Posted on 04/08/2025 9:27:11 AM PDT by cgbg
This is another solid win in the Supreme Court for President Trump.
Down sizing is a legitimate way of getting rid of workers without cause or union interference.
How long before the justices get tired of slapping down each of these rulings and order a blanket ban on nationwide injunctions?
The Supreme Court cited key arguments we have made here:
—Lower courts have no business micromanaging the President on personnel matters.
—Unions and other litigants have no standing. Only individuals have standing on their specific case.
—The proper venue for such issues is the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Not to rain on your parade, but not exactly a "solid win." Did you see "while litigation moves forward before a federal judge in California."?
Alll the recent wins have just kicked the can down the road, not solved the underlying rogue judicial and lawfare problem. The lawfare assault on our duly elected President is astonishing...
| President | Years in Office | Nationwide Injunctions | TROs (Notable) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theodore Roosevelt | 1901–1909 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| William Howard Taft | 1909–1913 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| Woodrow Wilson | 1913–1921 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| Warren G. Harding | 1921–1923 | 0–1 | Unknown |
| Calvin Coolidge | 1923–1929 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| Herbert Hoover | 1929–1933 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | 1933–1945 | 0–3 | Unknown |
| Harry S. Truman | 1945–1953 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| Dwight D. Eisenhower | 1953–1961 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| John F. Kennedy | 1961–1963 | 0–1 | Unknown |
| Lyndon B. Johnson | 1963–1969 | 1–3 | Unknown |
| Richard Nixon | 1969–1974 | 1–3 | Unknown |
| Gerald Ford | 1974–1977 | 0–2 | Unknown |
| Jimmy Carter | 1977–1981 | 1–3 | Unknown |
| Ronald Reagan | 1981–1989 | 12 | Unknown |
| George H.W. Bush | 1989–1993 | 6 | Unknown |
| Bill Clinton | 1993–2001 | 12 | Unknown |
| George W. Bush | 2001–2009 | 6 | Unknown |
| Barack Obama | 2009–2017 | 12 | Unknown |
| Donald Trump #45 | 2017–2021 | 64 | 5+ |
| Joe Biden | 2021–2025 | 14 | Unknown |
| Donald Trump #47 | 2025–present | 15+ | 10+ |
Notes: Data before 1960s is estimated (0–3) due to limited records; nationwide injunctions were rare. Post-1960s counts from Harvard Law Review (1963–2023) and recent news (2024–2025). TROs are underreported historically; Trump’s terms include notable TROs (e.g., funding freezes, birthright citizenship). 2025 data partial as of April 08, 2025.
“How long before the justices get tired of slapping down each of these rulings and order a blanket ban on nationwide injunctions?”
I think avoiding losing that power is why the SCOTUS decided to crack down on venue/judge shopping in the MS-13 deportee case. Instead of removing the authority of all judges, they made judge shopping much more difficult.
Your statement is both true and false—half full or half empty glass.
The half full part of the glass in this case is that the Supreme Court got very specific (down and dirty) about how they viewed the specific issues.
When the Supremes start sounding like me the Democrats are totally FAFOed.
Well what do you know...
A case essentially turned away for.... wait for it.... lack of standing.
And what? AJ Barrett was in the majority for the preliminary injunction to be stayed.
No complaints about standing now I suppose. Must be busy looking up specifics on why they object to AJ Barrett’s recent position in cases.
Yeah, that’s it.
I hope you are right. It will take a landmark case winding its way through the court system and getting to SCOTUS before a lot of this garbage can be put to rest.
My view on this is that there are actually three main categories of cases with their own issues on Presidential authority:
1. Illegal immigration
2. Federal personnel policy
3. Federal funding policy
With this decision on the probationary employees we can now say...in three separate cases the Supreme Court has halted leftist judge injunctions/restraining orders—one in each area.
The immigration decision came yesterday.
The funding decision (college funding) came a few days ago.
I have no problem with separate rulings on the three main categories—they truly are separate issues with a separate legal history.
Re: 8 - not pertaining to you.
There’s just a lot of hate to AJ Barrett, al lot of it based in ignorance.
In support of those beating up on Barrett—lol:
This was a slam dunk no standing case.
I have writing about this since the probationary employee cases started.
The Merit Systems Protection Board has been dealing with thousands of these cases for decades. Their entire purpose was to get federal personnel cases out of the courts.
The only individuals who have standing before the MSPB is individual fired employees.
Only kooky leftists would even consider ignoring that legislative and regulatory and real world history.
