH, J., concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 5). The District Court ordered the Government to "pay all invoices and letter of credit draw-down requests on all contracts" for pre-TRO work completed. App. to Application to Vacate Order 86a. That order encompasses more than just respondents, and the District Court offered no reason why universal relief to nonparties is appropriate here. And this is not the sort of case in which only universal relief is feasible. Even supposing the APA allows universal vacatur of rules in some circumstances, the District Court’s order of direct monetary payment bears no resemblance to that. Cf. Griffin v. HM Florida-Orl, LLC, 601 U. S. ___, ___, n. 1 (2023) (KAVANAUGH, J., respecting denial of application for stay) (slip op., at 3, n. 1.). And nobody has suggested that the Government is unable to identify respondents’ allegedly owed funds and pay out only to them. Limiting the scope of relief in that manner would be significant. Below, the Government represented respondents seek roughly $250 million—still a large figure, but a fraction of the $2 billion ordered. Emergency Motion for Immediate Administrative Stay and for Stay Pending Appeal in No. 25-5046 etc. (CADC), p. 9.

Harm to the parties and others. The Government has shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the District Court’s order is not stayed. The Government has represented that it would probably be unable to recover much of the money after it is paid because it would be quickly spent by the recipients or disbursed to third parties. Respondents did not credibly dispute this representation, and the District Court did not find that it is incorrect.
 
We usually "balance the equities and weigh the relative harms" in "close cases." Hollingsworth, 558 U. S., at 190. For the reasons I have explained, this is not such a case, and our analysis could end there. Nevertheless, respondents’ equitable arguments are insufficient to justify the denial of a stay. They contend that the failure to pay the money in question would cause them irreparable harm because without those funds, they could not continue to operate or would have to reduce the work they do. As a result, they claim, recipients of their services would suffer. These potential consequences are, of course, serious. But any harm resulting from the failure to pay amounts that the law requires would have been diminished, if not eliminated, if the Court of Appeals had promptly decided the merits of the Government’s appeal, which it should not have dismissed. If we sent this case back to the Court of Appeals, it could still render a prompt decision. If it decided in favor of respondents, the Government would be obligated to pay all the money that is due, and respondents would have suffered only a short delay in the receipt of payments. And if the Government prevailed on its sovereign-immunity argument, neither respondents nor any of the recipients of their services would have suffered any unlawful consequences.[!!!]

In sum, the factors we consider in deciding whether to issue a stay weigh strongly in favor of granting that relief.

* * *

Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today, so I must respectfully dissent.

[admin]

Trump confirms retribution campaign against law firms that clash with his agenda: The president says his administration is ‘going after’ law firms he claims are ‘dishonest’ and ‘bad for the country’
by Alex Woodward
UKIndependent
Sunday 09 March 2025 21:11 GMT
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 11843.html

Donald Trump is punishing law firms that have represented what he perceives as his political enemies by stripping their security clearances and access to government buildings, delivering severe legal retribution against people he believes are threatening his agenda.

“We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people,” the president told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo in an interview that aired on Sunday Morning Features on Sunday.

“They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point. And it was so bad for our country. And we have a lot of law firms we’re going after,” Trump said.

SundayMorningFutures@SundayFutures

Today exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, President Trump @POTUS @realDonaldTrump spoke about expanding space exploration and the future of the Department of Education.
@FoxNews
9:36 AM · Mar 9, 2025

The interview aired days after he signed another executive order targeting a prominent law firm, which opponents fear is designed to cast a chilling effect that threatens representation for groups and individuals who are challenging the administration’s agenda in court.

Last month, Trump signed a similar measure attacking the firm Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono assistance to special counsel Jack Smith in his personal capacity as he handled federal criminal investigations into the president’s alleged election interference and unlawful retention of classified documents.

This time, the president went further by blocking lawyers with the firm Perkins Coie from federal buildings entirely and barring federal agencies and contractors from working with it.

His apparent beef with Perkins Coie dates back to a federal investigation into connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian agents to determine whether aides and officials had conspired to influence the outcome of that election. The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee and worked with a research firm that produced the now-discredited dossier that alleged contacts between Trump and Russia.

Perkins Coie contracted Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research, which Fusion enlisted former British spy Christopher Steele to perform. Steele’s dossier, which was later turned over to the FBI, alleged Russia’s years-long campaign to compile compromising information against then-candidate Trump.

Now-former Perkins lawyers Marc Elias and Michael Sussman were both named in Trump’s order. Neither have worked for the firm in years. Since 2020, Elias has led the voting rights and civil rights litigation-tracking platform Democracy Docket, which has tracked hundreds of Trump-related cases.


Donald Trump has signed executive orders stripping two high-profile law firms of security clearances after their work with his opponents (EPA)

“This is an absolute honor to sign,” Trump said during a signing ceremony at the White House on Thursday. “What they’ve done is just terrible. It’s weaponization, you could say weaponization against a political opponent, and it should never be allowed to happen again.”

A spokesperson for the firm called the order “patently unlawful” and said it intends to challenge it.

Last month, Trump signed a similar measure suspending security clearances for outside lawyers who supported Smith in his personal capacity.

The memo suspends “any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel.”

During a signing ceremony, Trump called the memo the “deranged Jack Smith signing.”

Trump’s targeting of lawyers follows his administration’s threats to members of the judiciary, with Elon Musk and Republican members of Congress repeatedly threatening to impeach or punish judges who issue decisions that brush against their agenda, which judges across the country and ideological spectrum are condemning as unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal.

After a string of legal blows against his orders and policy maneuvers, Trump issued an executive order this week that calls on agency and department heads to press for monetary “security” payments from plaintiffs if an injunction against the administration is issued.

That would mean plaintiffs – which have included civil rights groups, pregnant immigrants, trans teenagers and aid workers — would be required to pay the government’s legal fees, upfront, if a judge issues an injunction.

The American Bar Association has warned against the “escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country.”

“We reject the notion that the government can punish lawyers who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways,” American Bar Association president Wiliam R. Bay said in a statement this week. “We cannot accept government actions that seek to tip the scales of justice in this manner.”

[admin]

Georgetown law dean rebuffs DEI warning from top federal prosecutor for DC
by Michael Kunzelman
AP
Updated 5:51 PM MDT, March 6, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/trump-dei-ge ... ca6967fe9d


Ed Martin speaks at an event at the Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Georgetown Law School’s dean on Thursday rebuffed an unusual warning from the top federal prosecutor for Washington, D.C., that his office won’t hire the private school’s students if it doesn’t eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Dean William Treanor told acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin that the First Amendment prohibits the government from dictating what Georgetown’s faculty teach or how to teach it.

“Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution,” Treanor wrote in a letter addressed to Martin.

Martin’s exchange with the dean isn’t the first time that the conservative activist has used his office as a platform for parroting the political priorities of the Republican president who gave him the job in January.

Martin, who refers to himself as one of President Donald Trump’s attorneys, roiled his office by firing and demoting attorneys who prosecuted Trump supporters for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin promoted Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election and represented Jan. 6 riot defendants before taking office.

His “letter of inquiry” to Georgetown also dovetails with Trump’s agenda. On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order ending DEI programs in the federal government.

In a letter dated Feb. 17 but emailed to the dean on March 3, Martin said a whistleblower informed him that Georgetown Law School “continues to promote and teach DEI.”

“This is unacceptable,” he wrote.

Martin warned the dean that his office wouldn’t consider any Georgetown law students for jobs, summer internships or fellowships until his “letter of inquiry” about DEI programs is resolved.

Treanor said Georgetown was “founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical, and spiritual understanding.”

“Your letter challenges Georgetown’s ability to define our mission as an educational institution,” he wrote.

Treanor closed the letter by writing, “We look forward to your confirming that any Georgetown-affiliated candidates for employment with your office will receive full and fair consideration.”

Also on Thursday, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in Washington to investigate their “grave concern” that Martin may have engaged in professional misconduct since taking office. In a letter to the office, the senators accused Martin of repeatedly abusing his position, including by “using the threat of prosecution to intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens.”

“Mr. Martin’s conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law,” the senators wrote.

A spokesperson for Martin’s office wouldn’t comment on the Georgetown letters and didn’t respond to a separate request for comment on the senators’ letter.

*********************************

Trump US Attorney for DC Abuses His Power by Telling Georgetown Law, Teaching DEI is "Unacceptable"
by Glenn Kirschner
Mar 7, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America

In a breathtaking display of abuse of power, abuse of office, and prosecutorial misconduct, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, wrote a letter to the Dean of Georgetown University School of Law saying, " It has come to my attention reliably that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote DEI. This Is unacceptable. I have begun an inquiry into this . . ."

