pause Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

DOJ asks judge to pause order mandating DOGE discovery

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 18 Apr 2025 05:39:57 +0000

President-elect Donald Trump listens to Elon Musk as he arrives to watch SpaceX’s mega rocket Starship lift off for a test flight from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, Nov. 19, 2024 (Brandon Bell/Pool via AP, File).

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will quickly appeal a court order aimed at prying open the internal structure of the beleaguered pseudo-agency helmed by Elon Musk, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a late Thursday court filing.

In a 13-page ruling handed down on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, a Barack Obama appointee, directed titular U.S. DOGE Service Administrator Amy Gleason to sit for a deposition. The group was also ordered to provide certain documents and answer limited questions issued by nonpartisan government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

The underlying lawsuit is an effort to enforce Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests against the Trump administration’s intra-governmental fraud-and-waste-focused organization. DOGE, in turn, has maintained “it is not an agency subject to FOIA,” Cooper noted.

The court disagreed and entered an injunction requiring expedited processing of CREW’s FOIA requests against DOGE. The plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the lawsuit and, seeking a quick bit of finality, moved for expedited discovery.

Cooper’s Tuesday order largely gave CREW what they wanted – while denying one deposition request. The defendants, in a motion to stay, insist that even the limited relief is far too much to bear.

“First, [DOGE’s] Administrator would be diverted from her significant duties and burdened in both preparing and sitting for a deposition, all of which may ultimately prove to be unnecessary,” the government’s filing reads. “The same is true of the discovery more generally.”

To that end, DOGE says they will, on Friday, use the somewhat unusual method of filing a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “requesting that the Court of Appeals vacate” the lower court’s discovery order.

A mandamus petition is, however, not exactly an appeal. It is an attempt to have one court force another entity within the government to do something – or to force itself to correct a mistake.

“[DOGE] thus hereby moves this Court to stay the Discovery Order pending the D.C. Circuit’s disposition of the mandamus petition [DOGE] expects to file tomorrow,” the government’s motion reads. “CREW opposes this requested relief. Should the Court not grant a stay of the Order by 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, [DOGE] intend to also seek a stay from the D.C. Circuit, as well as an immediate administrative stay.”

The government’s motion does not explicitly say why the defendants are seeking the unusual form of relief but hints that they expect to be able to win their case quickly due to the nature of the tool.

“CREW will not suffer any irreparable harm from the minor delay of a stay pending highly expedited mandamus review,” the motion argues.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Unheard of and improper’: Trump admin refuses to produce high-ranking official to testify about controversial use of ‘death master file’ in pressuring migrants to self-deport

In response to Gleason’s deposition, the government says the court’s order “intrudes substantially” on the executive branch.

“Gleason is not only the head of an Executive Branch component, but head of an Executive Office of the President component,” the motion continues. “Expedited discovery itself is an exception to the ordinary rules of civil litigation, and the depositions of high-ranking government officials are an exception even beyond that.”

In regard to some of those court-ordered document productions, DOGE complained their staff would be more or less overwhelmed.

“Absent a stay [DOGE] would be required, within the next five days to, among other things, attempt to identify every recommendation it or any of its employees has made on broad subjects and either disclose the substance of those recommendations to CREW, or analyze and assert privilege as to a potentially broad swathe of material,” the motion goes on. “And it must do so, while also processing 1,000 pages of documents to comply with the Court’s attendant order directing processing of FOIA records, while the Court considers whether [DOGE] is actually subject to FOIA in the first place.”

The government also says their compliance with the court order would lead to “irreparable harm” while CREW has nothing to lose from a brief stay of the discovery demands.

“To the extent [DOGE] is required to undertake this burdensome search process (or produce any documents or information) pursuant to the Court’s Discovery Order, it would likewise be impossible to reverse the resulting harm if the Court of Appeals vacates that order or narrows the discovery this Court has directed,” the motion continues.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

In a quick response placed on the federal court docket, Cooper ordered CREW to respond to the government’s arguments by Friday.

Jerry Lambe and Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.

Source link

The post DOJ asks judge to pause order mandating DOGE discovery appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Judge will not pause order allowing AP back into press pool

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 12 Apr 2025 02:49:15 +0000

President Donald Trump listens to a question from a reporter before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, March 31, 2025 (Pool via AP).

A federal judge on Friday refused to stay his own order allowing The Associated Press back into the White House press pool, dealing the Trump administration its second loss in the case this week.

In a relatively terse 5-page memorandum order, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term, denied a request to stay the injunction pending appeal.

But there is time yet for the appellate court to grant a stay of its own. The Department of Justice filed for such relief on April 10 — two days after the lower court entered its order in the AP’s favor. McFadden took note of the leeway granted in his Friday ruling.

“The Court has already stayed its injunction, on its own motion, until April 13, 2025, to allow the Government time to appeal,” McFadden wrote. “The Court will not extend that stay further.”

The day before filing their appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government filed a motion with McFadden, pleading for the stay to last as long as the appeals process itself.

In the lower court motion, the DOJ complained that McFadden’s order purports “to control access to the President’s most intimate spaces: his personal workspace (the Oval Office), his means of transportation (Air Force One), and his personal home (the Mar-a-Lago Club).”

The district judge was not taken by this argument.

“Most importantly, the Government has not shown it is likely to succeed on the merits,” the judge observes. “The Government sidesteps traditional forum analysis by invoking an ‘intimate spaces’ exception to the First Amendment. But this label is untethered from precedent, which is likely why the Government did not advance this notion at all in its merits arguments for the injunction briefing. To the contrary, the D.C. Circuit suggests that government offices fit squarely into the definition of nonpublic fora.”