This is not even a constitutional issue—it is a common sense issue.
I get it. And agree re: standing.
I don’t know what to think of the Barrett hate, as the most outspoken can’t point to specific objections they have in how she ruled and why she ruled the way she did.
For some, it may be mommy issues. Unknown.
Good news! These buggy, fame seeking Federal District Court judges are annoying the Supreme Court? Hopefully? It is very difficult to get your case in front of the Supreme Court. Which has a jammed schedule.
Best case scenario is that the SC is signaling these easily appealed Federal District Court Democrat judges to stifle themselves.
BTW The Dems/Deep State Federal courts strategy is to delay delay delay and obstruct the Trump administration. Winning is very nice but delays will suffice.
“How long before the justices get tired of slapping down each of these rulings and order a blanket ban on nationwide injunctions?”
I think avoiding losing that power is why the SCOTUS decided to crack down on venue/judge shopping in the MS-13 deportee case. Instead of removing the authority of all judges, they made judge shopping much more difficult.
________________
Exactly what went on. SC/Roberts wants to preserve the farce of a Federal District Court judge making decisions that apply nationwide. To save that power for a really rainy day, to use against the Trump administration.
SC/Roberts also noticing that laws are making their way through Congress that ban these Federal kangaroo court judges from issuing anti-Trump decisions that apply nationwide. SC/Roberts do not want these laws to be passed and signed by Trump.
(ORDER LIST: 604 U.S.)TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
24A904 OPM, ET AL. V. AFGE, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.
Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.
Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application.
I have writing about this since the probationary employee cases started.The Merit Systems Protection Board has been dealing with thousands of these cases for decades. Their entire purpose was to get federal personnel cases out of the courts.
The only individuals who have standing before the MSPB is individual fired employees.
The MSPB has no jurisdiction over probationary employees.
MSPB JURISDICTION
For non-protected workers such as probationary workers, regarding adverse personnel actions, they do not meet the statutory definition of an employee.
Probationary workers have very limited rights and do not enjoy the right to appeal to the MSPB. The MSPB indicates they have no jurisdiction over adverse actions related to such workers, stating, "Probationary employees have very limited appeal rights. They may appeal a termination based on political affiliation or marital status, and they may appeal a termination based on conditions arising before employment on the grounds that the termination was not in accordance with regulations."
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-5/part-iii/subpart-f/chapter-75/subchapter-ii/
5 U.S.C. 7511
Title 5 - Government Organization and Employees
Part III - Employees
Subpart F - Labor-Management and Employee Relations
Chapter 75 - Adverse Actions
Subchapter II - Removal, Suspension for More Than 14 Days, Reduction in Grade or Pay, or Furlough for 30 Days or Less
Sec. 7511 - Definitions; application(a) For the purpose of this subchapter—
(1) "employee" means—
(A) an individual in the competitive service—
(i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment; or(ii) who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(B) a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions—
(i) in an Executive agency; or(ii) in the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission; and
(C) an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible)—
(i) who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service; or(ii) who has completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less;
https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/jurisdiction.htm
JurisdictionAPPELLATE JURISDICTION
The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) authorized the Board to hear appeals of various agency actions, including appeals previously heard by the Civil Service Commission and appeals arising from new causes of action created by the CSRA. Certain other actions may be appealed to the Board under OPM regulations. Since a principal purpose of the CSRA was to streamline Federal personnel management, the Congress did not make all personnel actions appealable to the Board. However, some actions that are not appealable to the Board may be appealed to OPM or may be covered by agency grievance procedures.
If a personnel action involves a prohibited personnel practice, regardless of whether the action is appealable to the Board, the employee may file a complaint with the Special Counsel, asking that the Special Counsel seek corrective action from the Board. Under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, an individual who alleges that a personnel action was taken, or not taken, or threatened, because of "whistleblowing" may seek corrective action from the Board directly if the Special Counsel does not seek corrective action on his or her behalf.
Most of the cases brought to the Board are appeals of agency adverse actions--removals, suspensions of more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, and furloughs of 30 days or less. The next largest number of cases involve appeals of OPM determinations in retirement matters. Other types of actions that may be appealed to the Board include: performance-based removals or reductions in grade, denials of within-grade salary increases, reduction-in-force actions, OPM suitability determinations, OPM employment practices (the development and use of examinations, qualification standards, tests and other measurement instruments), denials of restoration of reemployment rights, and certain terminations of probationary employees.