Martin went on to threaten that "no applicant for (a position at the DC US Attorney's Office) . . . "will be considered" if the school continues "to teach and utilize DEI."

This video discusses the possible options Georgetown Law School has in acting on this letter, which represents conduct that plainly is beyond the scope of the official governmental duties of a federal prosecutor.



Transcript

so friends in a truly breathtaking Abuse
of power and Abuse of office the US
attorney for the District of Colombia
just told Georgetown University School
of Law that it can't teach
Dei and that if it continues to do so
its students will be banned from being
considered for internships or employment
at the DC us attorney's
office as I say friends this is a
breathtaking abuse of
prosecutorial
power let's talk about that because
Justice matters
[Music]
hey all Glen Kirschner here so friends my
goodness this guy Ed Martin the interum
United States Attorney for the District
of Columbia just did something that
represents what might be the most
egregious abuse of prosecutorial power I
ever saw in my 30 years as a
prosecutor let's start with this
headline in reason magazine us attorney
threatens Georgetown law for teaching
Dei and let's just go right to the
letter that intram us attorney Ed Martin
wrote to the dean of Georgetown law
William trainer Dear Sir as United
States Attorney for the District of
Columbia I receive requests for
information and clarification I take
these requests seriously and act on them
with letters like this one you are
receiving it has come to my attention
reliably that Georgetown law school
continues to teach and promote
Dei this is
unacceptable can I just pause there you
know what sport what is or is not
acceptable for institutions of Higher
Learning colleges universities law
schools to teach is none of your damn
business
as us attorney as the top prosecutor in
DC you get to investigate crime if crime
has been committed and prosecute crime
you don't get to decide what is or is
not acceptable for a law school to
teach my addition to Ed Martin's letter
the letter
continues I have begun an inquiry in
other words I'm going to use the powers
of the US attorney's office to
investigate
you I have begun an inquiry into this
and would welcome your response to the
following questions first have you
eliminated all Dei from your school and
its curriculum second if Dei is found in
your courses or teaching in any way will
you move swiftly to remove it and now
friends the letter gets even worse
because he threat threatens to punish
Georgetown law
students at this time you should know
that no applicant for our fellows
program our summer internship or
employment in our office who is a
student or affiliated with a law school
or university that continues to teach
and utilize Dei will be
considered I look forward to your
cooperation with my letter of inquiry
after request thank you in advance for
your assistance please respond by Monday
February 24 2025 should you have any
further questions regarding this matter
please do not hesitate to call my office
or schedule a time to meet in person all
the
best sincerely Ed
Martin this friends is abuse of power
abuse of office and
prosecutorial misconduct so what can be
done about it we're going to get to that
in a minute first let's look at the
reply
from the dean of Georgetown law William
trainer this headline from the AP
Georgetown law Dean rebuffs Dei warning
from top federal prosecutor for
DC and that article begins Georgetown
law schools Dean on Thursday rebuffed an
unusual warning from the top federal
prosecutor for Washington DC that his
office won't hire the private schools
students if it doesn't eliminate
diversity equity and inclusion programs
Dean William trainer told acting us
attorney Ed Martin that the First
Amendment prohibits the government from
dictating what georgetown's faculty
teach or how to teach it quote given the
first amendment's protection of a
University's freedom to determine its
own curriculum and how to deliver it the
Constitutional violation behind this
threat is clear as is the attack on the
University's Mission as a Jesuit and
Catholic institution trainer wrote in a
letter addressed to William Treanor, said
Georgetown was founded on the principle
that serious and sustained discourse
among people of different faiths
cultures and beliefs promotes
intellectual ethical and spiritual
understanding your letter challenges
georgetown's ability to Define our
mission as an educational institution
he wrote William Treanor, closed the letter by
writing we look forward to your
confirming that any Georgtown
Affiliated candidates for employment
with your office will receive full and
fair
consideration so friends the question
becomes what can be done by Georgetown
law about these
unconstitutional threats in violation of
the University's First Amendment rights
to teach what and how it chooses to
teach what can be done about Ed Martin's
abuse of power abuse of office and
prosecutorial
misconduct so it's not easy to sue to
bring a civil suit against a government
official or employee and let me argue
for a minute or two why I think that is
generally a good thing let's assume that
I'm an IRS agent
and I'm looking at people's tax returns
and I decide that somebody took a
deduction they weren't entitled to take
and so I go about you know in my
responsibilities as an IRS auditor or
reviewer telling the taxpayer look this
is not a valid deduction so you can't
take it and you have to pay more in
taxes if that American taxpayer could
file a lawsuit against me drag me into
court make me expend all kinds of funds
defending myself for a decision I made
that was squarely within the scope of my
official governmental duties that would
be a bad thing because then every
grieved taxpayer or every grieved
American who didn't like something that
a government employee or official did
could forever be dragging government
officials and employees into court so
the law has developed this protection
for government employees and officials
called qualified immunity I argue it
makes some sense qualified immunity
provides some protection for government
officers employees officials that if
you're acting within the scope of your
official governmental duties you're
doing the right thing you're doing what
you were hired to do on behalf of the
American people you can't be sued you
can't be dragged into court you can't be
made to hire attorney and expend all
kinds of uh fun
to try to defend against a suit that was
brought because you were just doing your
job your official governmental duties
however you probably know where I'm
going
friends if you do something as a
government employee officer or official
that is not within the scope of your
official duties that is outside the
authority the power of one's
prosecutorial duties like threatening a
university that we're going to
investigate you if you teach something I
don't like DEI and we're going to ban
all Georgetown law students from even
being considered for employment in an
agency of the federal government if you
keep teaching something that I don't
want you to be
teaching I mean Beyond a Saturday Night
Live skit there right well guess what
that should not enjoy qualified immunity
from being sued personally personally
because you're acting Beyond outside the
scope of your official governmental
duties so I can only anticipate that
Georgetown law which probably has a heck
of a lot of lawyers who are either on
the faculty on their legal staff and
goodness knows Georgetown law has
produced a whole lot of really
accomplished lawyers who are looking at
the prospects of bringing a civil suit
for this horrifically abusive act by a
government
official and the only way to deal with
this kind of rampant governmental abuse
is to get it into court right now early
and often and let judges put eyeballs on
that letter that Ed Martin wrote man I
have got to believe qualified immunity
will fall so fast that'll make Ed
Martin's head spin and he will run the
risk of being held personally liable
that means he would have to personally
pay out any judgment that was entered
against him for what he did abusing his
position his power his authority and
engaging in this kind of prosecutorial
misconduct
and any government official Ed Martin or
any other government official who abuses
their power and position in this way
should be held personally accountable
that's not why we hire people to work in
the federal government to abuse their
office to act outside the scope of their
official governmental duties so they
should be held accountable for these
kind of
egregious transgressions
because
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]

[admin]

Republicans terrified of crossing Trump due to physical threats, Democrat says: Eric Swalwell says threats to them and their families are stopping GOP officials from criticizing president
by Robert Tait in Washington
The Guardian
Thu 27 Feb 2025 06.00 EST
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... mp-threats

Republicans on Capitol Hill are shying away from criticizing Donald Trump’s policies over fears for their physical safety and that of their families, a Democratic member of Congress has said.

Eric Swalwell, a Democratic representative from California, said his Republican colleagues were “terrified” of crossing Trump not only because of the negative impact on their political careers, but also from anxiety that it might provoke physical threats that could cause personal upheaval and require them to hire round-the-clock security as protection.

Swalwell’s comments came in a webinar chaired by the journalist Sidney Blumenthal in response to a question on whether Republicans might be driven to rebel against or even impeach Trump.

“I have a lot of friends who are Republicans,” he said. “They are terrified of being the tallest poppy in the field, and it’s not as simple as being afraid of being primaried and losing their job. They know that that can happen.

“It’s more more personal. It’s their personal safety that they’re afraid of, and they have spouses and family members saying, ‘Do not do this, it’s not worth it, it will change our lives forever. We will have to hire around-the-clock security.’ Life can be very uncomfortable for your children.

“That is real, because when [Elon] Musk [Trump’s most powerful ally] tweets at somebody, or Trump tweets at somebody, or calls somebody out, their lives are turned upside down.

“When he tweets at you, people make threats, and you have to take people at their word. And so that is a real thing that my colleagues struggle with.”

Swalwell warned that fear of Trump was likely to further weaken support for Ukraine among GOP House members following his recent attacks on the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and his public praise for the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin.

“I thought that the numbers that we’ve showed to be unified around Ukraine would hold, and it’s not holding,” he said.

Swalwell’s comments come at a time when some Republican members of Congress are encountering pressure from constituents to push back against the attacks on federal government workers by Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) unit, which critics say is usurping the powers of Congress.

