Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: HUGE win from Trump Administration and D.C. Circuit enters stay of lower court injunction. Lower court barred Trump Administration from managing Voice of America. D.C. Circuit stayed decision allowing Trump to move forward w/ firings/grant terminations. 1/

2/ Full order. Thoughts follow. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

3/ Here is what Trump Administration did and what lower courts order via injunctions:

4/ Court of Appeals decision is based on fundamental issue of "jurisdiction." This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.

5/ The Court of Appeals decision is also significant because it addresses the "wholesale" "dismantling" argument being presented in several cases (such as USAID cases). The Administrative Procedures Act is NOT for such claims either & Congress did not waive such immunity!

6/ Additionally, Court of Appeals held that district court lacked jurisdiction to restore grants because Congress gave that authority to Court of Claims:

7/ Court of Appeals also notes how SCOTUS decision compels that result...which it DOES and yet district court ignored SCOTUS.

8/ Decision stressed why claims about grants must got to Court of Claims.

9/ Court of Appeals adds that Plaintiffs can't avoid Court of Claims by framing as non-APA claims:

10/ Court of Appeals again highlights that with no bond the harm to government is irreparable. Also noted that Voice of America isn't being shuttered.

11/ Court of Appeals also notes Judiciary Branch must follow the law too!

12/ In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3 key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;

13/ c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article III obey Article I.

14/14 Final thought: It is next to impossible to reconcile opinion here with same panels refusal to clarify stay in other case involving USAID and grants from legal perspective. Practically: Judge Katas in other case figured decision on merits would be soon enough so no harm.