Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
@ProfMJCleveland
Feb 18 • 6 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Court enters order ruling on Motion for TRO. 1/
2/ Order here, summary to follow: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ As predicted, the Court DENIED the motion for TRO. Image
4/ Judge frames Declaration as false: Image
5/ Judge then pontificates on Appointments Clause issue. This ignores the gov't point of the difference between influence and authority, which even her footnote confirms exists--it is only influence. Image
Image
6/6 Nonetheless, a win for Trump, as a TRO here would have been devastating for efforts of agencies to address fraud, abuse, waste, and the resistance with Musk & DOGE's help identifying it.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Margot Cleveland

Margot Cleveland Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfMJCleveland

Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Feb 20
🚨BREAKING: Government files response in opposition to NGOs motion to enforce TRO & hold Trump Administration in contempt. THREAD below explains more about the case & last night's emergency motion for contempt. Read that first (along with sub-thread). 1/
2/ Here's full response: Comments to follow. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Yes. Yes! YES! THIS is everything I have been SCREAMING for the last week. (See earlier X-gloating). Image
Image
Read 10 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Feb 19
🧵Toothless TROs. . . 1/
2/ As I wrote earlier this week: Image
3/ Full article @FDRLST thefederalist.com/2025/02/17/dem…
Read 18 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Feb 19
🚨🚨BREAKING: Doe Plaintiffs (USAID contractors), file termination notice that DESTROYS their legal claims presented in the case below, namely Appointment Clause & Separation of Powers. 1/
2/ Here's link to termination notice: Of relevance, note that the termination notice expressly quotes the authority held to fire these USAID workers & the terms under which they can be fire. And note the name on the letter--it ain't @elonmusk. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
@elonmusk 3/ But there is no Appointment Clause violation since Musk didn't make decision to fire employees. Nor is there a violation of Separation of Powers since no statute mandates these people have jobs & contracts provide they can be terminated.
Read 6 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Feb 19
🚨New briefs filed by both Dellinger and Bessent (Trump Admin.) 1/
2/ Here's Dellinger's Response: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/2…
3/ And here's Trump Administration's Reply: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/2…
Read 11 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Feb 18
🚨Hearing should be starting soon. Notes following. 1/
2/ Finally got in: Judge asking whether parties considered whether resolving on expedited merits basis as some of colleagues have done.
3/ Plaintiffs: protect against "dismanteling federal government" asking for mere pause. claim violation of constitution & RIF. Congress creates or eliminates/funds or defunds/authorizes activites/appropriative funds. 3 EOs are usurping Congress's role. a) promptly large-scale reduction; b) OPM to decide who should be fired; c) and deferred resolution. If not stopped will lead to 25% across. 2 courts have enjoined spending w/o out clause.
Judge: What mandate is president violating to direct to prepare for RIF or to terminate probation.
Cutting specific employees is different than using specific funds.
Plaintiffs: We want more money for tax assistance.
Judge: we're getting into merit. start with ripeness & jurisdiciton.
Plaintiffs: Saying nothing has happened. We've already lost due's paying money. They are all probationary employees. Cobbling together from due payments.
Judge: You still represent members fired.
Plaintiffs: If terminated, obligation to pay dues has ceased. And we can't get that back later if reinstated. That's the claim of injury so it is ripe. Our injury is not speculative. Believe most if not all are probationary.
Judge: Any evidence that permanent employees have been RIFed--in accordance with law. So until they have happened, how do I know if they have been done in accordance with law?
Plaintiffs: Claims that what Trump says to prioritize isn't same as what statute requires.
Judge: Are probationary employees covered by RIF statute/regulation? Entitled to notice?
Plaintiff: Yes. We can't recover money or get bargaining power back. Thunder Basis analysis. (I'll explain later). Unique injury that can't be fixed. Can't get dues money back. Discussion is basically if Court can address versus to normal situation of handling employment issues per those regs.
Judge: Labor-management must go through Federal Labor Standard Authority cases. Gov't says you are alleging unfair labor practice in essence so must go through FLSA and separate process individuals must go through if wrongful termination. 2 separate "channelling." Are you alleging unfair labor practice?
Plaintiff: No. Unconstitutional actions so none of those other remedies work.
Judge: Couldn't your members pursue the individual route, on claim you made on unfair termination.
Plaintiff: If 1 or 10 would be reasonable path but this is widespread gov't so not contemplated by cases.
Judge: Why couldn't employee go to MSPB say unfairly terminate/unconstitutional?
Plaintiffs: Shear # of employees: Can't get to much harm to get meaningful review. On equities: They favor us; we are asking for status quo. We ask for short TRO to take under advisement.
Judge: What would I enjoin for 2 weeks.
Plaintiff: Stop firing of employees; any compliance w/ 3C; not asking to undue buyout but not giving another.
Judge: Go to likelihood of success.
Plaintiffs: So large scale conflicts with Congress; also in violation of RIF.
Read 10 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Feb 18
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: FINALLY, Trump Administration files sworn Declaration explaining what authority @elonmusk has and doesn't have! Relevant to this case below b/c Blue State Plaintiffs are arguing Musk is making decisions. 1/ Image
Image
2/ Link to declaration: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Trump Administration filed Declaration with this Notice that responded to Court's questions regarding layoffs. Note reference to "non-parties" in Notice because the lawsuit is NOT about those parties engaging in firings but about Musk & DOGE supposedly firing folks. Image
Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(