Swalwell, a member of the House judiciary committee, said he had spent more than $1m on security in the past two and a half years, after arousing Trump’s enmity by serving as a manager in his second impeachment trial and by filing a lawsuit against him and his eldest son, Donald Jr, seeking damages for their role in inciting the 6 January attack on the US Capitol by a violent mob.

His portrayal of Trump-inspired intimidation was supported by Bradley Moss, a lawyer for the FBI Agents Association, which has filed a lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from publicly naming agents and bureau employees who worked on the 6 January criminal investigation.

Moss recalled Trump publicly attacking his boss, Mark Zaid, a Washington lawyer who represented the whistleblower who disclosed details of a call Trump made to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in 2019 that eventually led to his first impeachment.

“Donald Trump literally held up a photo of my boss, called him out by name, said he was scum, was a liar, etc,” Moss said during the webinar. “Next day, I woke up to, like, 150 voicemails. Texts were flooded throughout my inbox. We were getting death threats like crazy, and there was actually at least one gentleman who went to prison for making threats against my boss.”

He added: “We publicly called him out during that impeachment, when he was threatening the whistleblower in public statements, saying you are putting this person’s life in jeopardy. He made clear he doesn’t care. He’ll say it’s not my fault if something happens to that person.

“He knows full well the intimidation factor he can bring through his bully pulpit.”

Most Republicans who voted to impeach Trump during his first presidency are no longer in Congress. Liz Cheney – who played a leading role in the House committee investigating the 6 January insurrection – lost her Wyoming seat after being defeated in a GOP primary by a Trump supporter.

Cheney told CNN that some of her Republican colleagues had voted against impeaching Trump because “they were afraid for their own security – afraid, in some instances, for their lives”.

Her comments were backed up by Mitt Romney, the former Republican senator and presidential candidate, who told his biographer, McKay Coppins, of a senior Senate colleague who intended to vote for Trump’s conviction at his Senate trial only to change course when a colleague told him: “Think of your personal safety. Think of your children.”

Musk, the billionaire Tesla and SpaceX entrepreneur, has threatened to use his vast wealth to fund primary challenges against any House or Senate Republicans who vote against Trump’s agenda or oppose his cabinet nominees.

The tactic appeared to be effective in the case of Joni Ernst, a Republican senator for Iowa, who reversed her initial opposition to Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defence secretary on the basis of sexual assault allegations that had been made against him after Musk funded adverts extolling a rightwing radio host who had vowed to challenge her in a primary.

Thom Tillis, a Republican senator for North Carolina, told people that he received FBI warnings of “credible death threats” when he was publicly considering voting against Hegseth, Vanity Fair reported. Tillis, who had spoken at length to witnesses who raised concerns about Hegseth’s behavior, ultimately voted in favor of his confirmation.

Vanity Fair cited an unnamed source as quoting Tillis advising people who wished to understand Trump to read Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, a 2006 book by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare. A spokesperson for Tillis denied that he had recommended the book in that context.

[admin]

USAID employees ordered to shred records, court filing says
by Brendan Pierson
Reuters
March 11, 2025 4:55 PM MDT Updated 2 hours ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usaid- ... 025-03-11/

Summary

• Unions claim shredding violates federal record-keeping law
• Plaintiffs seek restraining order to prevent record destruction
• Judge orders status report on motion by Wednesday morning

March 11 (Reuters) - An official at the U.S. Agency for International Development has ordered employees to shred a large volume of records, according to a court filing on Tuesday by government employee unions asking a judge to block the move.

In a motion filed in Washington, D.C., federal court, the unions cited an email from USAID's acting executive secretary Erica Carr instructing employees to come to the agency's office on Tuesday for "clearing classified safes and personnel documents."

"Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break," Carr wrote in the email, which was included in the filing. The email did not give details about what documents were to be shredded.

The unions said the directive "suggests a rapid destruction of agency records on a large scale" that both violates federal record-keeping law and could destroy evidence in their case, which seeks to undo the dismantling of USAID under President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and American Foreign Service Association, which represent government employees, as well as by anti-poverty organization Oxfam America. They allege that Trump overstepped his authority in largely shuttering an independent agency established by Congress by firing or putting on leave its employees and cancelling its agreements with third-party partners.

The plaintiffs on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols for a temporary restraining order blocking the destruction of records. They said that if they eventually prevail in the case, the loss of vital personnel or other records could prevent USAID from resuming its operations.

In response to Tuesday's motion, the judge ordered both sides to submit a status report by Wednesday morning proposing a schedule for briefs on the motion and noting any disagreements between them.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Nichols, a Trump appointee, last month allowed the administration to go forward with its plan to put more than 2,000 USAID employees on leave. Under Trump, the foreign aid agency has scrapped more than 80% of its programs and fired much of its staff.

In a separate lawsuit brought by USAID contractors and grant recipients, a federal judge on Monday ruled that the Trump administration cannot refuse to spend foreign aid money appropriated by Congress, although the judge stopped short of restoring canceled contracts. In that case, the Trump administration has repeatedly resisted complying with court orders to release frozen funds.

Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler, Nia Williams and Alexia Garamfalvi

[admin]

Federal Judge Compares Trump to the Tyrannical Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland
by Glenn Kirschner
Mar 12, 2025

District of Columbia Federal District Judge Beryl Howell pulled no punches in a new ruling against Trump and his administration.

Trump issued an executive order punishing a law firm he doesn't like, prohibiting the firm's attorneys from interacting with federal agencies and even from entering federal buildings.

In ruling against Trump and in favor of the law firm, Judge Howell said:

"This may be amusing in 'Alice in Wonderland' where the Queen of Hearts yells, 'Off with their heads!' at annoying subjects . . . and announces a sentence before a verdict, but this cannot be the reality we are living under."

Federal courts are not only ruling against Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional executive orders, but they are beginning to call out his obvious autocratic conduct.



Transcript

So friends let's start today with a
quote from a federal court judge
regarding Donald Trump's retaliation
against a law firm that he doesn't like
quote this may be amusing in allice in
Wonderland where the Queen of Hearts
yells Off With Their Heads at annoying
subjects and announces a sentence before
a verdict judge Howell said but this
cannot be the reality we are living
under close
quote let's talk about
that because Justice
[Music]
matters hey all Glenn Kirschner here so
friends because nothing is too Petty or
too vindictive for Donald Trump he just
tried to punish a law firm that he
doesn't like by prohibiting the firm's
attorneys from interacting with federal
agencies or even entering Federal
buildings well DC federal district court
judge Beryl Howell just called him out on
it
here's the new reporting from
Politico headline judge blocks key
provisions of Trump's bid to punish
Democratic linked law firm and that
article begins president Donald Trump's
retaliation against a prominent
Democratic linked Law Firm is likely
unconstitutional a federal judge ruled
Wednesday US District Judge Beryl Howell
blocked the Trump Administration from
enforcing Central provisions of an
executive order that seeks to punish the
law firm Perkins Coi by barring its
attorneys from interacting with federal
agencies or even entering Federal
buildings you know friends I swear
Donald Trump is like a a little discount
dictator right just pathetically
Petty my editorial addition the article
continues judge said the retaliatory
animus of Trump's order is clear on its
face and appears to violate
constitutional restrictions on Viewpoint
discrimination the executive order which
Trump issued last week quote runs head-on
into the wall of First Amendment
protections close quote the judge
concluded Perkins Coi which is based in
Seattle has often represented Democratic
politicians and causes including
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign Trump
has long targeted the firm as a
political and legal adversary for its
role in commissioning the anti-trump
dossier compiled by former British
intelligent agent Christopher Steele in
2016 that dossier whose salacious
allegations against Trump were never
confirmed by federal investigators
helped fuel the long-running probe of
his Trump's 2016 campaigns interactions
with
Russia the executive order if allowed to
take effect would hamstring the firm's
ability to represent clients who have
business with the federal government The
Firm claims the Trump's directive has
already LED clients to abandon the firm
and is likely to prompt Federal
officials to cancel or deny meetings on
a wide array of pending matters judge
Howell noted that the order would harm
not only the firm's 1200 lawyers most of
whom had nothing to do with the Russia
probe but its
2500 non-lawyer employees from IT staff
to
secretaries the judge said Trump's order
was also flawed because it was issued
without any notice to the firm or due
process to challenge his
determination quote this may be amusing
in Allison Wonderland where the the
Queen of Hearts yells Off With Their
Heads at annoying subjects and announces
a sentence before a verdict Howell said
but this cannot be the reality we are
living
under judge Howell's got a point and if
I can even put it a little less
discreetly this is some real
dictatorial Trump is
pulling you know friends we have a flood
of legal opinions coming in from federal
courts literally from coast to coast
ruling against Donald Trump's executive
orders his unlawful terminations his
refusal to pay contractors Who provided
services and goods to the federal
government and deserve to be paid we
have legal opinion after legal opinion
we have court finding after court
finding that Donald Trump's conduct his
executive orders are unlawful are
unconstitutional and you know to say
this is just executive branch
overreach does not capture what Trump
and Company are doing this is
autocracy this is Donald Trump you know
as aspiring dictator in the Oval Office
and I'll tell you the federal bench the
federal Judiciary that co-equal branch
of government is acting as a check
against an an aspiring autocrat an
aspiring dictator in the Oval Office so
friends I say let's keep these federal
court opinions coming and I suspect they
will keep coming because the Judiciary
understands it's vital role in
protecting our democracy its vital role
in addressing executive branch abuse
overreach lawlessness and
unconstitutionality is all important to
the health and I would say to the
viability of American democracy so let's
keep them coming and I suspect they will
keep coming because the court
understands that it may be the last
firewall the last buwwark standing up
against an aspiring dictator in the Oval
Office and as we see in court ruling
after court ruling after court ruling
the federal Judiciary clearly
understands that
Justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]

