The American People vs the Trump Administration

A very useful resource for those interested in the many lawsuits challenging one or another Trump Administration outrage

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse has an extremely useful compilation showing the current progress in all cases challenging Trump Administration policies filed to date.  The website is here.  [There is also a separate site for cases involving, but not challenging, Trump policies.] [I'm told that students at the University of Michigan Law School are responsible for keeping these sites up to date - kudos to them]

By my count, there are 28 separate cases** in which a TRO or a Preliminary Injunction has been issued against the government's implementation of its policies.

**Six cases involve challenges to Trump's patently (and rather embarrassingly) unconstitutional Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship, six involve challenges to employment actions, two involve DOGE access to government information, four involve Trump Administration policies regarding transgender rights, one involves immigration policy, eight challenge various aspects of the Spending Freeze(s), and one involves Trump Administration policies dismantling DEI initiatives.

Wow! Of course, we all know that TROs and PIs are not adjudications on the merits of any case; they do not involve a determination the Administration's actions have been unlawful.

But still . . . TROs and PIs do require judges to find that there is a "substantial likelihood" that the challenge will succeed, on the merits - i.e., that the challenger will be able to show that the government has behaved unlawfully.  Twenty-eight judges have done so - 28! Surely, it's a record - 28 restraining orders in five weeks!

I know, I know - "That's why we elected him!! Break everything down! Smash everything!! Get rid of all that stupid 'rule of law' nonsense!! No man who saves his country is violating the law!!"

Maybe so. But I kind of liked that rule of law nonsense, where Presidents were supposed to follow the law, like everyone else. It served us pretty well, over the last 250 years.  Such a shame to see it go. I think we'll miss it when it's gone.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about JUDGES following the rules?!?

How are National Injunctions possibly legal?

Ans I think we need to start impeaching judges.

[David Post]

Dr. Ed 2: Impeaching judges? Why not throw them in jail? That'll send the right message, don't you think?

[bernard11]

Or running them over with snowplows.

[Stella Link the dog]

Or stuffing them into wood chippers. Or even better, running them over with wood chippers.

Some time ago, I saw a British comedy/dark satire* in which the Prime Minister (played by Rory Kinnear, if my memory is correct) was induced to screw a pig on live TV in order to prevent some sort of a terrorist event. That was too much even for me so I didn't watch any more episodes. Perhaps the arrant pogues masquerading as judges could be subjected to a similar humiliation. John Roberts, for example. Screw a pig on live TV or we'll tell the world that you have two adopted children.

*Just found it by searching for "Rory Kinnear screws a pig." The series was titled "Black Mirror" the episode, "The National Anthem." 2011.

[Malika the Maiz]

Bizzare.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Screw a pig on live TV or we'll tell the world that you have two adopted children."

I'm trying to figure out in what world that's actually a threat. I mean, it's right there in his Wikipedia page, and why the heck would he want to hide it if it wasn't?

[Stella Link the dog]

"I'm trying to figure out in what world that's actually a threat. "

It is what is known in the world of us normies, a joke. Perhaps you are unaware of the crackpot conspiracy theory of Roberts being blackmailed into reaching the wrong conclusion in the Affordable Care Act case.

[neurodoc]

Professor Post, you realize, don't you, that Mr. Ed, the talking horse's behind has never been admitted to the bar anywhere, let alone attend a day of law school, even the humblest. And it is usually necessary for David Nieporent to rejoined to Mr. Ed's from-his-backside usually hateful and/or ignorant comments and escort him direct him back to his Augean Stable stall.

[Riva]

Wow. Some democrats and their lackey activists found some activist district court judges to issue illegal TROs. Let them have their little fun. It will be over after some adult judges reverse this nonsense. And that will happen soon, now that the clowns have started this process, and then they'll have nothing but fake town halls paid for and organized by more leftist activists.

[SRG2]

"Activist judge" = "judge who rules the wrong way"

[damikesc]

Trump needs to ignore their laughable rulings.

[y81]

Rule of law? Like when presidents said, "The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn't stop me. I'm going to keep going."

[David Post]

y81: What are you thinking of?

