Posted on 03/04/2025 9:35:31 AM PST by Red Badger
The Supreme Court must intervene.
A federal judge on Tuesday granted a permanent injunction reinstating a Biden-appointed chairwoman of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
“The mission of the MSPB is to “Protect the Merit System Principles and promote an effective Federal workforce free of Prohibited Personnel Practices.”” the agency’s website says.
Cathy Harris was appointed to the MSPB in 2021 and her term was set to expire on March 1, 2028, but Trump fired her last month.
Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee with a history of anti-Trump bias, said Trump’s decision to fire Cathy Harris, a member of an agency in the executive branch, exceeded his authority.
Last month Contreras issued a temporary restraining order and reinstated Cathy Harris.
Judge Contreras on Tuesday granted a permanent injunction restoring Cathy Harris’s job after both parties filed replies.
The judge claimed Cathy Harris’s job falls under “Humphrey’s Executor” (just like the Hampton Dellinger case) and that “she may be removed by the President prior to the expiration of her term in office only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
“The Court first considers the constitutionality of the MSPB’s structure, concluding that its members’ for-cause removal protections are constitutional under Humphrey’s Executor,” Judge Contreras wrote in a 35-page opinion reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
“Federal law thus prevents the President from removing members of the MSPB without cause, and the President’s attempt to terminate Harris was unlawful. As such, Harris is entitled to summary judgment. The Court next determines the remedies to which Harris may be entitled, granting her declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction. To the extent that injunctive relief may be unavailable, the Court would grant mandamus relief in the alternative,” the judge wrote.
President Trump previously appealed the reinstatement of Cathy Harris, a Biden holdover in the executive branch who was fired by Trump – then rehired by a corrupt Obama judge.
“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order,” The Trump DOJ’s wrote in a notice of appeal last month.
It’s permanent ... until it isn’t.
“Put her in a room without a computer.”
Deactivate all electrical outlets. Jam cellular and wifi.
The Supreme Court is completely incompetent. They seem to be comatose.
This is the new normal...............
Gotta go back to 1883 if you wanna go back to the spoils system. While I understand the source of frustration for the President, I think the civil service system is fine the way it is. The Pendleton Civil Service act of 1883 was implemented in response to Garfield’s assasination. The Pendleton Act transformed federal employment by prioritizing qualifications over political connections, a direct rebuttal to the chaos that enabled Guiteau’s (Garfield’s assassin) actions.
Inefficient.
Sit her in the basement
“I think the fact that the board didn’t meet for like 2 years is negligence ..”
I think the main identification of anything that varies from the actions required, if done knowingly, is negligence. And not knowing the anything and either making the wrong move or not doing anything at all is just the same. It’s their job to follow the needs of the position by using the description and not disobeying the demands of their superiors if they are lawful and within the description. It’s their job to know what to do or find out and do it. Everyone works for someone. And that’s good for federal civilian and military alike.
wy69
The law (5 U.S.C. § 1211(b)), as written and passed (and modified) by congress and signed by then President GHW Bush reads:
“The Special Counsel may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Trump’s lawyers have appealed to SCOTUS, essentially arguing that 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b) is unconstitutional, as the President’s authority to fire members of the executive branch cannot be limited by the legislative branch.
Judge to Trump: “I Tripple Dog Dare Ya...”
A judge and some woman Federal emoyee dies not have more authority than the President of the United States.
I agree. Same with lawyers and military. They’ve learned life and justice in their countries of origin. The systems of their countries is embedded in their DNA. Additionally, they really have no loyalty to our country or its laws.
The court may hesitate to abruptly overturn Humphrey’s Executor without clearer justification. While Trump’s arguments may resonate with the Court’s recent executive-power jurisprudence, the unique statutory framework and the lack of direct precedent invalidating Humphrey’s Executor for multi-member or investigative agencies make success uncertain. The case could prompt the Court to clarify the boundaries of removal authority but is unlikely to result in a sweeping victory for the administration without modifying existing precedent.
How appealing.
Exactly.
Transfer to your home town! We don’t need any more leftists in Alaska!
The civil service system is a monstrosity.
While we debate the legalities this federal employee needs to be detailed to the Antarctica science station.
I think you have that skewed. Marbury overruled Congress, not the President.
To the contrary, regarding the President Marbury ruled that the courts must stay out of the execution of the President's discretionary powers:
74
By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.75
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This officer, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the president. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.76
But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.77
The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.99
It is scarcely necessary for the court to disclaim all pretensions to such a jurisdiction. An extravagance, so absurd and excessive, could not have been entertained for a moment. The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.
-PJ
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.