Posted on 03/10/2025 10:08:43 AM PDT by Phoenix8
Great points.
Passive aggressive.
Do not openly defy.
Silently IGNORE.
Slow walk.
“Just Say NO”. As applicable now as it was 40 years ago.
Escrow the money until the hearing.
Autopen appointee defense
It does NOT SAY A PRESIDENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO ACT.
Am I right, Larry?
“district court Judge Amir Ali”
The Representative of the Judicial Royal Class has spoken ... all fall down and grovel.
I think Judge Amy wanted to let this slide so the SCOTUS can later rule on the merits, not these preliminary moves, but what do I know?
If the money has already been spent as ordered by the Supreme Court Court as part of these preliminary moves, what merits are left to litigate?
So, the court entered its injunction the day after the supreme court ruled on the TRO. The judge clearly set this latest deadline to play beat the clock, before Trump has time to appeal it.
The hearing for the Preliminary Injunction (PI) had been scheduled before the Supreme Court ruled on the TRO. As a matter of law, a TRO is generally not subject to an appeal, which may explain why the judge chose to label his act as a TRO.
The deadline of the TRO expired while the stay imposed by CJ Roberts was in effect. A new deadline needed to be set.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
At issue was what the District Court labeled as a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). A TRO restrains someone from doing something. It is not an order to affirmatively take one or more actions.
A Preliminary Injunction (PI) could order someone to do something.
It is not at all clear what actions the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.
While asking clarification of what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the TRO, Scotus may have broadly hinted that any such obligations belong in a PI, not a TRO. And so it came to pass that the lower court put said requirements in a PI and set a new deadline.
The PI is limited to foreign assistance spending agreements that were in existence before Jan. 20 at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Exactly what all that includes is unclear.
In any case, a Preliminary Injunction is appealable. Probably a major consideration at Scotus was opening a whole can of worms had it ruled upon a TRO, inviting appeals on all future TROs.
Four justices were ready to treat the TRO as a PI and rule upon it as a PI. Now that it is formally a PI, should the government appeal, it takes four justices accept it. It would seem its chances of being taken up would be pretty good.
A reasoned explanation of the Scotus action on the TRO is given in the video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AruQwqyUl3E
TOTALLY OVERBLOWN! SCOTUS DOGE USAID DECISION IS FINE, ACTUALLY...20m:27s
Mar 5, 2025
The judge and the SC ruled incorrectly. There should be a finding of facts. Trump’s lawyers didn’t argue this one correctly they should have alleged something along the lines of “the work was not completed to task”.
Why would it be either TRO or Injunction? Shouldn’t it be a writ of mandamus?
“Shouldn’t it be a writ of mandamus?”
What is it then? A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is not a substitute for a standard appeal. However, A final order on a complaint for a writ of mandamus is reviewable by appeal, just like any other final judgment in a civil action.
how is this?...
For every time some judge, some politician, some elite somewhere raises problems like this, arrest some random person YOU KNOW committed fraud.
It wont be long before the people running their mouths and using such judicial activism are told to STFU by their own party because they dont like playing russian roulette!!
Me thinks it would work!! and then there will be no more resistance...
Justice Manual Archived Material
Civil Resource Manual
215. Mandamus
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964). Mandamus may be employed to require a lower court to enforce the judgment of an appellate court, or to keep such a court from interposing unauthorized obstructions to the enforcement of the judgment of a higher court. See United States v. District Court, 334 U.S. 258, 263 (1948) (to enforce obedience to court of appeals mandate). Where the right was clear and indisputable, mandamus issued to compel a lower court to release a boat under an assertion of the immunity of a foreign sovereign. Spacil v. Crowe, 489 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1974). It has been utilized to compel the issuance of a bench warrant. Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241, 248 (1932).
The district courts have no jurisdiction of a suit seeking mandamus against the United States. United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1 (1889); Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1939); McCune v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 946 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). 28 U.S.C. § 1361, giving the United States district court jurisdiction of "an action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff," speaks only of compelling an officer or employee. The committee reports accompanying this enactment make clear that the legislation did not create new liabilities or new causes of action against the United States. See S.Rep. No. 1992, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 2; H.Rep. No. 536, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. 1.
Courts have no authority to grant relief in the nature of mandamus if the plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy aside from mandamus, such as a suit for monetary judgment or the opportunity to raise the legal issues involved in a suit brought by the government. United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 544 (1937); Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89 (1935); Whittier v. Emmet, 281 F.2d 24, 28-29 (D.C. Cir. 1960); Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Lovallo v. Froehlke, 468 F.2d 340 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 918 (1973). Mandamus is not available, if a statutory method of review is authorized. Wellens v. Dillon, 302 F.2d 442 (9th Cir.), app. dism., 371 U.S. 90 (1962). Mandamus does not supersede other remedies; it only comes into play when there is a want of such remedies. See Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 941 (1970).
IANAL but my understanding is that a Writ of Mandamus is a court order to a party to take action. Maybe, after reading other posts, a court cannot issue a WoM to the President but this is basically the same thing - ordering a party to take affirmative actions.
I guess I don’t totally understand how these procedures work. I would have thought that all the Admin had to do was challenge the quality of the work (or something along those lines). That would require a hearing on the facts and merits. If there were allegations of waste or fraud or failure to deliver as specified then a trial would determine that, and would likely take years to resolve. I haven’t quite heard of a judge issuing an order in a dispute before any trial of facts and perhaps Trump is just using this one as a test case for the limits of the power of Office. I suppose that what has happened so far may be more legal minutiae/process that this non-lawyer doesn’t understand, and the kind of appeal I am thinking of would come later, after a final order of some kind. Or am I off base?
I see. So a WoM is when a higher court orders a lower court to enforce a judgement. I thought it would also include ordering parties to take steps but I guess I was mistaken. They can’t order a government to take action with a WoM, according to your excerpt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.