The NYT reports.
AND: Here's the opinion, written by Tanya S. Chutkan of the D.C. District Court. Excerpt: "Plaintiffs' declarations are replete with attestations that if Musk and DOGE Defendants cancel, pause, or significantly reduce federal funding or eliminate federal-state contracts, Plaintiff States will suffer extreme financial and programmatic harm.... But the 'possibility' that Defendants may take actions that irreparably harm Plaintiffs 'is not enough.'... Plaintiffs ask the court to take judicial notice of widespread media reports that DOGE has taken or will soon take certain actions, such as mass terminations.... The court may take judicial notice of news articles for their existence, but not for the truth of the statements asserted therein.... Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority."
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
Good for this judge! What a blow to the left to learn that unmitigated hysteria is not, in fact, a legal argument.
One can certainly understand the argument that the federal government actually paying attention to its largesse for once would do irreparable harm to the grifting.
Apparently they shopped the wrong judge.
The judge said the states had not shown specific examples of how the work of Mr. Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency could cause the states irreparable harm." That's because none of this will cause the states irreparable harm. Even a non-lawyer such as I can see that.
"That's because none of this will cause the states irreparable harm."
Politicians and government workers see themselves as "the state".
"so-called"???
Did the judge say "so-called" or was that a bit of poetic licence by the NYT?
With all the hyperventilating, pearl-clutching, and caterwauling going on, it's almost enough to make a person believe that the Federal Budget is seen as a personal plaything of the Democrat Party.
Kind of surprising given that this is Judge Chutkan.
"Mr. Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is not a department but a small team housed within the executive office of the president...
Actually, this whole NYT live-stream running commentary from various reporters is pretty hysterical, in both senses of the word. The department, a holdover from Obama days called U.S. Digital Service, has been officially renamed as DOGE. It is a 300-person department, lending context to the word 'small' when it's used in DC.
Find it here: https://archive.ph/fNh8V#selection-4835.0-4835.154
I think, based on the last few days, that the Chief Justice has had a quiet word with his colleagues on SCOTUS and, through those colleagues, messages have been passed to the district and appeals court judges that their injunctions and TROs had better be of a higher quality than were being issued 2 weeks ago.
And my day just got a little bit better!
Half of the Democrats were horrified by Biden's theft-and-pardon-o-rama, and they seek a graceful way out from TDS. The other half of the Democrats remain insane.
Or it's possible that someone realized what a broad adverse decision out of SCOTUS would do to future Dem lawfare.
The distinction between having some unknown set of previously authorized federal employees having access to my confidential data (they would of course never leak to the NYT -- HAH!), and some unknown member of DOGE having such access, seems infinitesimal.
"Half of the Democrats were horrified by Biden's theft-and-pardon-o-rama, and they seek a graceful way out from TDS."
A graceful way out would be to say "I'm sorry for supporting the Democratic party and the awful policies I helped to further by not speaking out against them."
I'm not seeing much of anything like that happening, however.
Did the Plaintiffs really ask for a TRO based on News Articles and media reports? They couldn't be bothered to get some affidavits?
messages have been passed to the district and appeals court judges that their injunctions and TROs had better be of a higher quality than were being issued 2 weeks ago
THIS.
it's possible that someone realized what a broad adverse decision out of SCOTUS would do to future Dem lawfare.
AND THIS.
And one other possibility. Maybe closing the USAID spigot hit the Dems even harder than we would have guessed, and they are running out of funds for these legal shenanigans. They ended the 2024 campaign with an overdrawn checkbook, and I'm guessing that their bigfoot donors are not feeling very sanguine about throwing good money after bad.
Chutkan?
I think that some combination of Yancey Ward and J. Scott--most likely both--are reading this correctly.
The distinction between having some unknown set of previously authorized federal employees having access to my confidential data (they would of course never leak to the NYT -- HAH!), and some unknown member of DOGE having such access, seems infinitesimal.
I disagree. Just as Putin and Xi are much less of a menace to my freedom and prosperity than Kamala Harris and Merrick Garland, so too does letting Musk and his whiz kids have access to my personal information frighten me less than the prospect of drawing negative attention from some surly Letitia James type in the IRS or Justice Department.
@Mason G: A graceful way out would be to say "I'm sorry for supporting the Democratic party and the awful policies I helped to further by not speaking out against them."
