lawofruby.bsky.social
@msnbc.com legal correspondent & recovering litigator; former off-air legal analyst @maddow.msnbc.com.
Don’t let the pearls fool ya.
34 posts
68,265 followers
23 following
Regular Contributor
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
The Trump administration did not start this litigation. But do I think they welcome this fight? I sure do.
comment in response to
post
In the second, however, the majority reasoned that the “nature and breadth of an agency’s authority is not dispositive” where it comes to a president’s removal power and suggests at-will removal of officials, from the lowest to the highest, is critical for a president’s execution of his agenda. 4/
comment in response to
post
In the first case, Chief Justice Roberts differentiated Dellinger’s agency, the Office of Special Counsel, from those whose heads must be removable by the president. Congress, he affirmed, can still regulate a president’s ability to remove those with limited duties and no policymaking authority. 3/
comment in response to
post
Why? Because in 2020 and 2021 respectively, the Court held that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Housing Finance Agency encroached on the president’s constitutional powers and was not constitutional. 2/
comment in response to
post
But does it end with Ellen? Surely, it does not, even if she fights back (and all signs indicate she will). And I am watching the Federal Trade Commission next. FIN.
comment in response to
post
Last night, Trump began what I expect is a new wave of removals of these kinds of commissioners, starting with Federal Elections Commission chair Ellen Weintraub, who, thus far, has said she knows what a lawful firing looks like and this ain’t it. 4/
comment in response to
post
That’s a feature, not a bug. The goal is to ensure balanced decision making, independent of the control of any one president or party. And it’s the intentional design of the bodies that regulate our elections, airwaves, and the fairness of our business practices. 3/
comment in response to
post
Those commissions also have staggered terms for their members that purposefully do not start or end with a given president’s term. 2/
comment in response to
post
So then the question is this: If you are, say, a state that relies on a federal block grant distribution to fund, say, family planning services or infrastructure needs, can and will you sue? I’m watching.
comment in response to
post
On the congressional side, it would take the will of House and Senate Republicans to vigorously challenge the impoundment. But it’s far from clear that the minority party alone — as opposed to the bodies as a whole — would have legal standing to sue.
comment in response to
post
The question here is not whether it’s legal. It’s not. Not as a matter of constitutional text, Supreme Court precedent, or a post-Watergate statute designed to prevent presidents from doing exactly this. It’s who will stop it.
comment in response to
post
Twinning is winning! (And I am sorry about the change.)