NEW: DC appellate court decision related to granting Pres Trump's motion to put on hold Judge Amy Berman Jackson's order reinstating Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger is out--and it's a doozy:
The appellate panel notes how Dellinger--as I first predicted and proved true--used his power to thwart Pres Trump's agenda to reduce the federal workforce
"The government has sufficiently demonstrated that Dellinger exercises at least enough authority to contradict the President’s directives. " (Dellinger successfully reinstated 6 probationary federal employees fired by the president and then sought to reinstate thousands of USDA probationary employees fired by the president.)
"To be able to obtain the reinstatement of thousands of employees in a single agency, even if only temporarily, with such a vague standard of review seems to suggest the Special Counsel’s powers are not as limited as he claims."
Brutal. This is why Dellinger now is trying to abandon his lawsuit against the president for firing him on Feb 7 without cause per the statute.
More: "Never mind the tension between Dellinger’s assertions that OSC is critically important to the public interest but simultaneously lacks significant executive power. The more obvious problem is that it is not clear how we could balance the Special Counsel’s asserted public interest against the public interest asserted by the rest of the executive branch."
My recent explainer here. (And don't forget the "legal experts" who claimed Dellinger could do no harm while he remained in that office temporarily. Multiple judges have now effectively refuted that dumb argument.)
Boasberg out of the gate accuses DOJ of using "intemperate" and "disrespectful" language in responses to the judge.
He is lecturing the DOJ about its opposition to his alleged "verbal" order to turn around the planes.
"Did you think that was hypothetical or did you understand when I said do that immediately, you meant that."
Boasberg: "Either DHS sent someone who knew nothing about the facts not the law--that's what you are saying, no one told you about those flights?" (2 planes took off during the first part of the hearing.)
"I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world the most valuable thing they possess is their reputation." He admonishes DOJ atty to remember that.
Hearing now underway in Judge Boasberg's courtroom on his nationwide temp restraining order related to the president's March 15 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg acted within hours of a lawsuit filed by ACLU on behalf of 5 suspected Venezuelan terrorists
Boasberg: I have scheduled this hearing for fact finding on government's response to my order. Focus on timeline involved and get a sense of numbers of people here. I just want "facts" not planning to issue any ruling about the government's conduct.
Boasberg asks DOJ if it's still true that the 5 individual plaintiffs are in the US. DOJ says yes.
"How many planes departed the US on Saturday under the proclamation?" DOJ says flights complied with his order but won't disclose more to anyone.
Boasberg: "Anyone including me?"
DOJ: "Yes."
Boasberg: "Based on what?"
DOJ cites national security concerns, flight patterns.
Boasberg: "You're saying it's classified? I can receive classified information. Or there is some other basis?Why are you showing up today without answers?"
Nothing but a power play.
Boasberg: Here is a list of questions I want answered and you can tell me why you won't give me these answer.
How many planes left at any time Saturday based solely on the proclamation.
How many people were on each plane.
In what country did the planes land.
What time did they take off and land.
When were they in air space.
What time were individuals on the plane transferred to custody.
Now asks ACLU if they have any questions about flights.
HAPPENING NOW: Hearing underway in Judge Chutkan's courtroom related to temp restraining order sought by Climate United against EPA and Citibank forcing disbursement of $6.9 billion in "climate" funds sheltered at Citi in Nov 2024. Funds are frozen.
EPA adm Lee Zeldin cancelled financial agreements with Climate United and 7 other climate "nonprofits."
The "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund" is under investigation by DOJ and EPA inspector general.
"As I see it, EPA has to take certain procedural steps before it can terminate the awards," Chutkan says.
Includes written notice of termination and reason for termination.
"It looks like EPA does this in the letter...but EPA must provide evidence of waste, fraud or abuse. EPA has not proffered that information."
Chutkan clarifies Climate United asking for TRO forcing Citi to disburse the funds. "What would maintaining the status quo look like," she asks Climate United lawyer.
Climate lawyer says status quo would require Citi to issue funds as the bank did before EPA/DOJ froze funds in mid-February.
Claims--as Chutkan suggested--the termination of the grants was unlawful and did not meet terms of agreement. Climate lawyer also claims many projects underway and the nonprofit faces "extreme irreparable harm" if they don't get their money.
"At the end of this week, we are out of money."