Many Democrats have already done this. This is why Trump won in 2024, and how he put together an effective Cabinet this time. See Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, RFK Jr., Bari Weiss, (almost) JD Vance, etc.
Lawsuits I’m glad they lost…
I like Judge Chutkan’s response regarding using news media articles as fact. Isn’t that how we got the Russia Gate Hoax?
"Many Democrats have already done this."
If you say so. I'm not seeing it.
I'm not taking about voting for Trump and just keeping their mouths shut in the hopes that people will forget their support of the Democratic party and its insane policies. I'm talking about actually apologizing for repeating Democrat lies and badmouthing MAGA supporters over things that turned out to be true.
This isn't over. Chutkan is a reliable establishment cog. She just gave a blueprint to the Blue States to come back when specific individuals or programs have been identified. She also said the States have a good Appointment Clause argument but need to wait until they can point to a specific program or individual.
Inga and her like must be choking on their cuds.
- Krumhorn
"Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight."
Musk has NO authority. He's simply an advisor to Trump and his cabinet members. He can't fire anyone. In investigates, and advices. Judge Chunking knows this. She's a hardcore far-left Judge who just want them to come back with a better case so she can rule in their favor.
Judge Chutkan didn't grant a TRO, that doesn’t mean the lawsuit has been dismissed.
The lawsuit argued that President Donald J Trump violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution by creating a new federal department (DOGE) without congressional approval, and by granting Musk sweeping powers over the entire federal government without the advice and consent of the Senate or accountability to the people of the United States.
Judge Chutkan, in Tuesday’s ruling, did agree with the 14 states that a possible violation of the Appointment Clause exists saying, “Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.’”
She added that the Appointments Clause aims to prevent “Executive abuses” as Elon Musk “has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the Executive Branch” without any apparent “source of legal authority” to do so.”
https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2025/02/18/doge-data/
A totalitarian dictatorship, by its very nature, works in great secrecy and knows how to preserve that secrecy from the prying eyes of outsiders. -Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
“Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.’”
Except that Musk has no authority to do anything other than provide information, as far as I'm aware. I agree with the comments above that say she is laying the groundwork for a favorable ruling when the states come back with specific programs that are being cut. Of course they won't be cut by DOGE or Musk, but that's a detail that will not matter to her.
RCOCEAN II said...
"Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight."
These kind of heated political statements should not be in a legal opinion. This is why Chutkan is considered a hack judge.
Was the Border Tsar, Homan, elected or approved by the Senate? I don't think so. What about the "Climate Tsars". No one complained about them.
What an absurd case, the whole thing should've been dismissed. What evidence is there that Elon Musk has been given "unchecked authority" to do anything? As long as the elected President Trump approves every action, and Musk is accountable to him, how does this violate the Constitution? /Everyone realizes that Joe Biden was incapable of comprehending most of the actions that were done in his name the last 3 years. I don't recall any of these Democrat Attorneys General having any problem with that. No one in the Biden family (or Barack Obama) was subject to Senate advice and consent.
The judge had me at "replete with attestations". That's most of reddit right now... "replete with attestations".
Mason G,
Apologies would be very nice, but they are just words. Those who want their apologies to be actually accepted need to then pull out their tantos and get to work.
"Inga and her like must be choking on their cuds."
Swine are not ruminants.
Inga apparently is now a graduate of the Robert Kook Cook School of Legalisticist Lawyerisming.
"Apologies would be very nice, but they are just words."
Agreed. But it's a starting point, at least. And if people can't manage that, I don't believe they're actually sorry- that what they really want is for everybody to forget/overlook just who/what they so recently supported.
You know- like the covid nazis who wanted to put people in camps (or worse) if they refused the experimental jabs and now, they're all "Mistakes were made, let's let bygones be bygones, can't we all be friends?"
"In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority."
Unlike the circumstances in which this corrupt whore wrapped in a filthy black rag allowed her hatred of the J6 defendants to erase their Constitutional rights.
She may not know much about the law, but she does seem to have a keen appreciation of the workings of publicity.
Igna wrote: "She added that the Appointments Clause aims to prevent “Executive abuses” as Elon Musk “has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the Executive Branch” without any apparent “source of legal authority” to do so.”
OK. So who is dumber? Igna or Judge Tanya?
Trump runs the Executive branch, you freaking morons. It is separate from the judicial and legislative branches.