[Frank Drackman]

Following the Law? Like Barry Hussein Osama? how did he not follow the Law, let me count the ways, OK, I guess his re-igniting the Afghan ("Good") War without a formal Declaration of War is par for the course, but his 1: NLRB appointments in 2014 (I know, "Who gives a Fuck?" I do, so did the Surpremes 9-0 Beeotches) 2: Profiling of such radical groups as "Support Israel" "Tea Party Patriots" and "MAGA Blumpkins"
Seriously, except for getting re-erected, Barry Hussein is the biggest Fuck Up since Jimmuh Cartuh, when 8 were killed in "Operation Eagle Claw" while only 3 died in BHO's Benghazzi dissaster (you know how crazy those Moose-lums get if you draw a comic of Moe-Hammed)
I've actually grown to like BHO, nobody loves a Bullshitter like another Bullshitter, that Photo of him and "47" laughing their asses off....

Frank

[ReaderY]

Uhhh…just on your first point…Are you by any chance aware that Congress had passed a Use of Force authorization under Obama’s predecessor, a Republican by the name of George Bush? I find myself curious what your basis for claiming Obama acted unconstitutionally by simply continuing a war specifically authorized by Congress and started under his predecessor. It’s not like troops weren’t already there and deployed when he took office. Also, are by any chance aware of why the war started? Or are you just too patriotic an American for the date 9/11/2001 to have any meaning or significance to you?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

President Biden said that when he found a second legal way to do something. The courts regularly block one method & leave open other methods.

[MollyGodiva]

That is too complicated for MAGAs to understand and kills their excuse for Trump doing what ever he wants.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Joe Biden : BOTTOM 10 of his law school class.
Is more lazy than stupid ? What does it matter?
He wasted so muich time and money on Tution Forgiveness and nobody points out he made that problem WORSE

[Brett Bellmore]

"President Biden said that when he found a second legal way to do something."

Nah, looking at his tuition forgiveness efforts, he said that when he'd found a second illegal way to do something.

[Sarcastr0]

BrettLaw has spoken.

[Doug Heffernan]

Despite some ups and downs, democracy and the rule of law had a good run. It's too soon to tell how the replacements will fare.

[Devin Watkins]

28 TROs doesn't mean 28 judges. One judge could issue 28 TROs. Now I know its not just one judge, but still.... And it doesn't show that these actions are unlawful, just that some judge thinks they might be. The real question will be are those judge's actions going to be upheld on appeal once they issue a PI. Then we can talk.

[David Post]

Devin Watkins: Just for the record, while you're of course correct that all 28 TROs/PIs could have been issued by a single judge, there were, by my count, 28 SEPARATE actions in which these orders were issued. But yes - when there are some final judgments, we'll talk more. 🙂

[Devin Watkins]

I didn't say final judgment, Trump may not still be in office when that occurs. I said after appeal of the PI. Lets see if the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court wish to step in on a temporary basis at least. That should take a few months to work out.

[Brett Bellmore]

In any case, even 28 judges are hardly "the American people".

[damikesc]

So, 900 federal judges are above Trump in terms of control of the Executive Branch?

Seems like a bad system.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

So, Mr. Post, you are in favor of unelected judges who have overturned the actions of an elected President without even the chimera of an show trial where evidence is presented??? And you claim to be a libertarian? You are describing a judicial coup. What a hack.

[David Post]

Calm down, Ghost of Patrick Henry! The judges have NOT 'overturned' any actions by an elected president. They have issued TEMPORARY Restraining Orders or PRELIMINARY Injunctions. There will be a full trial, where both sides get to present their evidence and make their arguments. All the courts have determined so far is that there is a "substantial likelihood" that the challenges will succeed.

[rswallen]

What's the general thought process for deciding whether a challenge has a "substantial likelihood" of succeeding on the merits?

[bernard11]

"unelected judges?"

Who elected Elon Musk?

[tennvol]

I'm amazed every time someone asks this moronic question. Trump told everyone what Musk was going to do BEFORE the election. Then, the majority of voters elected Trump. Do you see the connection?

Note: I am neither supporting nor defending Musk or Trump, just calling out the idiocy of this particular statement.

[David Nieporent]

I'm amazed every time someone asks this moronic question. Trump told everyone what Musk was going to do BEFORE the election.

Only in the vaguest terms. And indeed Trump denied that Project 2025 was his agenda.

Then, the majority of voters elected Trump.

They in fact did not.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The voters elected a supermajority that passed ACA which was then signed by POTUS after over a year of deliberation and compromise but darn if that didn't convince many people around here. A "majority of the voters" wasn't enough. There needed to be a bipartisan supermajority, a supermajority alone not enough.