Keep in mind--this "nonprofit" was formed in June 2023. It took in about $640,000 in 2023 and spent about $550,000. So Climate United had less than $100,000 in the bank--until Biden/Harris selected it to receive $6.9 billion in April 2024.
Chutkan asks how much has been committed. Climate lawyer says he doesn't know but court filings claim about $390 million.
NEW: A lawsuit filed yesterday by newly-formed Climate United--headed by former Obama aide Beth Bafford and stacked with Dem activists--that received $7 billion from Biden EPA's climate slush fund confirms Citibank has frozen disbursements to the fund:
Every time I dig into this scandal, it gets worse.
As @epaleezeldin disclosed last month, Biden's EPA "parked" $20 billion at Citi in November 2024--a first of its kind arrangement clearly intended to keep funds away from GOP Congress and potential Trump White House.
Climate United is seeking a temporary restraining order against EPA and Citi to force the bank to dole out the funds (our tax money, obviously).
Case is before Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Climate United claims it has already committed $392 to "qualified" projects.
What are they, you might ask? More from lawsuit:
"The first is a $31.8 million pre-construction loan to support solar power projects across rural communities in Arkansas, which was announced in October 2024. Through this project, Climate United is financing pre-construction costs for 18 solar projects comprising the largest commercial and industrial solar deployment in Arkansas history, which is projected to save more than $120 million in energy costs over the project’s life and create hundreds of jobs.
The second is a program to offer affordable leasing options for battery electric heavy-duty trucks to small fleets and independent operators. Climate United issued a request for proposals in October 2024 from qualified U.S. auto manufacturers to deliver up to 500 electric drayage trucks, which Climate United intends to begin leasing at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. When completed, these orders will represent some of the largest-ever purchases of domestically manufactured battery electric trucks in U.S. history. Climate United intends to expand this program nationally. This program will not only reduce the cost per mile of operating drayage trucks for small businesses, but it will also reduce air pollution in port communities and create demand for U.S. manufacturing in factories across the country.
The third is $63 million in committed pre-construction financing for projects to design and develop solar power plants in partnership with Tribal governments and communities. These projects bring access to affordable energy to rural communities and Indigenous people in addition to quality jobs and local economic development. Initial projects will be located in Eastern Oregon and Idaho."
Hearing about to get underway in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom related to blue state lawsuit against Elon Musk/DOGE seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Musk from:
(1) Accessing or continuing to access any data systems and the information and code contained within those systems, including but not limited to systems containing sensitive or confidential agency and personnel data at the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Commerce, or any components of any of those agencies, or copying, transferring, or in any way disseminating any data from any of the agencies identified in this paragraph.
(2) Terminating, furloughing, or otherwise placing on involuntary leave—whether paid or unpaid—any officers or employees of the federal government working within any of the Departments and agencies identified above.
Apparently lots of tech difficulties but Chutkan notes the urgent nature of the matter (LOL) so she set this remote hearing on a federal holiday.
"TROs are extraordinary remedies," Chutkan notes. She says harm must be imminent to justify a TRO pending a preliminary injunction. She asks states' lawyer why they said they needed to collect more discovery and doesn't it undercut their argument for a TRO?
Lawyer points to news reports justifying the "imminent harm" claims--Chutkan pushes back, says lots of reporting and she can't rely on news reports as evidence.
"Our concerns is how the defendants are using the data," state lawyer says.
Chutkan wants more clarity on harms to the states by Musk's work--lawyers says Musk is using data to determine cuts such as Dept. of Education which would harm the states. Lawyer says they rely on Dept of Ed money for education programs.
Chutkan asks if program has been cut? Lawyer says they are waiting for confirmation. "What is the irreparable harm here," Chutkan asks again. Notes that if a program is cut and she issues a prelim injunction, program funding can be restored at that point.
Chutkan says harm has to be "so serious" to justify a TRO--says their claims are "serious" but doesn't demonstrate imminent harm.
Chutkan says DOGE is not proceeding in an "orderly and deliberate fashion" but a "general fear" this is going to happen is not enough for a TRO. "I am not seeing it so far."
She notes that several of her colleagues have issued TROs--"this case is not the same as those," Chutkan tells states lawyer.
"If I deny TRO and put this on prelim injunction schedule, why can't you come back in a few days when these things actually start happening. This is a prophylactic TRO and that's not allowed," Chutkan says.
Lawyer points to tweets and memos as proof of imminent harm and that cuts to federal programs that will impact states are coming soon.