**************************

Judge temporarily blocks parts of Trump’s executive order seeking to punish law firm Perkins Coie
by Alanna Durkin Richer
Politico
Updated 6:23 PM MDT, March 12, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/trump-execut ... bc72be267e

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s administration Wednesday from enforcing portions of an executive order designed to punish a prominent law firm linked to Democratic-funded opposition research during the 2016 presidential campaign into ties between the Republican candidate and Russia.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington granted a temporary restraining order sought by the firm, Perkins Coie, one day after it filed a federal lawsuit alleging it’s being illegally targeted because of its legal work. The judge said the president’s action sends a chilling message that lawyers can be punished for representing clients or advancing views unfavorable to the administration.

“Such a circumstance threatens the very foundation of our legal system,” said Howell, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama. “Our justice system is based on the fundamental belief that justice works best when all parties have zealous advocates.”

Perkins Coie called the judge’s ruling “an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced.”

“We will follow the court’s direction regarding next steps and will continue to challenge the Executive Order, which threatens our firm, our clients, and core constitutional protections important to all Americans,” a firm spokesperson said.

The order came during an extraordinary court hearing in which Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, defended the latest in a series of retributive moves targeting the president’s perceived adversaries. It’s highly unusual for such a high-ranking Justice Department official to argue on behalf of the government in the trial court.

Mizelle, who’s also serving as the acting associate attorney general, argued that the president has the clear authority to take action against entities he believes present a threat to national security.

“If that means excluding individuals that are no longer trustworthy with the nation’s secrets, that’s a bedrock principle of our republic,” Mizelle said.

Perkins Coie says it’s already suffering financial consequences of the order, which calls for limiting firm employees’ access to federal buildings and terminating any government contacts of its clients. The judge’s temporary restraining order doesn’t block the administration from enforcing another provision that seeks to strip Perkins Coie attorneys of security clearances.

Perkins Coie says all 15 of its top clients have government contracts, and several clients have already ended their legal arrangements with the firm or threatened to do so. Dane Butswinkas, an attorney representing Perkins Coie, said keeping the order in place will “spell the end of the law firm.”

“This executive order takes a wrecking ball to the rule of law, to the principles that promote democracy,” Butswinkas said.

Perkins Coie represented the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent, and also represented Democrats in a variety of voting rights challenges during the 2020 election. The firm made headlines in 2017 when it was revealed to have hired a private investigative research firm during the 2016 campaign to conduct opposition research on Trump. That firm, Fusion GPS, subsequently retained a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who researched whether Trump and Russia had suspicious ties.

Trump had sued the law firm in 2022, along with Clinton, FBI officials and other defendants, as a part of a sprawling complaint alleging a massive conspiracy to concoct the Russia investigation that shadowed much of his administration. The suit was dismissed.

[admin]

Layoff plans are due Thursday. Feds are terrified. President Donald Trump has ordered “large-scale” cuts to the federal workforce.
by Robin Bravender
Politico
03/12/2025 07:08 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/1 ... d-00226148


People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) outside the Capitol on Feb. 11. | Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

Agencies across the federal government are facing a Thursday deadline to submit plans for sweeping workforce cuts and reorganizations.

President Donald Trump ordered agencies last month to draft plans for “large-scale reductions in force,” and his administration gave agencies a March 13 deadline to hand over plans for “initial agency cuts and reductions,” with another round due in April.

Workers inside energy and environmental agencies — who have already seen colleagues terminated in the early days of Trump’s term — are anxiously awaiting details of the administration’s next targets.

They’re bracing for steep cuts.

“People are completely terrified,” said one Interior Department employee, who was granted anonymity because they fear reprisal. “There are rumors circulating” about which offices and programs the administration might single out for cuts, that person said, but staffers hadn’t yet heard details from management about the specifics.

“We’re also kind of puzzled,” that person said, because the expected downsizing across agencies is coming as “this administration is putting a lot of work on our plates,” including repealing Biden-era regulations.

The Interior Department has already lost employees through the administration’s “Fork in the Road” resignation offer and the firings of probationary staff, that staffer said. The Trump administration is “gonna need staff” to enact its policy agenda, they added.

The Interior Department did not respond to a request for comment about its downsizing plans. The White House and the Office of Personnel Management did not respond to requests for comment about whether agencies’ plans will be made public or about the scope or timing of layoffs across the government.

The Education Department this week announced plans to slash about half of its workforce.

‘People are so scared’

Following early signals from Trump and his aides, EPA employees are girding for dramatic reductions at their agency.

Trump recently suggested that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin planned to cut 65 percent of the staff at EPA — a prospect the president appeared to welcome — although the White House later said that Zeldin aimed to cut about 65 percent of the agency’s spending, rather than its workforce.

Zeldin this week pledged to “massively reduce” his agency’s spending and said EPA will, “where necessary, reduce staff.”

Meanwhile, the DOGE operation led by Elon Musk announced that the leases for some EPA offices around the country have been canceled. The locations of some EPA regional offices were also included on a list of buildings the Trump administration slated for “disposal” before that list was taken down.

“Everyone is very conscious of the deadline for EPA to submit a reorganization and [reduction in force] plan,” said Nicole Cantello, the president of a union local that represents EPA regional workers.

“EPA workers continue to be concerned that EPA will close many offices around the country,” Cantello said. “Our scientists and engineers know that all EPA office buildings are essential to protecting human health and the environment.”

Marie Owens Powell, president of a union that represents EPA employees across the country, said employees at that agency fear what’s coming in the Trump plans due this week.

“People are so scared,” she said. “They don’t know if they’re going to fall into a RIF.”

Powell, who recently retired from her position as an EPA staffer after 33 years, said she never experienced a reduction in force, or a RIF, during her career with the agency. “We came close. We prepared for one, but we never fully implemented one,” she said.

Workers are afraid of potentially losing their jobs and their livelihoods, she said. They’re also afraid of the unknown. “They’re frantic at this point for lack of information,” she said.

EPA did not respond to a request for comment about its layoff and reorganization plan due this week.

The Trump administration’s building disposal plan included the Energy Department’s Washington headquarters as well as DOE offices in Germantown, Maryland. Those buildings were among the more than 400 posted online by the General Services Administration before the list was removed the following day, leaving employees who work there uncertain about their futures.

Employees at the National Science Foundation are also concerned about the upcoming layoff plans, but “there’s nothing we can do about it,” said one NSF employee who was granted anonymity because they fear reprisal. Staff at the science funding agency have been celebrating the return of probationary employees who had been terminated but were reinstated, the NSF employee said, “even if it’s only for another month or so.”

An NSF spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

More eliminations to come

The “Phase 1” goals for agency cuts due this week are just one step of the Trump administration’s extensive downsizing vision.

The strategies due Thursday will identify agency offices that provide “direct service to citizens,” explain which parts of agencies are required by law and explain whether “the agency or any of its subcomponents should be eliminated or consolidated,” according to guidance provided to agency bosses.

Agency leaders were also directed to describe the tools they intend to use to “achieve efficiencies,” including through expected staff reductions in coming years.

In the “Phase 2” plans due by April 14, agency bosses were directed to expand on their plans for overhauling their operations. That plan is set to include any proposals to relocate agency offices from Washington to other parts of the country, targets for “subsequent large-scale RIFs,” and agencies’ plans to renegotiate provisions of collective bargaining agreements deemed to “inhibit government efficiency and cost-savings.”

