🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: OMgosh....Dellinger's attorneys file ridiculous Motion to Dismiss as Moot Dellinger's lawsuit in desperate attempt to have court decision's vacated (as precursor to having D.C. Appellate Decision vacated). 1/
3/ Correction: This was filed in the Court of Appeals which makes it even worse!! This appeal isn't "moot" because Dellinger doesn't want to fight any more.
You gotta love it: Plaintiffs submits to court statement of how much is owed for work performed & notes that, oh, yeah, well we also sought an advance. And then further says we can't tell you how much yet because of logistical issues--after complaining Trump didn't immediately 1/
2/ pay. Also note this is basically evidence of invoices for $1.5 million supposedly due & yet district court initially ordered Trump Administration to within 24 hours pay $2 BILLION in grants/contracts.
3/ This again highlights issue w/ these various cases: Courts were entering TROs without delving into whether Plaintiffs established an actual violation to them regarding their grant/contract, etc. and without being specific of who must be paid & how much.
🧵I'm reposting this with a little thread to explain because it really is important to understand what is going on here. As backdrop: Dellinger was the Special Counsel whom Trump fired. A district court ordered him reinstated temporarily 1/
2/ The district court then entered final judgment declaring Dellinger WAS Special Counsel & couldn't be fired by Trump unless Trump jumped through statutory hopes. Trump then sought stay of order meaning wanted Dellinger to be considered fired during his appeal.
3/ On Wednesday, Court of Appeals entered the stay, saying Dellinger was considered fired for purposes of appeal, noting Government established high burden to get that stay meaning Government likely to win. Court of Appeals entered stay & said decision w/ reasons to come later.
🚨Hearing to start in about 10. I'll be live posting. There are two issues before court today: 1) Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the TRO; and 2) Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. If Court is wise, he will start with preliminary injunction b/c those arguments 1/
2/ will establish Judge lacks authority to enter an order to enforce the TRO that Judge had previously entered, namely an order directing government to pay the grants. Judge would also be wise to focus solely on grants to these Plaintiffs b/c SCOTUS doesn't like nationwide relief
3/ & when you are talking about paying specific grants, nationwide relief for non-plaintiffs makes even less sense. Court's only plausible "injunctive" remedy that seems feasible is order not to enter "blanket" terminations.
🚨BREAKING: Joint Status Report filed that should detail where Trump Administration is on grants/contracts it was ordered under TRO to pay (unless it legally didn't have too). 1/
3/ Plaintiffs in short say Trump Administration is not paying and needs to be ordered to process payments like Biden Administration did. Trump Admin. responds that they had no control & we are processing. Key is here though:
3/ This is case where judge had to walk back his order because Trump Administration was canceling pursuant to legal authority. That is still permitted. What Court appears to have done instead of noting that, though, injunctive language is bar the "categorical" freeze, etc.