[ThePublius]

David, that's kind of pointless, since we don't elect the President via the popular vote, but by the electoral college; and Trump did, indeed, get a majority of the electors.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And indeed Trump denied that Project 2025 was his agenda."

And I explained, in words of as few syllables as I could manage, the difference between saying that a thousand page document isn't your agenda, and saying "I'm going to actively avoid doing every last thing in it."

[David Post]

tennvol: I'm amazed every time someone asks this moronic question. Trump told everyone what Musk was going to do BEFORE the election. Then, the majority of voters elected Trump. Do you see the connection?
Actually, no. Trump said a million things about what he was going to do once he was in office - take over the Panama Canal, buy Greenland, bring prices down, cure cancer, deport 12 million immigrants, brings the crime rate down, whatever. That doesn't mean he has some sort of ridiculous "mandate" to accomplish those things illegally.
Elon Musk is a private citizen of no special standing other than as the head of some ill-defined (and not statutorily authorized) advisory committee. If Trump wants to invest Musk with executive power, he has to submit his name to the Senate for confirmation. Or make him an employee of the executive branch. It's not that freaking complicated.

[damikesc]

Who elected anybody EXCEPT the President?

You did not elect anybody who works for the IRS. Literally not one single one.

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty sure that at least 71.6% of the members of Congress were elected.

[damikesc]

The issue is that "unelected" people have access to IRS info. Which has been the case from the beginning of the income tax. It is, literally, nothing new.

[MollyGodiva]

How else are illegal acts by the President going to be rectified?

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s actually quite common in libertarian thought to be skeptical of elected officials and look to the judiciary to check them when rights are at stake.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hmmm... Any chance you could specify the "rights" that are, supposedly, "at stake"? I bet none of them involve anything that a libertarian would recognize as a legitimate function of government. (In other words, I bet you're full of shit.)

[Brett Bellmore]

And it's pretty common in libertarian thought to excoriate the judiciary for blessing those elected officials' crimes against the Constitution and their own ventures into subverting it.

[mikeybates]

Is it "the American people"? Have these judges consulted "the American people"? I haven't seen any evidence that "the American people" are (for example) desperate for federal workers to remain forever in make-work jobs or for taxpayer money to be spent "promoting atheism in Nepal."

I think we're going to see some of the limits of the institutional power of courts, like during the school busing era. Courts are better stopping the government doing something than making it do something (e.g., spend money, re-hire someone, give someone an important job). Many employees will be paid but won't be reinstated. And even if they are reinstated, then what? Can they be given an important duties, or reassigned to something unimportant? How will courts enforce any of this?

In any case, all of this is part of running a government, running a business, etc. The cost of litigation is baked in.

[ReaderY]

Congress, which in this country represents the American People, specifically authorized departments and programs that Musk, an unelected outsider, attempted to shut down with no authority to do so.

Sure, every dictator’s shill claims the dictator represents the people and the elected representatives don’t. But our country fought a revolution to get rid of dictators. And their shills.

Musk is charging the American people upwards of 8 million dollars a day to have a bunch of near-teenagers who don’t know shit fire critical government workers only to have to hire them back the next day.

If just rolled up that 8 million dollars a day and smoked it rather than keep giving it to clueless clowns who keep roaming around doing nothing but smashing all the china and then charging us to replace it when we discover it’s broken, we’d all be a lot better off.

[damikesc]

Where is your citation of 8M a day, given that they work for free?

[MollyGodiva]

When the administration takes action without regards to the legality, you get TROs. Kinda expected.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Well said, Prof. Post. Thank you!

[Lee Moore]

My prediction is that these cases will finish up at about 14-14.

Roberts calls balls and strikes on a one for you, one for you basis. Kavanaugh and Barrett will play along.

[santamonica811]

Lee,
Is your underlying point:
1. Trump should lose all of these cases, but SCOTUS will "give" Trump about 14 wins that he really doesn't legally deserve? Or,
2. Trump should win all these cases, but SCOTUS will give about 14 loses that he doesn't legally deserve? Or,
3. You have looked at all of these cases so far, you've determined that Trump should--on the merits--win about half the time; and you think that SCOTUS will correctly rule accordingly?

I can't tell from your post which of the above three you believe to be accurate.

[Lee Moore]

4. None of the above

I have no underlying point, just a right on the surface point - ie precisely what I said.

