Posted on 02/10/2025 10:16:16 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Lawyers representing President Trump and the office of the presidency have filed an urgent response motion to remove a court order by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer that blocked the Treasury Secretary and “political appointees” from accessing Treasury Department systems. [SEE ADMINISTRATION FILING HERE]
The filing is in response to District Judge Engelmayer’s blatant effort to engage in judicial activism and violate the Article II separation of power. The Chief executive cannot be limited in scope or activity by the judicial branch, let alone a single circuit court judge within the regional judicial branch who is attempting to block the executive branch nationally.
“Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the president,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in the 11-page filing, calling the order “impermissible” and “anti-constitutional.”
WASHINGTON DC – […] The attorneys are asking Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas to quickly end or modify the order to ensure Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his top leadership can be briefed on the payment system and perform their legally required roles. (more)
From The Twitter – “Donald Trump’s actions since his inauguration have caused public discussion of some questions in Constitutional law.
I’m not a lawyer. But I have more than a passing acquaintance with Constitutional law – I’ve been studying it ever since I was an individual amicus in the Supreme Court case that struck down the Communications Decency Act back in the 1990s.
After 30 years of studying issues around the First and Second amendment and the doctrine of judicial review, I have some thoughts.
There are several intermingled issues here.
First: when JD Vance says that the courts do not have the authority to intervene in the administration of the executive branch, he is probably correct.
The judicial review power is generally considered to extend modifying or striking down laws, not to allowing any judge to interfere in the president’s administrative authority over the executive branch.
Second, any judge that rules that the Treasury of the Secretary may not have unlimited access to Treasury department data is setting himself up for reversal. This has never been litigated because it’s a ridiculous overreach that has never been attempted before.
Third, there are serious questions about the authority of federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court (what the Constitution explicitly calls “inferior” courts) that may now be forced to a resolution.
For purposes of separation of powers, only the Supreme Court itself is considered co-equal to the executive and legislative branches. Inferior judges are not.
One question, therefore, is whether the President may assert separation of powers as a defense against rulings of an inferior judge. Certainly, invoking separation of powers against a ruling of the Supreme Court itself would trigger a constitutional crisis, but that’s not the situation we’re talking about here.
This has not been litigated, but I think the President is likely to prevail on the question.
The fourth question is about the authority of federal circuit court judges to issue injunctions with nationwide effects outside the circuit where they have formal authority.
Until very recently, federal judges were so reluctant to raise this Constitutional issue that they almost never issued such injunctions. They issued injunctions only for their own circuits and left it to the Supreme Court to resolve questions about nationwide application.
But nationwide injunctions in contentious cases have become more common recently, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to address whether inferior-court federal judges do in fact have nationwide authority.
I think it is quite unlikely that the Supreme Court will affirm this.
I am not addressing here the question of whether I think Trump and DOGE’s authority to block Treasury payments should prevail. I am predicting that it almost certainly will prevail.” ~Eric S Raymond
The DNC’s stooges in black robes are single-handedly trying to drag their DNC massas’ chestnuts out of the fire by pretending that the RATS are always right.
Vargas is a Biden appointee.
Not holding my breath.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
-PJ
Maybe they will disallow it because he did not bring it up at the initial proceeding (to which he was not a part of).
Yeah, like that's gonna happen. The appeals court Dem judges will just step in to stop that.
Like Vito Corleone, the rats have the judges in their pockets.
Bkmk
Or they could refuse to review it for a few years, they way they always do.
This IS war .
we’ve been invaded and are being attacked and sabotaged by a domestic enemy rogue judiciary.
it will take full mobilization of all service branches including national guard to repel the boarders/invaders
The President must declare martial law
deploy the full might and personnel of the military to round up and deport the tens of millions so they are all gone by 2028
conduct military tribunals for all domestic enemies starting with the ones on benches
and get er done
First, the administration (DOGE) needs to defund the federal courts.
We need a commitment from all future federal court nominees (at any level) that a federal district court has no authority to issue any ruling that affects geographic areas outside of its venue. A court in the southern district of NY had no power to issue any ruling that affects DC or Texas or California.
The DOJ needs to take that position in every case and all conservative organizations before every federal court need to make that argument until we find a court that accepts it. I think the SCOTUS would eventually make that ruling.
This nonsense of one rogue federal judge attempting to legislate nationwide policy has to stop.
Tell the world that not one Federal check from the Treasury will be issued until this is overturned..including the judge’s.
Presumed they’ll go through her and on up the chain? Hard to imagine that wouldn’t take as long as the stay has been established for—so conveniently timed?
Do taxpayers have standing? Should there be an organized effort to sign up taxpayers as an affected class? Our Representatives should be doing this I suppose, but they’re MIA.
Great question.
Maybe we can find out and ping all.
The order is so unconstitutional that it should be defied as well as appealed. I recall that, around 1970, a congressional committee defied a federsl court order not to hold a hearing, with the chairman saying that the judge needed to go back to law school.
IMHO, James is afraid of what DOGE will find concerning her. She acts like a gangsta and financial crimes come with the territory. Remember Fannie Willis who enriched her boyfriend who spent some of it on her.
Trump should announce that the judge has no standing. Go full Andrew Jackson and dare congress to impeach him and face the wrath of the people.
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.