3/ In short, Judge split baby in half saying "senate confirmed" Treasury folks could have access to databases but not other political appointees or special DOGE employees. In so ruling, though, Court reveals nonsense of case. Here's reasoning why senate-confirmed folks get access
4/ But then she just says for political appointees and DOGE sound factual basis. BUT WHAT? Still nothing in record showing barred by law. Why would senate confirmation matter? And how is there risk of hacking when read-only access?
5/ And how are these Plaintiffs suffering risk of imminent harm? They aren't. Also, how is court avoiding constitutional question when she bars political appointees who can be very high up from accessing merely b/c not Senate confirmed?
6/6 Question now is will Trump seek to appeal now/seek mandamus or wait for PI? Given limiting political appointees other than Senate confirmed, I'd recommend appeal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵of current federal cases challenging Trump Administration actions with links to free docket at Courtlistener.
1/
2/ State of NY v. Trump, First Circuit Court of Appeals: Appeal from RI District Court case in which ~20 blue states challenged OMB Directive to freeze federal funding. courtlistener.com/docket/6962770…
3/ State of NY v. Trump, Rhode Island District Court, Lawsuit filed by ~20 blue states challenging OMB Directive to freeze federal funding. courtlistener.com/docket/6958599…
3/ Several take-aways: First, everyone should read the first section of the filing that illustrates how outrageous the order was and the blatant usurpation of the Executive's powers.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration files motion to stay in Rhode Island District Court out of abundance of caution, as you have to seek stay in lower court before appellate court and it sought one, never separately. That motion highlights HUGE problems with TRO. 1/
2/ For instance, TRO said that agencies could still act to cancel grants if authorized by statute, regs, or grant, but now says nope, you can't do anything you have authority to do if it means canceling a grant.
3/ This paragraph perfectly captures the structural problems with TRO. And by "structural" I mean completely contrary to our constitutional structure.
Two federal trial court judges have entered injunctions against the Executive Branch of government. One injunction mandated the President of the United States immediately restore any frozen funding & immediately end any federal funding pause. 1/
2/ Second injunction barred any political appointees, including Secretary of Treasury from accessing Treasury databases & prohibiting Executive Branch from allowing its contractors to review data to inform President.
3/ Both of these cases were brought by more than a dozen Blue States, with those Blue States demanding a federal judge prohibit Executive Branch from freezing any federal funding & barring Commander-in-Chief from having his people review database. Let that sink in!
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Holy crapola! This federal judge went so far off the rails, Trump Administration really has no option but to seek mandamus! 1/
2/ Yesterday, Blue States sought to enforce TRO entered by Rhode Island federal court. Gov't responded spending isn't covered by TRO, other is allowed by statute, other is because of computer freezes given amount required.
3/ Judge's Order today prohibits any freeze on ANY federal funding which is much beyond what lawsuit challenged. Here's order I bought on Pacer and uploaded to Courtlisterner. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
🔥On Friday, the Blue States filed a Motion to Enforce TRO claiming Trump Administration had violated TRO. Tonight Trump Administration responded. The filings illustrate precisely what I noted were issues before: that court failed to conclude what law would be violated.