[santamonica811]

If I understand you correctly; you are saying, "Roberts does not have integrity as a judge/Justice. Regardless of the individual merits in these various cases, he'll split the baby in half so that Trump will win about half and lose about half. And Kav and Barr have such little integrity (backbone??) that they both will go along with this."

If that was your main point...obviously, I hope it turns out that you're wrong. I guess that time will tell. (Well, it will tell us the results...the true motivations of these 3 Justices will be known only to themselves and to God(s). )

[Lee Moore]

As you say, none of us has a window into another man’s soul.

And I certainly wouldn’t say that “judicial integrity” is a contradiction in terms. As such.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: judicial integrity
from the introduction to A patriot's history of the United States (2004):
Personal liberties in America are genuine because of the character of honest judges...who, for the most part, still make up the judiciary...

[Lee Moore]

I looked up how many federal judges had been appointed since 2004. The answer is almost all of them.

Not that there was a dire shortage of dishonest ones appointed before then.

[Lee Moore]

So as far as I’m aware we now have 2 SCOTUS procedural rulings / non rulings.

The Trumpy attempt to nix the TRO on firing the Special Counsel guy fell into the “abeyance” hole. Win for anti-Trumpies.

But the District Judge order to “spend that damn USAID money right now !” has been stayed. Win for Trumpies.

1-1 bottom of the 1st.

[Jrconde]

Judges entering TROs proves that we have abandoned the rule of law? QED!

[Roger S]

Yes, this is just Trump-hater lawfare, obstructing the will of the people.

[Malika the Maiz]

Both and the same for Rog.

[David Nieporent]

"The will of the people" is fascist speak. There is no "the people" that have a collective will.

[Juliana Frink]

"'The will of the people' is fascist speak." is fascist speak.

FIFY

[VinniUSMC]

The American People vs the Trump Administration

Yeah, Post is such a fascist.

Or, Dave (DMN) is just a tired TDS-addled hasbeen, along with other Dave (Post).

[Riva]

"The American People vs the Trump Administration"? Uh no. Some democrats, some government unions, and some well funded activists. I guess we could call them all "some democrats" and just save time. Whatever they are, they're not representative of the American people, not in this country at least or any part of N. America come to think of it.

[Longtobefree]

Funny thing, on my timeline Trump got a majority of the popular vote AND won the electoral college.
So more like Trump and the American People against a few federal judges.

Time to carefully review the flag of The Commonwealth of Virginia.

[Estragon]

“on my timeline Trump got a majority of the popular vote”

I was unaware of this. Can you provide a citation? My impression was that the majority of people who cast ballots voted for someone other than Trump.

[santamonica811]

I assume Long mis-typed, and meant to put "plurality."

[damikesc]

No, majority. I do not buy the numbers from CA that took over a month to count the votes. Seems unbelievably non-trustworthy. So I do not.

[Vryedni]

So on the sole authority of your feels you reject certified election results, substitute results you imagine, and present them as fact. You're a very serious person.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

But someone other is not one person. LOGIC FAIL

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

All ALL swing states went Trump's way....every demographic except for 1 (maybe 2 if we quibble) went his way. Voter regret now is HUGE against Kamala, for edited interviews, massive wasteful spending, and lack of honesty on her interior polling, and her unintentional admission that she was fully in on Biden's view of things.

So, you are trying to make a mathematical case that flies against LOGIC. The US loves Trump, the US hates Kamala and Biden

[David Nieporent]

All ALL swing states went Trump's way.

This is a weird MAGA tic I encounter a bunch on social media. They argue that Trump won the Electoral College and the swing states, as if those were two separate things that should make his victory count more, rather than one and the same.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was reported as a majority for a long while after the election, perhaps he didn't update after California finally finished counting FIVE FREAKING WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you tell us about how you ended up in our timeline? What else is different where you’re from?

This sounds a lot more interesting than the usual partisan mud slinging!

[ReadMore]

Another David "Old Man Yells at Cloud" post. And another implicit endorsement of Richard Fleischer's narrative about retirees' nutritive value being their highest attribute.

[Whitey51]

Professor Post, some feedback.
I read the Volokh Conspiracy for information I can't get elsewhere, such as speculations on the internal politics of the Supreme Court, reports of interesting state court cases, and reports of debates on constitutional law within the academy. Typically the posts provide information I can't get elsewhere from posters that have far more expertise on the specific issues than I have, as well as much better sources of information.
On the other hand, I don't read the VC to read general comments on the political scene such as 95% of this post, which gleefully reports all these TROs, without giving any analysis or detailed explanation of the pros and cons of any one of them. I can get that kind of commentary elsewhere, and in my experience academics aren't more intelligent commenters than anyone else on general social and political issues.
Others may find more value in your posts, and of course you are under no obligation to post anything other than what you feel like posting. But if you are hoping to impress or enlighten your readers, you are failing with me. I'll let others express their own agreement or disagreement.
I'll close with a question for you: you joined the VC recently. Why? What do you hope to achieve?

[Doug Heffernan]

I find his posts useful. He's the only one on VC making posts of this particular sort, so it you find them redundant it should be easy enough for you not to read his posts if the title of the post seems like the content is unlikely to impress or enlighten you.

I didn't know that there was an actively maintained collection of the TROs that have been filed. That's useful, if not impressive or enlightening.

[Lee Moore]

1. I don't think he joined the VC recently. Though he is a somewhat occasional poster.

2. He generally posts with a fairly spicy emotional flavor. I for one am quite content with some of the VC posters being a bit emotional. It would be a duller place if everyone stuck to grey, sober, nerdy lawyerishness.

3. On this occasion - well for the past couple of weeks - he has got it into his head that the sky is falling. I don't think it is - it looks to me as if it's having no difficulty in staying up. But when a VC poster does think the sky is falling, I don't think he is being unreasonable if he chooses to mention his fears.

[santamonica811]

A fair point.

[neurodoc]

No, Professor Post didn't join the VC recently, and unlike you, many of us appreciate what he contributes here. If you find his contributions a waste of your time, then surely you are aware of the easy choice you have.

[David Post]

Whitey51
I hear what you're saying, and I'm sorry you don't find my posts useful or enlightening. Many people don't, and a fair number of people do.
Let me tell you a bit about why I write for this blog. It's not to impress anyone, that's for sure. It's to be able to look my grandchildren in the face, 10 years down the line, and say: Well, I did what I could.
Let's take this particular post as an example. For one this, the resource I pointed to is INCREDIBLY valuable to any of the lawyers out there who are trying to follow the pushback against Trump in the courts. So it was worth informing people, on either side of the arguments, about that.
And I think that 26 TROs against a President in the first month in office is an astonishing and unprecedented fact, and we should all be thinking about what it means for the country.
And actually, I'm one of the first people Eugene asked to join the VC back at the very beginning - a charter member as it were. Doesn't mean I'm not a schmuck, but just for the record.

[David Post]

And you got me thinking about this ... We are, obviously, a legal blog, mostly lawyers and lawprofs talking to one another. The country is in a crisis - as Lee Moore nicely put it, I HAVE gotten it into my head that the sky is falling. I don't know whether you want to call it a "political" crisis or a "legal" crisis - it has elements of both. It is a "constitutional crisis"; we have elected a President who does not believe he is bound by the laws and/or the Constitution of the United States, and we are going to see how that plays out.
It seems to me that this blog should be talking about that, because - and again, I could be wrong about this - when people look back on 2025 in 10 years or 50 years, THAT is what they'll see as the most important thing happening in this country. By far.
So I'm going to keep talking about it, because otherwise it looks like we have just succumbed to the incessant drumbeat of illegality.

[damikesc]

You know you're a fucking moron, right?

[Vryedni]

As a long time (≈20 yrs) reader of this blog, and another erstwhile professional musician, I've always appreciated, if not necessarily agreed with your posts. Don't stop now.

There's little most of us can do to keep this dark poisonous sky from falling. You're at least doing something. Thank you for that. I wish I could say I was doing as much.

[David Post]

Thanks, Vryedni.

[RAM]

Every one of these cases were filed by Democrat activists not normal people as the title implies. How many of these were heard by non-Democrat judges because based on my reading the answer is ZERO? I recall a lot of this warfare in the first Trump term and almost all of them wound up being decided in his favor once it got into appeal.

[santamonica811]

However and whatever your delusional brain chooses to remember & interpret the Trump One times is beyond the ken of any of us here. A psychiatrist, methinks, is your best hope.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Which statistically makes the case that they were not in the public interest at all.

[David Nieporent]

Seriously, you realize that any intelligent person who encounters someone using "Democrat" as an adjective just tunes you out as being useless, right?