Agencies were told to implement those second-phase plans by Sept. 30.

Musk has previously suggested he’d like to delete most federal agencies.

“Do we really need whatever it is, 428, federal agencies?” Musk said in an interview prior to Trump’s inauguration. “I think we should be able to get away with 99 agencies,” he said.

[admin]

Thousands of fired federal workers must be rehired immediately, judge rules. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office.
by Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney
Politico
03/13/2025 12:35 PM EDT
Updated: 03/13/2025 01:45 PM EDT
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/1 ... g-00228721

Demonstrators chant during a National Treasury Employees Union rally protesting the Trump administration's policies toward federal workers on Capitol Hill, on March 5, 2025. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

A federal judge on Thursday ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who were fired amid President Donald Trump’s turbulent effort to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce.

Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments to “immediately” offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back. The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an “unlawful” decision to terminate them.

And even if it is upheld on appeal, it does not guarantee that all the workers will be able to get their jobs back permanently: Alsup made clear that agencies still have the authority to implement “reductions in force,” as long as they follow the proper procedures for doing so. Federal agencies are currently finalizing “reduction in force” plans.

Alsup issued his ruling in a lawsuit brought by federal employee unions. He lashed out at the Justice Department over its handling of the case, saying he believes that Trump administration lawyers were hiding the facts about who directed the mass firings.

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth,” the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth. … I’m tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.”

Alsup also said the administration attempted to circumvent federal laws on reducing the workforce by attributing the firings to “performance” when that was not in fact the case. The judge called the move “a gimmick.”

“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said.

More than 5,000 probationary workers for USDA had already won a reprieve last week when the chair of a federal civil service board ordered them reinstated for 45 days. But Alsup is the first federal judge to order the administration to broadly unwind the firing spree that has roiled the federal workforce during Trump’s first two months in office.

Alsup emphasized that he was not ruling that the government is unable to lay off personnel at federal agencies, but that the Trump administration was in such a hurry to do so that it shunted aside federal laws that dictate the procedures for a so-called RIF.

“The words that I give you today should not be taken that some wild-and-crazy judge in San Francisco said that an administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” Alsup said. “It can be done, if it’s done in accordance with the law.”

Alsup is also seeking answers about the administration’s position that fired federal workers should have to seek relief from two executive branch agencies tasked with supervising federal workplace issues: the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The judge expressed concern that Trump’s effort to remove members of those boards might render them ineffective.

Alsup had ordered the acting head of OPM, Charles Ezell, to appear at the hearing Thursday so he could be cross-examined about his claims that the personnel office did not direct any firings but simply provided guidance to other agencies about how to carry out the dismissals.

However, Justice Department lawyers told Alsup earlier this week that Ezell would not appear, and the government withdrew a sworn declaration Ezell submitted earlier in the case. At one point Thursday, the judge reprimanded Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland for the government’s decision not to make witnesses available.

“You’re not helping me get at the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents,” the frustrated judge said, adding, “I’m getting mad at you and I shouldn’t. You’re trying to do your best, and I apologize.”

Helland, who sat alone at the table for government counsel, argued that the agencies made the firing decisions, and he said the timing was driven by the urgency of Trump’s agenda, not any moves by OPM.

“Everybody knew the new administration was prioritizing this and the political appointments wanted to comply with that administration priority,” the DOJ attorney said. “This was not an order by OPM.”

But the judge noted that some agencies told employees they were instructed by OPM to fire every probationary employee deemed non-essential.

Probationary status is extremely common in the federal workforce. Many newly hired employees are required to begin their tenure as probationary employees, and employees are also often required to spend time on probationary status after being promoted. Probationary employees do not enjoy many of the civil service protections as non-probationary workers.

One of the attorneys challenging the dismissals emphasized Thursday that some newly-promoted employees with lengthy tenure at agencies were caught up in the mass firings.

The suit the judge acted on Thursday was brought by federal employee labor unions along with non-profit groups that said their work would be negatively impacted by the firings in places like national parks and veterans’ hospitals.

*****************************

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... ed-states/

115. Mar 13, 2025. Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 3/13/2025. Court granted and extended TRO as stated on the record. Court directed counsel to file briefs by 3/21/2025, 12:00 noon, 10 pages in length as stated on the record. Memorandum Opinion to issue. Initial Case Management Conference not held. Still, discovery open; parties to comply with all rules and standing orders (e.g., Supplemental Order to Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup 18, 35 (Revd Aug. 27, 2024)). Court further stated plaintiffs may depose Noah Peters in Washington, D.C.; Government to make him available for 3 hours within two weeks. Total Time in Court: 8:00 - 9:30 = 1 Hour; 30 Minutes. Court Reporter: Kendra Steppler. Plaintiff Attorneys: Danielle Leonard, Stacey Leyton, Eileen Goldsmith, Tera Heintz, Norman Eisen. Defendant Attorney: Kelsey Helland. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/13/2025) (Entered: 03/13/2025)

[admin]

Attorney Generals GANG UP on Trump IN COURT
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
Mar 13, 2025 The Intersection with Popok

The feared Gang of 20 States have banded together for the 6th time to sue the Trump Administration and obtain a temporary restraining order to stop Trump's shrinking the Congressionally- mandated and funded Dept of Education responsible for billions in funding and the welfare of 65 million students, and shrinking it so small that it can be drowned in the bathtup, as Trump pays off his campaign debts to the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2015. Popok reports.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

STATE OF NEW YORK; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSSETTS; STATE OF HAWAIʻI; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL FOR THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF WASHINGTON; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

Plaintiffs,

v.

LINDA McMAHON, in her official capacity as Secretary of Education; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Defendants.

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/c ... t-2025.pdf. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Case 1:25-cv-10601.

