1/ Judge Hurson (D.Md) just issued a comprehensive opinion & TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing its EO banning gender-affirming care. It's not only a great result, it's a roadmap for other judges reviewing Trump's illegal actions. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... - ThreadSky

andrewtorrez.bsky.social • 7 days ago

1/ Judge Hurson (D.Md) just issued a comprehensive opinion & TRO prohibiting the Trump administration from enforcing its EO banning gender-affirming care.

It's not only a great result, it's a roadmap for other judges reviewing Trump's illegal actions.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616/gov.uscourts.mdd.575616.62.0.pdf

Comments

hbistrengthlab.bsky.social•6 days ago

Great and all, but now enforce it. Maybe it even gets to the supreme court who upholds the ruling. There is no enforcement arm. DOJ is filled with his sycophants. Impeachment? Also not going to happen. We're in a bad place with no recourse.

funkmasterp.bsky.social•6 days ago

I don't see how SCOTUS can side with FOTUS on this one.
It is clearly the prerogative of Congress to allocate funds and form or dissolve government departments which also makes doge illegal.

hbistrengthlab.bsky.social•4 days ago

I get that. So let's say SCOTUS rules Trump did illegal things. If these are federal violations, he pardon's himself and all involved and.. probably keeps doing the thing. Who will actually pull him out of power, put him in cuffs? DOJ won't touch him.

funkmasterp.bsky.social•4 days ago

Politicians won't save us from him, the courts won't save us from him, the DOJ won't save us from him.
We'll have to save ourselves.
Demonstrations like those held yesterday are a good start down that road.
Those also might not save us.
Giant Asteroid, please hurry!

funkmasterp.bsky.social•4 days ago

I forgot one possibility.
Members of Congress can grow some balls and impeach him again.
That actually could happen as more and more red states get screwed over by FOTUS's policies.
He can't keep getting away with this shit 😠

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

2/ Calling it a "straightforward" separation of powers question, Judge Hurson notes that no President can place conditions on federal funds that Congress did not prescribe.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes a President to enact, amend, or repeal statutes."

txlawyer.bsky.social•7 days ago

Same reasoning means all the funding bans based on "DEI" derangement are invalid.

erikgunderson.bsky.social•7 days ago

Look! Clinton! Bostock!
Just like I said!
(Not just me. LOTS of people. Lawyers, mostly.)

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

3/ The court cites is to Clinton v. City of New York, the 1998 Supreme Court decision declaring the line-item veto unconstitutional because the President cannot unilaterally "effect the repeal of laws, for his own policy reasons." Even if Congress wants him to.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4447838344519582856

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

4/ And that's what most of these cases come down to: the Trump administration placing new restrictions on funds that have been previously allocated by Congress because they don't align with his policy choices.

We've been down this road. That is not a power the President has under the Constitution.

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

5/ We discussed these legal issues in depth with @bbkogan.bsky.social in Episode 102.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-102-trump-steals-the-budget-ft-bobby-kogan/id1727769913?i=1000686199215

formertwtruser.bsky.social•7 days ago

I haven't slogged through it all yet . . . is it a nationwide injunction? TIA!

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

Yes

https://bsky.app/profile/andrewtorrez.bsky.social/post/3liai732kjs2s

formertwtruser.bsky.social•7 days ago

Thank you!

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

6/ To be clear: this is a nationwide injunction.

jeffthedog.bsky.social•7 days ago

They loved it with Kascmaryk, so F them

smilingrain.bsky.social•7 days ago

This is really great news

formertwtruser.bsky.social•7 days ago

Ah, thank you!

andrewtorrez.bsky.social•7 days ago

7/ And, as @kathryntewson.bsky.social points out, p. 38 responds to the Trump admin's bullshit arguments that courts can't review executive orders with "oh really? I seem to recall you assholes cheering when the Roberts Court was striking down Biden EOs six months ago..."

(slight paraphrase)

orcishlaw.bsky.social•7 days ago

This seems like a pretty useful footnote to hold on to for later.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply