Yes, on Friday night, Judge Bates rejected plaintiffs' renew motion for a TRO in Labor Dept-DOGE case.
But ... look at his reasoning. He seems to be suggesting it will hurt DOGE (Musk) in other cases.
Think: The much more consequential two Appointments Clause cases that could boot Musk.
But ... look at his reasoning. He seems to be suggesting it will hurt DOGE (Musk) in other cases.
Think: The much more consequential two Appointments Clause cases that could boot Musk.
1 / 2
Comments
"Curiously, defendants do not make this argument."
Followed later by:
"So the Court must be guided by the case law described above defining agencies for other, related purposes. But, AT LEAST IN THIS CASE, that conclusion helps defendants."
* taught by
Or am I misreading that?
The logic is that DOGE properly fits the legal definition of a federal agency, which likely gives them legal authority to do what the plaintiffs want the court to enjoin DOGE from doing.
But, when that logic is applied to other cases, that agency status actually hurts DOGE.
💪
AND -- 5 USC 903 requires a plan be submitted to, and approved by Congress prior to adding or changing any agency or department.
FURTHER, 5 USC 905 places restrictions, limits and controls on HOW those changes of a department or agency are to be implemented!!