Transcript

Linda, I hope you do a great job and put
yourself out of a job I want her to put
herself out of a job education
department all right and a move that
seems to pretend the beginning of the
end for the Department that Republicans
going back to Reagan pledged to abolish
the Department of Education today told
staffers to vacate their offices by 6:
p.m. because the offices were closing
Nationwide the doors are now locked
workers aren't going to be allowed back
into the buildings until at least
Thursday this the first step on the road
to a total
shutdown uh yes uh actually it is
because that was the president's uh
mandate as directive to me uh clearly is
to shut down the Department of Education
which we know we'll have to work with
Congress you know to get that
accomplished but what we did today was
to take the the first step of of
eliminating what I think is is
bureaucratic bloat and that's not to say
that a lot of the folks uh you know it's
a humanitarian thing too A lot of the
folks that are there you know they're
they're out of a job but um we wanted to
make sure that we kept all of the right
people and the good people to make sure
that the outward facing programs the the
grants the Appropriations that come from
Congress all of that are being met and
none of that's going to fall through the
crack oh they so blly just want to
dismantle the Department of Education
impacting millions and millions of
children 50 million children at least
and billions and billions of dollars
with just the BL well we're going to
dismiss mantle it oh we're going to put
ourselves out of business oh we're going
to this is the beginning of
chloroforming and taking out in the back
and shooting the Department of Education
not so fast not so fast you're like it's
a James Bond movie and these are the the
evil people living in the mountain lair
Leticia James and 19 other states she
represents New York have banded together
once again I call him the gang of 20 and
they're banding together time and time
again filing injunction suit after
injunction suit against the
administration and they're winning and
they got a new one that they just filed
in Massachusetts federal court I'll talk
to you a little bit why we're filing
these kind of suits in Massachusetts in
Maine in New Hampshire in California and
in New York New Jersey Maryland and the
District of Colombia and were avoiding
red States talk about that at the end
but let me let me read to you from a
quote from Leticia James this is the not
on my watch moment letia James is the
bane of Donald Trump's existence right
she's the one that brought him low prove
that his his business operations were a
sham a fraud a house of cards uh got a
$450 million civil fraud judgment
against those companies in New York
putting him out of business putting a a
monitor former federal judge over the
Trump organization to this moment so
there's no love loss between Laticia
James and Donald Trump I assure you that
doesn't stopped Laticia James from being
at the Forefront the tip of the spear
against the Trump Administration here's
her quote upon the filing of the lawsuit
that she led this Administration may
claim to be stopping waste and fraud but
it is clear that their only mission is
to take away the necessary Services
resources and funding that students and
their families need firing half of the
Department of education's Workforce will
hurt students throughout New York and
the nation especially low-income
students and those with disabilities who
rely on federal funding time out for a
minute that's you rural States that's
you poor states that's you red States
who do you think the Department of
Education helps the rich parents on the
upper west side or upper east side of
Manhattan um but I digress back to
Laticia james' statement today along
with her lawsuit um this outrageous
effort to leave students behind and
deprive them of a quality education is
reckless and illegal today I am taking
action to stop the madness and protect
our schools and the students who depend
on them let me just give you the the
gravity of this there's probably no
other department including Social
Services Social Security that touches
the America America life more in a
positive way than the Department of
Education formed in 1979 by Congress
just here the numbers 50 million
students K through 12 are under the opes
of a Department of Education and receive
billions and billions of dollars of
funding through their states and through
their local school systems there are
98,000 public schools there are 32,000
private schools there are 18,000 school
districts there are another
12 million who are in higher education
there's an entire department that's now
been completely shuttered and dismantled
and chloroformed related to civil rights
and discrimination and harassment and
abuse in the school systems something
Donald Trump doesn't care about I
thought his I thought his administration
and his wife are all about stopping
cyber bullying where do you think that
starts that starts with the Department
of Education and its civil rights
Division and now New
York who has been harmed by the complete
shuttering of the Department of
Education in effect you know it it
received more than $6 billion do worth
of Aid last year for its school students
that's just New York alone now this gang
of 20 that I like that I'm proud to talk
about have joined together six or seven
other times to sue Donald Trump under
Birthright citizenship and they won
against Elon Musk going through the
treasury Department uh servers and
websites and they won against um they're
trying to dis the National Institute of
Health and they won and about Mass
firings of federal employees and they
won they're batting over 900 against the
Trump Administration even better than
they did the first time around because
Donald Trump is worse than the first
time around this lawsuit that's been
brought is is simple is is simple in its
Elegance about the claims that it's
bringing because every lawsuit is the
same you have the general allegations
you have the the jurisdiction and venue
allegations you have the part parties
who are the parties allegations and then
you get to the meat of the order and
that's the claims in federal court here
there's only four claims but they're so
powerful separation of powers have been
violated by Donald Trump by trying
through a reduction in force a phony
reduction in force we call it a riff to
put the Department of Education out of
business you just saw the clip that's
been his goal because that's project
202's goal it's right there the play we
had the Playbook while he was running
for office it said the complete
dismantling of the Department of
Education okay
well he's obeying his Masters in the
project 2025 Heritage Foundation world
who help get elected and he is paying
off a campaign
debt even if it means by doing so he is
completely undermining our public
education system and the dignity that
goes along with that uh to make sure
that everybody has a fair Shake in our
society which they don't care about goes
along with their desire to get rid of
diversity equity and inclusion at every
stage to the game so separation of
powers that the AR first argument in
their claim in this new lawsuit is that
there's been a usurpation of the
legislative Authority that Congress set
up this particular Department of
Education for a reason in
1979 and funded it for a reason and
Donald Trump can't through executive
action or non-action or reductions of
force or putting Linda McMahon a meat
puppet into that position from her days
in the World Wrestling Federation of all
things can't put can't do by reduction
and force and violate Congressional
mandates in other words the law and that
leads us to the second claim in the case
separation of powers that means that
he's violating they've argued that he's
violating the take care Clause that the
executive branch must take care to
Faithfully execute the laws the laws are
set by Congress by Congress and they
cite in their own
complaint um lawsuit dicta and precedent
going back in the Supreme Court to the
1800 with the first Supreme Court
Justice John
Marshall who says it is Congress who
sets the law the president may be able
to fill in some of the details but the
law The Guiding post the the poll star
is
Congress not not Faithfully not
executing the laws in order to cut the
legs out from under a congressional
statute and the creation of this
Department of Education third that his
actions are Ultra varies that's a fancy
way of saying that it is out outside the
norm he's coloring outside the lines of
his executive power given to him by the
Constitution it is ill not only
irregular but illegal Ultra varies and
lastly as we've said before almost every
one of these cases is has this has the
same type of blueprint that Donald Trump
has violated the administrative
procedures act which deals with
administrative agencies and departments
like the Department of Education by
making having Linda McMahon make an
arbitrary and capricious that's the term
to decision to cut without regard to
impact on the states half of the
workforce telling them to go home and
lock the door and shut the door you
heard it in her interview at the top of
this hot take I'm hot at the top of this
hot take so I see the lawsuit and I'll
tell you why it's been filed in
Massachusetts because we know how to
take a page out of the Republicans book
for
years you know to be the bane of Biden's
existence and his policies they filed
their law lawsuits and where were they
filed
occasionally in DC but Texas Louisiana
and Florida in order to get to favorable
and they're most favorable appell Court
the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals out
of out of New Orleans which sits Over
Texas Louisiana and others Mississippi
and the like that's where those cases
came from our cases are going to come
from New Hampshire and Massachusetts and
um and um Maine and New Jersey and
Maryland and the District of Columbia
where about half the cases are and
California
and New York and even when Laticia James
is leading as the New York attorney
general banding together with the other
20 States and I'll just shout out see if
you can figure out the common
denominator of these 20 States leave it
in my comments New York
Massachusetts uh California Hawaii
Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC
the district Illinois Maine Maryland uh
Michigan uh Nevada Minnesota New Jersey
Oregon Rhode Island Vermont state of
Washington state of
Wisconsin mainly mainly blue States
maybe not at the Electoral time but
certainly their attorney general is blue
their governor is blue and maybe one or
both chambers of their legislator is
legisl legislation um body is uh blue
and so they're joining together this is
the fifth or sixth time that Leticia
James has brought a case like this and
has been successful
you know we talked about it Birthright
citizenship stopping federal workers
from being fired stopping Elon Musk and
Doge from going through the treasury
Department servers all because of
Leticia james'
leadership so what's going to happen
next Massachusetts judge federal judge
going to hold a hearing on the temporary
restraining order to determine whether
they have
standing um as states which is the
fundamental issue that you have to prove
to a court in order for the court to
exercise jurisdiction you have to show
that a federal judge has a live case or
controversy that's the term of Art in
front of him in order to rule they have
standing they've been injured it's
called a pocketbook injury and it's what
it sounds like their wallets and
pocketbooks their budgets the funding
has been cut off and therefore they've
been specially injured they have
standing so even though the Trump
Administration will argue no standing
they're GNA that they're going to blow
by that that threshold requirement
pretty pretty quickly then it's going to
go to a reparable harm because for an
injunction unlike the regular substance
of a merit-based lawsuit you got to
prove that you have a a harm that is so
distinct in character that it can't be
compensated later by money because
something has to happen now to stop an
ongoing issue there has to be an ongoing
future harm other words not a completed
harm something that's going to happen in
the future again the continued
dismantling of the Department of
Education and try attempts to defund
it and then you have to have um the
judge make the determination that that
qualifies as irreparable harm it's like
toothpaste out of the tooth tooth uh
tube kind of thing eggs that can't be
unscrambled that kind of thing and then
you have inadequate remedy at law which
is similar to that and then lastly that
the parties are likely to Prevail on
proving their case at the end of the
trial the judge looks at it now kind of
Peaks under the hood and says yes you
are more likely than not you are likely
to Prevail on the merits of your case to
prove the Constitutional administrative
procedure act violations that alleging I
will grant you the temporary restraining
order some people think it's easy to get
a trro looks like you just it's like
pulling a number at your local
supermarket at the deli counter boom
because there's so many of them against
the Trump Administration they're very
hard to get in 35 years of my practice
I've gotten about five yeah and I've
probably been denied double that um
doesn't mean your case is terrible
doesn't mean you're not going to win
ultimately at your case at trial or with
a judge or with a jury or a judge or an
arbitrator or something it just means at
that moment you don't have the unique
extraordinary elements necessary to
obtain this type of extraordinary relief
from a judge and you may not think it's
extraordinary because there's been you
know about six a week issued against the
Trump Administration you know he's
averaging about uh 12 to 15 lawsuits a
week but it is extraordinary and it is
hard but I think they get the temporary
restraining order here to stop the
future chloroforming and dismantling of
the Department of Education where they
take him out in the back and try to
shoot it or as Leticia James and her
lawsuit alleged through a a phony
reduction in force act like they're just
cutting off fraud and waste when they're
not they're they've cut through the fat
through the muscle through the bone and
into vital organs I guess is the best
way to put
it trro happens hearing temporary
restraining order issued set the case
for trial set the case for preliminary
injunction which in the food chain of of
of stays or or blocks by a federal judge
it starts with administrative stay um I
need a few more days to even see your
briefing I'm not making a decision on
the merits at all administrative stay
next level up I've seen your papers on
temporary restraining order you've made
out movement the the states here you've
made out your four elements to to obtain
a temporary restraining order
irreparable harm inadequate remedy at
law uh likelihood of success on the
merits and the balance of equities or in
public interest tips in your favor yes
boom done that's that holds the ring for
the case and stops the government from
doing something or forces them to do
something for for the next briefing
schedule preliminary injunction maybe a
week or two or a month later with the
injunction in place preliminary
injunction similar factors full more
full or complete record case law
argument judge either enters the
preliminary injunction or not sometimes
it's converted into a permanent
injunction because the judge finds un
summary judgment there's no disputed
facts it's just the law and person can
issue a ruling without having to go
through a full-blown trial or certainly
not a jury trial this is all judg made
law so that's the hierarchy that we will
get to as soon as it gets to a temporary
restraining order level it then once
that's entered um and certainly at yeah
once that's entered and usually at the
preliminary injunction level appellant
jurisdiction kicks in and then you can
go off and try to take an emergency
appeal to your various appell courts so
I think that's what's going to happen
here Donald Trump's not going to like
this he's going to get a trro against
them there's going to be a preliminary
injunction against him he's going to run
out and try to get the first circuit
which just ruled against him big time on
Birthright citizenship a new three judge
panel of the first circuit up in up in
that area up in Massachusetts is going
to issue its ruling he'll take that to
the United States Supreme Court through
a uh moderate Justice of the Supreme
Court because that's who sits over the
first and over Massachusetts another
good reason to file there and then we'll
see if there's any will any any ability
to count to four or five at the United
States Supreme Court level to hear this
case on an emergency application we'll
cover it all that's one of the things we
do well we WE Post these issues to you
we put them on your radar we explain it
to them explain it to you in this way
and then we follow up and follow through
in a way that of course mainstream media
and corporate media won't can't and
doesn't want to and is afraid to we're
not and I'm glad you're here I'm Michael
popok you're on the legal AF YouTube
channel um take a moment hit the
Subscribe button we just rolled the
odometer to 500,000 subscribers well on
our way to where yes a million before
our one-year birthday and that with your
help we're going to get there I
appreciate all of you I'm Michael popuk
reporting in collaboration with the mest
touch Network we just launched the legal
AF YouTube channel help us build this
pro-democracy channel where I'll be
curating the top stories the
intersection of Law and politics go to
YouTube now and free subscribe at legal
AF MTN that's at legal aftn
[Music]