[Juliana Frink]

Seriously, your assertion about "any intelligent person" clearly establishes you as a quintessential pompous ass. You are a joke. I fart in your general direction.

[Commenter_XY]

But I kind of liked that rule of law nonsense, where Presidents were supposed to follow the law, like everyone else. It served us pretty well, over the last 250 years. Such a shame to see it go. I think we'll miss it when it's gone.

What a diva.

[VinniUSMC]

Long TDS. Bureaucracy dies in daylight!

[DixieTune]

Had Biden and Obama been following the "rule of law," your complaints may not be ringing as hollow as they are here.

[JKillion]

"... rule of law ... shame to see it go ..." Aren't TRO's part of the law? Has he violated (yet) any of the TRO's? If that should happen, even MAGA's will agree that he's in the wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there could be some breathing room between "the rule of judges" and "the rule of law", since judges are just as capable as executives or legislators of acting arbitrarily in defiance of the formal rules of law.

[David Post]

jkillion: "... rule of law ... shame to see it go ..." Aren't TRO's part of the law? Has he violated (yet) any of the TRO's? If that should happen, even MAGA's will agree that he's in the wrong.
From your lips to God's ear. My guess is that it will be greeted with another shrug of the shoulders. Remember, this the guy who said: "No one who saves his country has violated the law."

[damikesc]

Which is why he should ignore these courts and let them try and enforce their asinine rulings.

He won't...but he should.

[Lee Moore]

Welcome to America, David ! Your English is excellent, congratulations !

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

This is our - now also your - nation’s founding document. Have a quick skim, you’ll be surprised. This nation was founded by revolutionaries, lawbreakers and traitors.The idea that he who saves a nation breaks no law is woven into the founding fabric of our Republic.

[Incunabulum]

Treason never prospers.

Because if treason prospers none dare call it treason.

[MaddogEngineer]

Endless tribal derangement, in this case the presumptuous of pretending these lawsuits speak for "The American People" v Trump administration.

Liberal lawfare mentality at its finest misrepresenting the law as politics, ignoring the reality that plaintiffs in these cases, for them to be actual cases and controversies, require particular persons. Much more satisfying to pretend that the martyr(s) in question actually represent the greater good of "The American People". Like being against mom and apple pie. The rule of law is whatever they say it is, and definitely not whatever Trump does.

Funny how quickly these same people object when MAGA claims to speak for "The American People". (Personally, as a Never-Trumper, I'm also opposed to such delusions of grandeur.)

[David Post]

You make an interesting and a fair point.
But I do think that the ability for individuals to go into a courtroom and challenge the actions of the government is one of the hallmarks of our system, and it is one way that "the People" get to assert their claims (good and bad).
MAGA does speak for "the American People," because he is my - our - president, as ghastly as that seems. I am implicated when he, for instance, throws Ukraine under the bus - that's an act taken by "the American people," because we empowered him to take acts on our behalf and in our name. So I wanted to twist that idea around a little bit in the title. Not the worst of my crimes against language.

[damikesc]

Any thoughts on being wrong as all hell in regards to Ukraine policy?

Not sending billions of dollars to one of the most corrupt regimes in the world is not something that should continue regardless.

[Vryedni]

Here are my thoughts. Thanks to Trump doing all he can to pull our support from Ukraine, smearing Zelensky, fluffing Putin, standing behind Russia at the U.N., lying about all of it, i.e., just generally throwing a democratic ally to the tender mercies of a genocidal tyrant, we are now unequivocally the bad guys. Trump is an evil, demagogic dictator wannabe. If you support him and what he's doing, you're a bad person. And that's my sanitized, overly polite version.

[Incunabulum]

Which genocidal tyrant?

Because Trump is supporting Israel *against* Hamas.

[Vryedni]

I'm obviously talking about Russia and Ukraine, not Hamas and Israel.

[Incunabulum]

We haven't had 'rule of law' for a while.

Which is why no one trusts the judiciary. 28 judges might be all right - or they might be partisan hacks looking to kill something procedurally or at least slow it down long enough for the entrenched state interests to take action.

You can't tell anymore which is which and a lot of people are no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[David Post]

Armchair: you're missing the forest for the trees. When did a judge say that the Treasury Dept's own contractors weren't allowed to do basic maintenance on the system?? Can you provide some sort of citation for that?

[Armchair]

Sure...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609.6.0.pdf...

