The DOGE Race to the Courthouse

Docket Numbers 164, 165, 166, and 167.

It is inauguration day. That means it is time to sue an entity that doesn't yet exist! According to Lawfare, four separate suits were filed to stop DOGE. But who was first in the race to the Courthouse? We can tell based on the docket numbers.

Docket 1:25-cv-164 was brought by Public Citizen, State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the American Federation of Government Employees.

Docket 1:25-cv-165 was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Docket 1:25-cv-166 was brought by National Security Counselors.

Docket 1:25-cv-167 was brought by American Public Health Association, American Federation of Teachers, Minority Veterans of America, Votevets Action Fund, The Center for Auto Safety, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Let's see which judges receives these four cases.

As of yet, no suit based on the Emoluments Clauses. It's coming.

Comments

[homunculuz]

The Center for Biological Diversity suit is the only one I looked at. It is a FOIA suit against OMB for failing to respond to a request for records involving communications between DOGE or individuals associated with that (non) entity and OMB. It is not a lawsuit against DOGE. Oh well.

[O Tempora]

Anybody care to comment on standing, ripeness, or other preliminary issues?

[Longtobefree]

Nope.
I will comment that it is a lot of lawsuits because a couple of rich guys post on social media about cutting waste and spending in DC.
People have been doing that since way back when you had to send a letter to your congressman.

[A Japanese Student]

Surprisingly, the plaintiffs might have standing (to the extent they seek compliance with FACA rather than dissolution). Plaintiffs are injured because lack of compliance means they cannot attend hearings or seek information. See also Public Citizen v. DOJ, 491 US 440 (holding that Public Citizen had standing to seek disclosure of ABA's documents on judicial nominee consultations; rejected FACA claims on the merits)

[John F. Carr]

The lawsuits were filed too early. You have to give Trump a chance to break the law before you can sue him.

[John F. Carr]

Federal Advisory Committee Act section 9: "No advisory committee shall meet or take any action until an advisory committee charter has been filed".

Section 10 says the advisory committee must work in the open and meetings shall be open to the public. A designated officer of the federal government must attend each meeting and may adjourn the meeting if doing so is "in the public interest."

[Longtobefree]

Advisory committee? What advisory committee?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Cabinet

[John F. Carr]

The Federal Advisory Committee Act dates to 1972. It was intended to control the proliferation of advisory committees.

[MollyGodiva]

It has already been established. Making sure it confirms to the law is legitimate.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/

[Martinned2]

And here I was thinking that only Congress could create new government departments.

[John F. Carr]

Congress authorized the President to create such organizations. Trump can ask Musk and company to advise him on how to cut waste, drill baby drill, render transgender athletes into candle wax, or almost anything he can imagine. The condition of such grant of authority is the advisory committee has to operate in the open and be subject to executive branch oversight.

https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/federal-advisory-committee-management/legislation-and-regulations/federal-advisory-committee-act

[Caphon]

The Center for Auto Safety, eh?

[MoreCurious]

I see you still haven't mastered the art of proofreading, Professor. Maybe one of your students could give you a hand.