******************************

Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration To Stop Dismantling of Department of Education and Protect Students. AG James Leads Coalition of 20 Attorneys General in Suing to Stop Trump Administration from Shutting Down the Department of Education
by Letitia James
New York State Attorney General
Press Release
March 13, 2025
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2025/at ... department

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today led a coalition of 20 other attorneys general in suing the Trump administration to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education (ED). On March 11, the Trump administration announced that ED would be firing approximately 50 percent of its workforce as part of its goal of a “total shutdown” of the Department. Attorney General James and the coalition today filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the targeted destruction of this critical federal agency that ensures tens of millions of students receive a quality education and critical resources.

“This administration may claim to be stopping waste and fraud, but it is clear that their only mission is to take away the necessary services, resources, and funding that students and their families need,” said Attorney General James. “Firing half of the Department of Education’s workforce will hurt students throughout New York and the nation, especially low-income students and those with disabilities who rely on federal funding. This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal. Today I am taking action to stop the madness and protect our schools and the students who depend on them.”

The ED’s programs serve nearly 18,200 school districts and over 50 million K-12 students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools throughout the country. Its higher education programs provide services and support to more than 12 million postsecondary students annually. Students with disabilities and students from low-income families are some of the primary beneficiaries of ED services and funding. Federal ED funds for special education include support for assistive technology for students with disabilities, teacher salaries and benefits, transportation to help children receive the services and programming they need, physical therapy and speech therapy services, and social workers to help manage students’ educational experiences. The ED also supports students in rural communities by offering programs designed to help rural school districts that often lack the personnel and resources needed to compete for competitive grants.

As Attorney General James and the coalition assert in the lawsuit, dismantling ED will have devastating effects on states like New York. K-12 schools in New York received $6.17 billion, or $2,438 per student, from the ED in federal fiscal year 2024. Federal funding for public colleges and universities averaged $1,256 per student in New York in federal fiscal year 2024. The administration’s layoff is so massive that ED will be incapacitated and unable to perform essential functions. As the lawsuit asserts, the administration’s actions will deprive students with special needs of critical resources and support. They will gut ED’s Office of Civil Rights, which protects students from discrimination and sexual assault. They would additionally hamstring the processing of financial aid, raising costs for college and university students who will have a harder time accessing loans, Pell Grants, and work-study programs. This would be particularly harmful to New York, where more students receive Pell Grants than almost any other state.

With this lawsuit, Attorney General James and the coalition are seeking a court order to stop the administration’s policies to dismantle ED by drastically cutting its workforce and programs. Attorney General James and the coalition argue that the administration’s actions to dismantle ED are illegal and unconstitutional. The Department is an executive agency authorized by Congress, with numerous different laws creating its various programs and funding streams. The coalition’s lawsuit asserts that the executive branch does not have the legal authority to unilaterally incapacitate or dismantle it without an act of Congress.

Joining Attorney General James in filing the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

This is the latest action Attorney General James has taken to protect New Yorkers and the services they rely on from the Trump administration’s illegal attacks. On February 13, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general secured a preliminary injunction stopping the administration’s illegal revocation of birthright citizenship. On February 24, Attorney General James led a coalition of attorneys general in securing a court order preventing Elon Musk and members of DOGE from accessing Americans’ private information through the U.S. Treasury. On March 5, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general secured a court order stopping the Trump administration from withholding vital funding to the National Institutes of Health. On March 6, Attorney General James led a coalition of attorneys general in securing a court order blocking the Trump administration’s freeze of essential federal funds to states. Also on March 6, Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general sued the Trump administration for illegal mass firings of federal employees and sued the Trump administration for cutting critical grant programs for teachers through the Department of Education.

[admin]

GRUNDMANN v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00425) District Court, District of Columbia
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... n-v-trump/

-- USDC, District of Columbia. SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-425 (SLS). Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 3/12/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 25-425 (SLS)

Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 4, the Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, the legal memoranda in support and in opposition, and the entire record herein, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED; and the Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. It is further

DECLARED that the termination of the Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann was unlawful, in violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b). Ms. Grundmann remains a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, having been appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term on May 12, 2022, and she may be removed by the President prior to the expiration of her term “only upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b). It is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann shall continue to serve as a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) until her term expires pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7104(c), unless she is earlier removed “upon notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” id. § 7104(b). The Defendant Colleen Duffy Kiko, as well as her subordinates, agents, and employees, are ENJOINED from removing Ms. Grundmann from her office without cause or in any way treating Ms. Grundmann as having been removed, from impeding in any way her ability to fulfill her duties as a Member of the FLRA, and from denying or obstructing her authority or access to any benefits or resources of the office; it is further

ORDERED that the Defendant Colleen Duffy Kiko and her subordinates, agents, and employees provide the Plaintiff Susan Tsui Grundmann with access to the necessary government facilities and equipment so that she may carry out her duties during her term as a Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court close this case.

This is a final appealable order.

SO ORDERED.

SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN
United States District Judge

Date: March 12, 2025

******************************

Trump LOSES case with MAJOR Supreme Court implications
by Brian Tyler Cohen and Glenn Kirschner
Mar 13, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner



Transcript

you're watching the legal breakdown
Glenn we've got a major Court ruling
against Donald Trump definitively which
you'll talk about in a moment one that
is going to eventually find its way up
to the US Supreme Court can you explain
what just happened yeah Brian very
quickly this case just got teed up to be
a major case before The Supreme Court in
the very near future and here's why you
know there have been a series of firings
by Donald Trump that have been flat out
unlawful and you don't have to take my
word for it because just as in the case
we're about to discuss Trump's doj
lawyers are actually going into court
and admitting they are unlawful but
they're saying we think the Constitution
ought to be changed and not give
Congress the authority to pass laws that
set fixed terms for executive branch
employees and say that those people
cannot be fired on a whim by an incoming
president they can only be fired for
good cause for neglect of Duty for
malfeasance in office and they can only
be fired after notice and a hearing but
lately Brian Donald Trump has been
firing people on a whim not for good
cause and without giving the them the
required opportunity for notice and a
hearing on the issue of their proposed
determination so in this case it is a
case that was brought by a woman who had
just been fired by Trump
unceremoniously no notice no no hearing
no um indication that she had fallen
down on her duties now what was she
doing well she was appointed as one of
three members of a board for the federal
labor relations Authority the FL she
gets a five-year term and Brian mind you
this is under a law that was passed by
Congress and signed into law by the
president and for nearly a hundred years
the Supreme Court has said yes this is
within the authority within the
Constitutional prerogatives of Congress
to put these people in place for five
years and and requiring by federal law
that they can't be removed except for
cause and now Trump one after another is
saying I don't care I'm violating the
law because I want to get these cases up
to the Supreme Court and I want the
Supreme Court to revisit the law and say
that I have complete and absolute
Authority and Congress can't tie my
hands by putting these qualifiers on
people who are working in the executive
branch so um this case was just resolved
and something called summary judgment
was entered what does that mean it means
that the judge the presiding judge judge
uh suknanan
in DC said okay I've heard enough I've
seen the briefs you've made your
arguments I don't even need to hold
evidentiary hearings because I am ruling
that this was an unlawful termination of
this member of the flr board and indeed
it was easy for the judge to reach that
conclusion Brian because even the doj
lawyers went into court and conceded
this was an unlawful termin but they say
we don't like the law and we want to try
to get this up to the Supreme Court so
they can change the law and give Donald
Trump nearly dictatorial power and just
give me one more minute because I really
want to read a little snippet of Judge
Suk nanan's opinion because it is
forceful it is direct and it is
unflinching the judge says the
government meaning the doj lawyers in
court the government vigorous defends
Miss grundman's Hasty termination Miss
grundman is the board member who was
unlawfully terminated and the lawyers
vigorously defend that termination
arguing that the president May remove
Federal officers on a whim and in doing
so override congress's considered
judgment the government the doj's
lawyers arguments paint with a broad
brush and threaten to upend fundamental
protection
in our constitution but ours is not an
autocracy it is a system of checks and
balances and then she puts an
exclamation point on that by saying we
abide by the Constitutional prerogative
of Congress to do this quote to save the
people from autocracy close quote it
doesn't get any more pointed than that
and Brian this case is now headed like a
rocket up to the Supreme Court I suspect
and Glenn in terms of the Supreme Court
being able to see this I mean you you
just said this is this is law this is
and I believe this is Humphrey's
executive is that the the case that this
is all based upon is that correct it is
it's the Humphrey's executive case kind
of a curious name for a Supreme Court
case it's 90 years old it was decided in
1935 and what it all boils down to is
humph was a an executive branch official
he claimed he was wrongfully terminated
and he died during the course of the
litigation of that wrongful termination
suit so his executive stepped in and
finished up the case and the Supreme
Court said no the Congress has the power
and the authority under our
constitutional separation of powers and
checks and balances they have the
authority to do this and Donald Trump
doesn't like it one bit I mean he is
forever sort of reaching for more and
more and more power and this judge
called him out and said the reason we
have the humph executive Supreme Court
ruling and other rulings that have
followed along those same lines is to
quote protect the people from autocracy
and here we are well in that in that you
know look I get that this Supreme Court
is not sympathetic to settled law right
like even though they they went on and
on about SAR decisis and how it was the
most important thing in the world and
they couldn't possibly touch um Row
versus Wade only only to do exactly that
once they actually get a seat on the
bench the difference is that row wasn't
wasn't protected by Statute it was a
supreme court precedent but but this has
been statute for almost a hundred years
and so how does the Supreme Court have
the ability have the right really to go
in and overturned statute without
Congress being the ones to change the
law you know what Brian's saying that
the Supreme Court is not fond of settled
law or they don't feel Bound by settled
law is probably a pretty dramatic
understatement as you just pointed out
in how they flip-flopped on Ro v Wade
versus Dos when they revoked women's
constitutional privacy rights to make
their own reproductive Health decisions
so you asked the question well what
might they do here with something that
has been settled for nearly a hundred
years you know it's anybody's guess um
and I wouldn't you know place my $1 bet
on how this case will turn out but
here's what I will say and we're always
looking for Points of Light the most
recent case where the Supreme Court had
to decide whether the Trump
administration had overstepped its
Authority had done something that the
law and the Constitution doesn't permit
um it was the US aid case where they had
stiffed Donald Trump's administration
had stiffed a bunch of contractors who
had submitted invoices for work already
performed or Goods already delivered to
the federal government under existing
contract that sounds that sounds like a
that sounds like a recurring theme in
Donald Trump's life yeah who would who
would have guessed that Donald Trump
would continue stiffing contractors when
he transitioned from being a businessman
to being president um but what did the
Supreme Court do well two justices
crossed over and joined the liberal
block it was chief justice Roberts and
Justice Amy Cony Barrett and they ruled
against Trump's expansive view of the
executives power and they said no
basically pay your damn bills that is a
good and and hopefully that's a good
sign and hopefully it's some
foreshadowing for how this Supreme Court
will now begin to assess Donald Trump's
determination to Forever expand the
power of the the chief executive so I am
very guardedly optimistic that they will
stick with nearly hundred year old
president and say no the Humphrey's
executive case the power of congress to
protect the people against autocracy In
This Very way will continue to survive
and hopefully Thrive because we need it
now more than ever Glenn I know that
this this case specifically was narrowly
focused on the plaintiff which is Susan
grundman at uh at the federal labor
relations Authority but there are other
folks in analogous positions who've been
fired who who could make the same claim
here so does this precedent um count
only toward uh this one plaintiff or is
there a way to to more broadly have it
so that this precedent applies to all
folks who are in a similar position yeah
great question so let me unpack that a
little bit first of all this this is a
trial court decision by one federal
district court judge judge Suk nanan um
so that doesn't serve as precedent now
it can be persuasive because the
rationale that this judge used could
certainly be adopted and used by other
judges who as you're saying are
literally involved in litigation
involving not just analogous but almost
identical cases and here's the thing
Brian judge suknanan actually
acknowledges that in her written opinion
she says look Congress has this
authority to set terms for executive
branch officials to require that they
can only be removed for cause not on a
whim and only after notice and a hearing
and what have we seen in the last couple
of months we've seen inspectors General
who enjoy those same Congressional
protections under the law terminated at
will violating federal law there's a
special counsel who's actually sort of
an overseer of many of the inspectors
General who was terminated who enjoys
some of those same legal protections for
his position so the answer to your
question is um in part yes this will be
seen as persuasive Authority because it
involves identical facts and identical
protections put in place by Congress
that the Supreme Court has consistently
ruled are lawful and constitutional
exercises of congress's power so I have
a feeling this rationale though it's not
technically precedent because president
is only set in the appell at courts it
will serve as what I like to call
atmospheric precedent and it will be an
important consideration in all of the
lawsuits brought by similarly situated
wrongfully terminated executive branch
officials which brings me to my next
Point shouldn't other folks who've been
wrongfully terminated see this decision
being handed down and shouldn't this be
an impetus to bring suit against him if
they haven't already yes but remember
lots and lots and lots tens of thousands
of the people who are being wrong
wrongfully terminated like probationary
employees and so some prosecutors who
worked on j6 cases um they are not um
benefiting from these Congressional
statutes that give protections only to
very specific right um members of the
executive branch like inspectors General
like members of certain boards like the
flr the board we're discussing here and
a handful of others so it's actually a
limited Universe of people who um have
those protection under the law but all
of them who are wrongfully terminated
I'm with you should look at this should
be emboldened and should be encouraged
to bring suits of their own if they
haven't already many have for their
wrongful termination is there a world in
which all of these folks can come
together if they are if they are at
least protected under under the same
general statute that they can come
together for a class action
lawsuit okay I am not a civil litigator
and I've never put a class together in a
civil litigation case so with that
caveat my sort of informed opinion
knowing what I know about class action
litigation is probably not because there
are different statutes in place that
govern different executive branch
employees if it's you're An Inspector
General you're going to be covered by
one federal statute if you're a member
of the flr another so you could probably
join in with like mini classes but I
don't I don't see all wrong ful
terminated executive branch officials
being collected up in one class action
civil suit but I will leave that for the
experts look class action suit or or
individual suit I think the the point
here Remains the Same which is that um
clearly there is there is some positive
reinforcement for these folks who are
looking to take legal action against
Trump this case right here with uh with
Susan grundman is a testament to exactly
that and so I hope that folks who have
been wrongfully terminated can see
what's happening in the courts right now
and can take action so that they aren't
wrongfully terminated so that the
government isn't staffed with only
people who are going to be um uh loyal
to Donald Trump and that we have some
folks who can serve as bullworks against
the worst excesses of this
Administration so look we will continue
to focus on this as we said in the
beginning this is very likely to make
its way all the way up to the Supreme
Court so we'll stay on top of it uh for
those who are watching if you want to
follow along and if you want to support
our work and Independent Media more
broadly please make sure to subscribe
the links to both of our channels are
right here on this screen Glenn is fast
on his way to a million subscribers so
if you haven't subscribed to his channel
yet please make sure to hit the
Subscribe button I'm Brian terer Cohen
and I'm Glenn kersner you're watching
the legal breakdown
[Music]