Powerline noticed a Trump legal victory that hasn’t gotten the attention that it deserves.
Democrats have sought to block the Trump administration from carrying out its policies by bringing lawsuits before Democratic Party judges, in which the administration’s actions are challenged on various grounds. The Democratic Party’s District Court judges then issue sweeping orders enjoining the government’s actions, sometimes without even hearing from the administration’s lawyers. We have never seen anything like this in our history.
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order in several related cases involving the United States Agency for Global Media, which, among other things, oversees Voice of America. The cases were brought by employees who are being laid off, and entities that had contracts with agencies controlled by USAGM:
On March 14, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14238, which directed USAGM leadership to reduce the agency to the minimum level of operations required by statute. 90 Fed. Reg. 13043. In response, USAGM placed over 1,000 employees on administrative leave, terminated nearly 600 personal-service contractors, and terminated [Radio Free Asia’s and Middle East Broadcasting Networks’] grant agreements for the 2025 fiscal year.
The district judge entered an order blocking the administration’s actions; yesterday the Court of Appeals stayed that order.
The Court of Appeals held that the district court probably lacked jurisdiction to address the claims of laid-off employees. Under federal law, claims by employees are adjudicated by agencies like the Merit Systems Protection Board. Likewise with contractors. The D.C. Circuit held that courts do not have jurisdiction to address the claims of 1,000 or more employees en masse as an end run around the required statutory procedures.
The Court further held that the claims asserted on behalf of entities whose grant agreements with the agencies have been terminated can be adjudicated only under the Tucker Act, which governs claims for breach of contract against the federal government. Because the district court in all likelihood lacked jurisdiction, the Court held that the Trump administration is likely to prevail on the merits, and therefore the district court’s order was stayed, pending appeal. This means that the administration’s actions will take effect as provided in President Trump’s executive order.
Snip.
The battle over Executive Branch powers will continue, but these limitations on hastily-granted restraining orders issued by Democratic Party judges will strengthen the administration’s hand. Many of DOGE’s savings relate to grants that were improvidently made by the Biden administration. The mere fact that those grantees will have to pursue claims for breach of contract under the Tucker Act, which will take years, as opposed to relying on ex parte orders by Democratic Party judges, is huge.
These cases were heard by D.C. Circuit Court Judges Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee, and Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee.
Many Democrat-appointed district judges seem to be operating under the novel legal theory that executive orders issued by Democratic presidents can not be undone by executive orders issued by mere Republicans, and instead can only by undone by carrying the executive order to Mordor and casting it into Mt. Doom. Fortunately, their extra-legal shenanigans are being brought to heel by various circuit court judges, albeit slowly.
Democratic district judges will likely continue to play their unconstitutional game of issuing nationwide injunctions until the Supreme Court rules on the issue in one of the cases before it, such as Trump v. New Jersey.
Tags: Cornelia Pillard, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Democrats, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Gregory Katsas, Merit Systems Protection Board, Neomi Rao, Powerline, Radio Free Europe, Supreme Court, Trump v. New Jersey, Tucker Act, United States Agency for Global Media
The U.S Senate has confirmed only 7 out of the 219 DoJ officials requiring confirmation, as of May 1st. AG Pam Bondi is short staffed – actually worse than short staffed because many of the “Actings” are Deep State operatives committed to subverting President Trump’s agenda. The permissible durations of Senate holds is running out and DoJ appointments will start to roll in the federal Fourth Quarter. Then you will start to see a massive response to the lawfare.
So President Trump and AG Pam Bondi are still not in effective charge of the Department of Justice due to the overwhelming number of Democratic partisans in its ranks. They slow walk and subvert responses to the Democratic lawyers.
AG Bondi is dealing with 226 TROs and 90+ PROs; lawfare numbers never, ever before seen. The poor woman probably gets less sleep than Elon Musk.
“Democratic district judges will likely continue to play their unconstitutional game of issuing nationwide injunctions until the Supreme Court rules on the issue…”
I would not count on being rescued by the USSC. If district courts issuing national injunctions were at issue, the decision would be straightforward. Article 3 courts have no jurisdiction over immigration courts unless the plaintiffs ask for an appeal. Even at that, the US Attorney General can intervene in the review process.
Jeff Sessions instituted this policy and to the best of my understanding, it still stands.
Presumably, the Roberts court will find a heretofore undiscovered right of immigration, based not on Constitutional authority but on some nebulous concept of The International Brotherhood of Man and Universal Right of Unhindered Migration. ACB will prove highly vulnerable to such an appeal, based on her otherwise incomprehensible past rulings.
The other three women (sic) will show themselves to be eager proponents of the “emanation and penumbra” school of jurisprudence and immigration law will become increasingly opaque until Trump says, “Enough” and rejects jurisdiction of Article 3 court rulings as applied to matters delegates to Article 2 tribunals.
I hope John “Ahab” Roberts turns back from his enraged pursuit of The Orange Whale before it results in taking down the entire Ship of State edifice but based on his past conduct, it seems unlikely.
Exclusive of having power to regulate the conduct and qualifications of officers of the court, courts adjudicate the laws of Congress, rules of agencies, and orders of the President. In none of these latter cases do judges serve in an advisory role. They are not permitted to enjoin Congress from legislating, hinder agencies from formulating procedures and practices or enjoin the President from implementing federal policy.
Yet nationwide injunctions by district courts propose to circumscribe the President’s authority to engage in foreign policy and enforce the naturalization and immigration laws by extending the court’s equity powers to those parties not directly affected by the case or controversy before them.
This is properly (or more correctly, improperly) an exercise in judicial imperialism. Aside from the USSC, federal courts are a legislative construct. They lack plenary powers. They are NOT coequal to Congress or the President.
Therefore, by interposing themselves into matters of universal jurisdiction, they function to usurp federal authority. Their oversight is particular and suited only to reviewing those cases and controversies that Congress has empowered them to examine.
Congress wrote the laws governing immigration and naturalization. The President is tasked with upholding those laws. District courts are wholly unsuited to instruct either party as to how those laws will be called into being or how they will be implemented at the national level.
Nationwide injunctions by a court of equity finds no historical analogy in English Courts of Chancery or US law. It only emerges here in the 1960s. It is an aberration and needs to be gutted, skinned and its carcass consigned to the eternal Fires of Mount Doom.
What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’
—NLT Isaiah 45:9
Do US District Courts contend with Congress, their maker? Can they seek to guide the President’s hand in the execution of federal law? “Stop! We have a nationwide injunction against your clumsy efforts. You are doing it all wrong”!
If not, may multiple sorrows fall upon them.