Specifically

"the defendants are (i) restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department payment record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training called for in federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations"

More specifically, an IT contractor is not a civil servant. Even if the contractors are responsible for the basic maintenance on the system. Thus, they wouldn't not be allowed access under this TRO.

It's pretty clear cut.

[MollyGodiva]

That TRO has nothing to do with contractors. It is about keeping DOGEbags out of sensitive systems.

[Drewski]

If that were an issue they'd just move to have the TRO modified. It's just a problem you've imagined.

[Kleppe]

Oops, David Post has stopped replying!

[Armchair]

It doesn't matter what it meant to do. It matters what it does. And as written, it shuts out the contractors, because they are not civil servants.

It's why poorly thought out, rushed TROs that have ideological bents are bad ideas. They do more damage than they stop.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Molly ,are you now claiming to know what is sensitive and what isn't? People like you kept John Kennedy's gay life out of the press.

John F Kennedy and his gay “best friend”, Lem Billings
I didn't vote for him anyway. Bay of Pigs, the most disastrous kowtowing to tyranny in my lifetime
It gave us harry Jaffa, a really risable result

>> Harry Jaffa: But in any case, the -- my reason for changing my registration from Democrat to Republican, I did that after the Bay of Pigs, when I was disgusted with Kennedy for having -- he -- and the missile crisis was a direct result of his meeting with Khrushch

[Malika the Maiz]

How about rushed EOs that have an ideological bent?

[MollyGodiva]

Ya....no. DOGE people are not contractors (which have well defined responsibilities and must comply with all department regulations). These are DOGE people, who have no need for the data, do not have the proper privacy training, and do not abide by any regulations. The TRO was the right thing to do to preserve the status quo while the case proceeds.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

still there is no principle in what you say, it is Utilitarian through and through, exactly like most TRO's are

[Armchair]

Glad you mentioned it...they did move to have the TRO modified. So, it was an issue.

Why did the issue occur? Because it was poorly thought out, rushed TRO with an ideological bent. The judge was so busy "stopping DOGE at any cost" that he couldn't be bothered to think through the rational. They needed to call in a second judge to modify it, as to not break the payment system.

Glad you think it was an issue. Perhaps the judges should be more "restrained" and "limited" in their ambitious TROs to avoid such issues in the future.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-sdny-clarifies-its-temporary-9832969/#:~:text=In%20its%20February%2011%20order,appointees%20and%20special%20government%20employees.

[Armchair]

EOs are not court orders. And just about every EO has an ideological bent.

[Armchair]

You're having an issue reading.

The question isn't whether or not DOGE people are contractors or not.

The question is whether contractors are civil servants. By the terms of the TRO, ONLY civil servants were allowed access to the systems. Nobody else. Didn't matter if they were DOGE or not.

[David Nieporent]

And every TRO is "rushed," by definition.

[David Nieporent]

Again: all TROs are rushed; that's inherent in the concept. and they didn't "need to call in a second judge." That was the judge assigned to the case, who took over once there was more notice.

[damikesc]

The dude who leaked Trump's tax returns actually leaked 405,000. And Biden gave him a sweetheart deal for virtually no punishment whatsoever for it.

Just sayin'.

[David Post]

Armchair: As I said before, you're missing the forest for the trees.

You make a reasonable point: 3d-party contractors who are needed to maintain the system should be allowed to have access. Presumably, they have to comply with various rules, and make various undertakings, about not disclosing any information to anyone]
This is not the first time I have seen a TRO that has a glitch in it, and I suspect if Trump lawyers came back to court and explained that non-civil-servants need access to these systems, the judge would understand.
It's not - really - a big deal. What is a big deal is that the Administration wants to allow a whole bunch of non-civil servants and non-contractors, REGARDLESS of whether or not they've made any reps and warranties about unauthorized disclosure, to go into the systems. Have at it, guys!! Maybe the judge was a little over-inclusive in deciding what the scope of the TRO should be, but that's not something that should keep anyone up at night. What should keep everyone up at night is that without the TRO Trump and Musk's minions were downloading your personal tax information onto their machines.

[David Nieporent]

Biden did not give him any deal, and he got five years in prison, which is not "virtually no punishment."

[Rubbish!]

That's nearly 7 minutes in the pokey for every leaked return!

[damikesc]

He was charged with ONE count. Not the 8000 they originally claimed nor the 405,000 actual number.

Biden was "in charge" (snicker) of the Executive Branch. Biden gave him that deal.