***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

190,272 Views | 2239 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by techno-ag
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:40a, 3/13/25
This is very funny.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:56a, 3/13/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:08a, 3/13/25


Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:05p, 3/13/25
Quote:
A federal judge on Thursday ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who were fired amid President Donald Trump's turbulent effort to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a "sham" strategy by the government's central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce.
Quote:
Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs to "immediately" offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back. The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an "unlawful" decision to terminate them.

The order is one of the most far-reaching rejections of the Trump administration's effort to slash the bureaucracy and is almost certain to be appealed.

Alsup also lashed out at the Justice Department over its handling of the case, saying he believes that Trump administration lawyers were hiding the facts about who directed the mass firings.

"You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You're afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth," the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday. "I tend to doubt that you're telling me the truth. … I'm tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth."

Alsup also said the administration attempted to circumvent federal laws on reducing the workforce by attributing the firings to "performance" when that was not in fact the case. The judge called the move "a gimmick."
LINK
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:11p, 3/13/25
Blatantly unconstitutional edict by the judge.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 12:19p, 3/13/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Blatantly unconstitutional edict by the judge.
The left doesn't care.

They're "saving democracy" by tossing it in the **** can.
Reply Quote
45-70Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:39p, 3/13/25
Biden showed these judges and their opinions don't matter. Fire them all and Trump can pardon himself in 2029.
Reply Quote
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 12:49p, 3/13/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Blatantly unconstitutional edict by the judge.


It won't hold up
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:44p, 3/13/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 1:59p, 3/13/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Blatantly unconstitutional edict by the judge.
"Well, those executive branch bodies may not be acting independently of the executive branch because Trump has changed them, so I need to give my two cents, but don't call me some wild eyed San Francisco liberal judge."

LOL. Maybe it is a good thing Schumer is shutting the gov't down tomorrow.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:23p, 3/13/25



Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:24p, 3/13/25
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:32p, 3/13/25
Quote:
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to enforce an executive order signed by President Donald Trump ending birthright citizenship the guarantee of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States. In a trio of near-identical filings] by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, the administration urged the justices to partially block preliminary injunctions, issued by federal district judges in Seattle, Maryland, and Massachusetts, that bar the government from implementing Trump's executive order anywhere in the country.

Harris contended that the kind of nationwide (sometimes described as "universal") injunctions issued in the three cases "transgress constitutional limits on courts' powers" and "compromise the Executive Branch's ability to carry out its functions." "This Court," she wrote, "should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched."
Quote:
Harris instead urged the justices to strictly limit the district judges' orders to block the enforcement of the order only to a much smaller group: the individual plaintiffs in the three cases, the specific members of the groups challenging the order who are identified in a complaint, and if the court agrees that states have a legal right to challenge the order residents of those states. At the very least, she added, the federal government should be able to take "internal steps to implement" the executive order while the litigation continues, even if it cannot enforce it.
LINK
Reply Quote
aggiejayrod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:03p, 3/13/25
There's no way Roberts's Court will take this up until it's been heard on the merits and made its way through every single court. He can easily punt calling it a political question or that it's not yet ripe.

I like the idea but he's a weenie.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:08p, 3/13/25
Margot weighs in.

Quote:
Sovereign immunity bars a federal court from entering a damage award against the government, absent its consent. And in the case of grants or contract disputes, the federal government has consent to litigation only in a specialized court which has exclusive jurisdiction to hear such disputes, called the Court of Claims. Thus, any dispute over whether the Trump Administration has wrongfully failed to pay on grants or contracts, or improperly terminated a grant or contract, must be brought in the Court of Claims and not a federal district court. Accordingly, the Trump Administration argues, the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiffs' claims in the above lawsuits. That remains true, the president argues, regardless of the legal theories on which the plaintiffs rely, such as the APA.
Quote:
Temporary Restraining Orders: In the majority of the cases identified above, the Plaintiffs immediately after filing the complaints sought a "Temporary Restraining Order" to enjoin the Trump Administration from freezing or withholding funds. To obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO), the Plaintiffs must satisfy a stringent standard, establishing a strong likelihood of success on their legal claims and that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Defendants are not immediately restrained.
Quote:
Several judges entered TROs against the Trump Administration, but some of those went beyond "maintaining the status quo," and purported to order the Trump Administration to act (as opposed to not act) by, for instance, unfreezing grants or paying on grants. Such an order is in actuality an "injunction" and not a TRO. That matters because TROs are generally not appealable, while an injunction can be immediately appealed.