Inga: both you and Chutkin are uneducated liberals. Trump DID NOT create a new federal department.
Read and learn something new and retain it if possible!
“When Barack Obama created the United States Digital Service in 2014, it was meant to disrupt the arcane tech processes that had led to catastrophes like the original HealthCare.gov rollout. A team of young, private sector workers had been able to come in and fix the site — why couldn’t they be deployed throughout the government to modernize an arcane tech infrastructure?
The launch of USDS was met with deep skepticism from longtime civil servants, but ultimately it helped start and upgrade numerous government websites. Now, more than a decade later, Elon Musk has taken over the agency and brought in his own young tech workers he’s deploying in agencies to “improve the quality and efficiency” of government IT systems.“
So…heaven forbid that Elon bring on “young tech workers” to “improve the quality and efficiency of government IT systems”!
Take your liberal claptrap elsewhere!
https://www.notus.org/whitehouse/elon-musk-usds-doge
How do the states have standing?
Dave Begley @ 10:43pm,
It's the adverse possession concept applied to grift/graft: "we've been getting this moolah for so long, we now have a right to it".
California had a budget surplus of nearly $100 billion in 2022-23, and a budget deficit of $75 billion in 2023-24. That's before Trump took office, and California had received all possible federal funds, including funding for the High-Speed Rail boondoggle. Shouldn't a state government have to show proper money management before suing over "potential" loss of federal funding?
“How do the states have standing?”
She could only kinda say it, but there isn’t any standing. There has not, as yet, been any injury in fact, to these Dem controlled states. Their argument seems to be that if the DOGE boys find any fraud and abuse, they then report it to Trump, and Trump orders the fraud and abuse ended, then the states might be injured through reduced income to the states from the federal government. There has not been, as yet, a finding of fraud and abuse. There might never be. But also, the proximate cause of their loss (if any) would be actions by President Trump to stop the fraud and abuse. His actions there, of course, would be privileged. But he might not act, and instead let the fraudulent transactions go through. There losses, if any, are hypothetical at this point. Thus, no real Case or Controversy, yet, and no Standing.
The first of the many feeble attempts to hobble DOGE falls, as expected. You couldn't find another judge more willing to stick it to Trump and his political allies, one who continued to charge J6 trespassers with a felony after SCOTUS overturned convictions and ordered a review, one hand selected by Jack Smith to hear his DC cases because she would entertain any Trump prosecution no matter how ludicrous.
Yet she ruled for Trump. One could say she had no choice, given the Constitution, but maybe she was actually just delaying the inevitable SCOTUS ruling on Executive power to manage the Administrative State. Maybe she doesn't want to be that judge, the one who is overturned on a landmark ruling that dooms the "permanent" state.
James K nails the issue with this:
"Except that Musk has no authority to do anything other than provide information, as far as I'm aware...specific programs ...won't be cut by DOGE or Musk, but that's a detail that will not matter to her."
I've seen a plethora of progressive legal columns about all the "cuts DOGE is making to programs" and of course by now everyone has heard the hysterical Democrats claiming that mass firing at FAA "caused all these plane crashes."
For the record (and for Inga), let me emphasize: DOGE is not making any cuts, not to budgets, not to programs. Musk is the Scout, identifying targets and painting them with a laser. The cuts will come later. Speaker Johnson has five bills ready to go for budget reconciliation, at which time it will take only a simple majority to pass. I know this falls on deaf ears. I know leftists love to wail and rend their garments over imaginary "cuts" as they have all my life.
(Whatever happened to those cuts to Medicare and SS I heard about over and over? Did Paul Ryan ever push granny over the cliff?)
Think of it as targeted budget warfare.
" The court may take judicial notice of news articles for their existence, but not for the truth of the statements asserted therein."
Ouch. Very much Ouch. How far the news has fallen.
I doubt we have heard the last from Chutkan on this topic. This is just the TRO.
So continues the Harrisment of the Democrat party. Thanks Bill and 'Bama!
The next problem for the Administration is the appointments clause issue. If Musk is exerting substantial power and authority - and that is a factual issue which presumably can be determined by the court after hearing evidence - then he probably needs to be confirmed by the Senate. As it is, it’s not clear that he’s even a government employee. I suppose the Administration could solve this problem by having Trump sign every order or suggestion made by Musk. Stay tuned.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.