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘That means they’ve done nothing’: Judge lashes out at Trump admin for refusing to comply with SCOTUS orders, demands daily updates on status of wrongly deported dad

McFadden writes that the government’s motion “misconstrues the facts” and briefly analyzes each of the three claimed “intimate” spaces one-by-one. In sum, the judge noted that the Oval Office, Air Force One, and even Mar-a-Lago are often beset by reporters and other members of the public.

“The President has other personal workspaces to which Defendants do not routinely invite a gaggle of reporters,” McFadden muses. “Those are truly ‘intimate spaces,’ and they are so precisely because Defendants do not regularly invite in prying reporters and the like.”

In his order enjoining the ban, McFadden said the Trump administration is not permanently barred from stripping the AP’s access to certain places, so long as all journalists are banned as well.

“The Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” the order reads. “The Constitution requires no less.”

On Friday, the judge also chastised the government over the First Amendment retaliation claim that formed an entirely separate basis for the order in the media organization’s favor. This section is considerably short, however, because the DOJ itself ignored that part of the injunction in their motion for a stay.

“[T]he Government’s motion does not begin to address First Amendment retaliation caselaw, an independent justification for the Court’s decision,” the judge’s order goes on. “So the motion fails on the law.”

Where the government did bother to argue was unavailing.

The DOJ complained that “profound separation of powers issues” implicate the executive branch’s “right to dictate who is permitted” where.

The judge noted this was a brand new argument — and one asserting too much power in light of the First Amendment issues at stake.

“[I]nvoking a vague separation-of-powers argument for the first time in a motion to stay does not help the Government’s case,” the order continues. “It cites no precedent that would allow this Court to overcome the clear commands of First Amendment precedent in the interest of a greater separation-of-powers concern. Constitutional protections would be worth little indeed if they wilt in the face of presidential incursion.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Meanwhile, the appeal itself is moving forward with speed; the court ordered both parties to brief addressing the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal by Friday afternoon.

Source link

The post Judge will not pause order allowing AP back into press pool appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks pause on foreign aid but does not order Trump to act

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:40:30 +0000

Administrative Law

Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks pause on foreign aid but does not order Trump to act

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 18, 2025, 12:11 pm CST

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a temporary restraining order that allows some foreign assistance programs to continue, for now, in a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association and other plaintiffs. (Photo by John O’Brien/ABA Journal)

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 13 in two consolidated suits, report Law.com, the New York Times, NPR, NBC News and Law360. The ABA announced the decision in a Feb. 14 press release.

President Donald Trump froze the funding in a Jan. 20 executive order requiring a 90-day review to determine whether the foreign assistance programs should end or be modified.

“Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” wrote Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.

Ali’s TRO bars the suspension of appropriated foreign assistance funds in connection with contracts, grants or other awards that were in existence Jan. 19. The TRO also bars stop-work orders in connection with those funding awards.

Ali’s decision applies to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and other government defendants but not to Trump.

Ali said the ABA “narrowed” its request for relief after the government “rightly highlighted the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power” during a hearing. An initial proposed TRO filed by the ABA and other plaintiffs asked Ali to order all the defendants, including Trump, to allow continued funding. A revised proposal no longer mentioned Trump.

The Feb. 11 suit had claimed that the administration’s actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the Constitution’s take care clause and beyond a president’s powers.

Ali said the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs.

“Defendants have repeatedly, and rightly, emphasized the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power as it relates to foreign policy,” Ali wrote. “Plaintiffs, for their part, have emphasized the Constitution’s separation of powers, which also demands respect for Congress’ Article I role in legislating, including Congress’ choice to allow judicial review through the APA and other statutes constraining the executive branch, as well as Congress’ important role in appropriating funds.”

The ABA implements 19 programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development or “via subaward,” according to the Feb. 11 suit filed by the association and seven other plaintiffs. The ABA also implements 59 programs funded by the U.S. Department of State.

The ABA programs, administered through the ABA Center for Global Programs, support U.S. international interests by promoting the rule of law and human rights, the suit says.

“Plaintiff ABA has had tens of millions of dollars in USAID and State Department funding frozen,” the suit says. “This freeze has decimated ABA’s programs, including its efforts to protect religious freedom in Asia, fight human trafficking in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, prepare Ukraine to recover from Russia’s invasion, advance democracy in Myanmar, and combat money laundering and terrorism in South America.”

ABA President Bill Bay commented on Ali’s ruling in the press release.

“The actions of the president and other executive branch officials to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was established by Congress to administer billions of dollars of foreign assistance funding, is unprecedented. The American Bar Association cannot overstate the impact of this unlawful course of conduct,” Bay said.

“Every administration has the right to review ongoing programs and set priorities, but those actions must be carried out in compliance with relevant constitutional and statutory requirements,” Bay said. “There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. We have filed a suit to ensure that changes are consistent with the rule of law. The sudden dismantling of USAID has real-world consequences that cause harm not only to those we serve but also to those who serve others.”

The ABA and the other plaintiffs are represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in their suit, Global Health Council v. Trump. The Global Health Council suit was consolidated with AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia has imposed a TRO in a similar case and extended it to Feb. 21, according to Law.com. The TRO bars the administration from putting USAID employees on administrative leave and from requiring them to leave their overseas posts.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks pause on foreign aid but does not order Trump to act appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.