mattlalden.bsky.social
64 posts
63 followers
61 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
You are still cool with us lawyers who follow defamation law and current events, Ari, if its any consolation. Its a niche following, but very loyal.... ;)
comment in response to
post
I would join a prayer group to try and make this possible if you think another imperfect human will add any value
comment in response to
post
Sounds like the foundation of a Homeric poem except he’s no hero and I can’t relate to his grift
comment in response to
post
Looks like she wants co-author credit and is trying to weigh in with some edits….
comment in response to
post
That was close
comment in response to
post
In the meantime, he gets the headlines he wants, the press amplifies the illusion, and the markets react based on fiction—not fact. 2/2
comment in response to
post
It only needs to be a story you enjoy sharing with your child.
comment in response to
post
When Trump claims the U.S. will receive $1 trillion in revenue from tariffs, that is not money coming from other countries.
That is $1 trillion is coming out of YOUR pocket.
comment in response to
post
@montanaskeptic.bsky.social @andreashopf.bsky.social Do either of you remember who first did Elon as Hitler? I know it was floating around Seeking Alpha way back in the day.
comment in response to
post
13/ (not sure whether this will get added to the thread)
One can certainly disagree with some of USAID's activities. But the fundamental point is that decisions about USAID should be made by Congress, not DOGE. Had Congress dismantled DOGE, I would not be so exercised about what happened.
comment in response to
post
12/ Regardless of what happens next, the factual detail in the memorandum opinion includes a helpful chronology into the reckless & arrogant actions of both Trump and Musk. It will be useful to other litigants in the more than 100 pending lawsuits challenging those actions.
comment in response to
post
11/ As a note, a preliminary injunction is designed simply to keep in place the status quo until a trial on the merits can result in a final adjudication. Between here and there is intensive factual discovery and many (further) preliminary legal challenges.
comment in response to
post
10/ In a United States of America true to its founding and its Constitution, it would be Congress which would be challenging the President's usurpation of Congress' Constitutional authority.
Alas, instead it is individuals relying on private donations for the expensive court fight.
It's shameful.
comment in response to
post
9/ I am not aware of whether Musk or Trump has attacked this decision. And because the preliminary injunction is relatively narrow in scope, I am uncertain Trump will choose this judicial decision as the one to defy, thereby creating a full-blown Constitutional crisis. To be determined.
comment in response to
post
8/ Similarly, the important finding that the disclosure of sensitive personal information available to the DOGE team might create harm was supported by describing that team's Stormtrooper tactics. (The acronym SCIF stands for
sensitive compartmented information facilities.)
comment in response to
post
7/ From the Court's opinion:
comment in response to
post
6/ Notable in the opinion is how much crucial evidence Elon Musk himself created with his reckless X posting. One of the vital findings was that the USAID employees would experience reputational harm absent the relief. Such harm is difficult to show; merely being fired is not enough to create it...
comment in response to
post
5/ The preliminary injunction is narrowly tailored. It prohibits, among other things, further terminations or placements on administrative leave of USAID personnel. However, it allows the closure of USAID headquarters if ratified by USAID's Acting Administrator or any other authorized US Officer.
comment in response to
post
4/ The analysis also focuses on the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. It concludes that the dismantling of USAID could be undertaken only by Congress, as such a dismantling exceeds the President's powers under Article II.
comment in response to
post
3/ The analysis focuses in part on the Constitution's Appointments Clause (Art II, Sect 2). The analysis concludes that Musk exercised significant powers reserved for an Officer of the United States (most especially, the closing of USAID headquarters) despite not having been duly appointed as such.
comment in response to
post
2/ The opinion is accompanied by a preliminary injunction against Musk & DOGE regarding the shuttering of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). At the heart of the ruling is that Musk & DOGE instigated the USAID firings & shutdown, but lacked authority to take such actions.