A TRO is, as the name says, "temporary." Courts must then promptly hold a hearing on a Motion for a preliminary injunction to decide whether to issue an injunction pending resolution of the case on the merits of the claim. To prevail on a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must again show a likelihood of success on the merits, that they will suffer irreparable harm, and that the potential harm to them outweighs the harm to the government. A preliminary injunction can be appealed immediately.
Additionally, the party enjoined may seek a stay from the courts, putting the injunction on hold during the pendency of the appeal. Courts will only grant a stay if the party's appeal has a strong likelihood of success.
LINK
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:24p, 3/13/25

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:26p, 3/13/25
will25u said:

Have to wonder if this was Clarence Thomas' idea.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:19p, 3/13/25
Yeah, didn't think asking for the bond was going to fly with activist judges.

Reply Quote
titan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:23p, 3/13/25
will25u said:

Knock those out. Nationwide injunctions are easily the most anti- "democratic" thing destroying voter say next to unelected regulatory bureaucrats having the power of coercion.

There is no way it was intended that the other 49 states be at the mercy of just one, or even just one county. Its self-evident nonsense. Even the SC is the only one specified really at all.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:29p, 3/13/25
It's not just "activist" judges. I guarantee you the Trump lawyers knew no chance they'd get a bond required for this case! It's all about framing for other cases!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:22p, 3/13/25
Quote:
Trump explains that one of the things a well-functioning court does is deter frivolous litigation, and one of the ways it does this is through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c):
Quote:
One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued.


What's important to note (this is me, not Trump), is the language of subsection (c) does not make this security optional. Instead, it's mandatory, although the government never seems to have bothered pushing for security before:
Quote:
The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security. (Emphasis mine.)
LINK
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:55p, 3/13/25
Reply Quote
titan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:45p, 3/13/25
will25u said:
Hoping we see the nationa-wide injunction practice extinct and abolished after the 47 admin. But if we don't Republicans need to do the very same thing and just as often next time, UNLESS the Dem happens to actually seek to govern from the center rather than push hard Left agendas.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:27a, 3/14/25

To me, they should be limited to situations where there is a "constitutional command for a consistent national policy". (5th circuit phrase, not mine)
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:36a, 3/14/25

Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:39a, 3/14/25
She's a corrupt *****.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:05a, 3/14/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:17p, 3/14/25
Reply Quote
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 3/14/25


For the fellow masochists that like reading the briefing on these case, here's a great link to all the cases and free filing:



https://fixthecourt.com/2025/02/tracking-the-hearings-in-the-all-the-lawsuits-filed-against-trump-administration-directives/


Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:10p, 3/14/25
Everything we've seen was within the plenary powers of the executive branch ... up until 53-days ago.

Wild how 21-state AGs challenge cuts at the US Department of Education and nobody even sniffs the word standing.

Lawfare rolls on ...
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 3:14p, 3/14/25
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Everything we've seen was within the plenary powers of the executive branch ... up until 53-days ago.

Wild how 21-state AGs challenge cuts at the US Department of Education and nobody even sniffs the word standing.

Lawfare rolls on ...
Why when these started, I jus yawned. So stupid.
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 3:25p, 3/14/25
LOL, the last category is entitled "spite".

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 3:26p, 3/14/25
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Everything we've seen was within the plenary powers of the executive branch ... up until 53-days ago.

Wild how 21-state AGs challenge cuts at the US Department of Education and nobody even sniffs the word standing.

Lawfare rolls on ...
Makes you want to see the courts revisit the issue of standing in a bunch of election fraud cases, doesn't it?
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 3:32p, 3/14/25
Bookmarked!
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 3:34p, 3/14/25
txags92 said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Everything we've seen was within the plenary powers of the executive branch ... up until 53-days ago.

Wild how 21-state AGs challenge cuts at the US Department of Education and nobody even sniffs the word standing.

Lawfare rolls on ...
Makes you want to see the courts revisit the issue of standing in a bunch of election fraud cases, doesn't it?
If you read the petition to SCOTUS on the birthright citizenship, requests SCOTUS to review not only the nationwide injunction issue but the standing of the states to bring those type of cases. Revisiting that epic punt of SCOTUS in the Texas election case.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.