Additional jurisdictional issues arise where the employee alleges discrimination in connection with an action otherwise appealable to the Board (e.g., mixed case). While the Board has jurisdiction over such appeals, the employee, if dissatisfied with the final decision of the Board, may ask the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review the Board's decision. If the EEOC and the Board cannot agree, the case is referred to the Special Panel for final resolution. The Special Panel consists of a Chairman appointed by the President, one member of the Board appointed by the MSPB Chairman, and one EEOC commissioner appointed by the EEOC Chairman. A discrimination complaint in connection with an action that is not appealable to the Board may be pursued through internal agency procedures and the EEOC.
There are also additional jurisdictional issues when the employee is a member of a bargaining unit that has a negotiated grievance procedure covering any of the actions that may be appealed to the Board. In such instances, the employee normally must pursue a grievance through the negotiated grievance procedure. There are three exceptions to this general rule: (1) when the action is an adverse action or performance-based action; (2) when the employee raises an issue of prohibited discrimination in connection with the action; and (3) when the employee alleges that the action was the result of a prohibited personnel practice other than discrimination. If any of these exceptions apply, the employee has the choice of using the negotiated grievance procedure or filing an appeal with the Board, but may not do both. (Under the terms of some union contracts, Postal Service employees may be able to pursue a grievance under the negotiated procedure and also file an appeal with the Board.)
For the Board to have jurisdiction over any appeal of a personnel action, it must possess jurisdiction over both the action and the employee filing the appeal. Approximately 2 million Federal employees, or about two-thirds of the full-time civilian work force, currently have appeal rights to the Board. Employees eligible to appeal specific actions vary in accordance with the law and regulations governing those actions. In some cases, classes of employees, such as political appointees, are excluded. Employees of specific agencies, such as the intelligence agencies and the General Accounting Office, are excluded with respect to certain actions.
Generally, employees who may appeal adverse actions and performance-based actions are those in the competitive service who have completed a probationary period and those in the excepted service (other than the Postal Service) with at least two years continuous service. Postal Service employees who may appeal adverse actions are preference-eligible employees with one year continuous service and certain Postal Service supervisors, managers, and employees engaged in personnel work.
Probationary employees have very limited appeal rights. They may appeal a termination based on political affiliation or marital status, and they may appeal a termination based on conditions arising before employment on the grounds that the termination was not in accordance with regulations. Employees and annuitants may appeal OPM decisions affecting entitlements under the retirement systems. Certain actions, such as OPM suitability determinations and OPM employment practices, may be appealed by applicants for employment.
The immigration decision came yesterday.
I would suggest attentionn be given to the immigration opinion to see what they actually said and did.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Donald Trump v JGG, 604 US --- (2025), 24A931 Per Curiam
Per curiam at 2:
We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardlessof whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)).
Per curiam at 3:
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “ ‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
Aliens can be turned away at the border, no problem, but once they are allowed to be here, removal requires due process. Each and every one is entitled to a hearing with a right to be heard.
All nine justices agreed.
Sotomayor dissent at 9-10:
Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncertain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and removal under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to ‘judicial review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitutionality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.’” Ante, at 2 (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172, n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below will probe, among other things, the meaning of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” 50 U. S. C. §21, and ask, for example, whether any given individual is in fact a member of Tren de Aragua. Even the Government has now largely conceded that point. Application 19.So too do we all agree with the per curiam’s command that the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to afford plaintiffs “notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act, . . . within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Ante, at 3. That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. Nor can the Government “immediately resume” removing individuals without notice upon vacatur of the TRO, as it promised the D. C. Circuit it would do. See 2025 WL 914682, *13 (Millett, J., concurring) (referencing oral argument before that court). To the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.
That ruling does not sound very promising.
Every illegal captured and charged under AEA has to get “judicial review” before deportation. How intensive will that review be? Can it be cursory to meet the requirement? Or will it be a lengthy process requiring tens or hundreds of man-hours labor (or more?) for each individual. “Bailiff, turn him over to ICE.” But if the rulings can be appealed and appealed and appealed again (paid for by Soros, et al), we will never deport of them.
Furthermore, “courts below will probe, among other things, the meaning of an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’.” That sounds like a LONG, time-consuming and expensive process with all the leftists lined up to argue that the AEA does not apply. Does “courts below” mean the district court? Or further down the court chain?
It might be that the AEA is a dead end and it will be a lot simpler and faster to just find out if the person has a temporary visa or green card. If not, then adios.
The judges that issued the TROs need to have their courts to only handle parking tickets and speeding tickets it’s all they can handle.
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.