A judge accuses Trump of defying a court order. Surprise Not.
Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order
NBC Reports Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order Halting Funding Freeze
A federal judge in Rhode Island on Monday said that the Trump administration had violated his order halting a sweeping federal funding freeze and ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding.”
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell handed down the order after the plaintiffs in the case, a coalition of 22 states, said the government had not restored funding in several programs despite his Jan. 31 order temporarily halting the wide-ranging Office of Management and Budget directive that had caused chaos and confusion across the country.
“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” McConnell wrote, even though his order lifting the freeze had been “clear and unambiguous.”
It’s the first time since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration that a federal judge has accused his administration of defying a court order.
“The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud. But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud,” McConnell wrote. “The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.”
He said the “pauses in funding violate the plain text” of the temporary restraining order he issued on Jan. 31, and ordered that funding be immediately restored for the duration of the time his TRO is in effect. The order is expected to remain in place until at least a hearing on a preliminary injunction later this month.
In a separate case Monday, unions suing the administration over U.S. Agency for International Development employees’ being placed on administrative leave alleged the agency wasn’t complying with a different judge’s order temporarily reinstating those employees.
Their filing said they had “become aware that Defendants have not fully complied with the terms of this Court’s order,” including by continuing to lock employees out of their computer system. “Those members, therefore, cannot assess whether they have been reinstated from leave,” it said. They requested an emergency hearing.
Correct Rulings
We are a nation of laws. I did not like it when Biden put himself above the law and I don’t like it when Trump does the same.
Restoring funding is the correct legal ruling, and I applaud it. Trump will lose on the leave issue, and I will applaud that too.
“But mommy, Biden did it too” is not a legal excuse.
Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
CBS News reports Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
A federal judge in New Hampshire on Monday blocked President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, becoming the third judge to do so amid more than half a dozen legal challenges to the president’s directive.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante said at the end of a brief hearing that he would grant the request for a preliminary injunction sought by New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, LULAC and Make the Road New York. The three groups filed the first federal lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump’s executive order, which he signed on his first day in office.
Laplante’s order comes on the heels of two others issued by federal judges in Washington and Maryland last week that barred enforcement of Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order nationwide. The Justice Department has appealed one of those decisions, from U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In the hearing before Laplante, Cody Wofsy, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued on behalf of the immigrant-rights groups, said Mr. Trump’s order is a “fundamental attack” on the Constitution and is “straightforwardly illegal” under Supreme Court precedent.
Not Even Close
Given the US Supreme Court has already twice ruled on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, it would be shocking if any District or Appeals Court would rule any other way.
On January 21, I wrote Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
Let’s review Trump’s unconstitutional order ending citizenship by birth. There’s over a dozen challenges already.
On January 23, I wrote A Court Appointee of Reagan Correctly Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
As predicted in this corner, a District Court quickly blocked Trump’s unconstitutional order eliminating birthright citizenship.
During a hearing on the matter, Judge Coughenour said of Trump’s executive order, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
CATO comments
When the 14th Amendment was drafted, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had a settled meaning: It referred to a person who was subject to U.S. law. Foreigners who visit are required to follow American laws. They are, in every sense, subject to U.S. “jurisdiction,” or control. An exception is the children of diplomats, who are immune from American laws. Additionally, certain Native Americans born on sovereign tribal lands were also exempted, though the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens by birth.
Every case since has affirmed citizenship, especially United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943.
Since the Supreme Court has already twice ruled on this matter, the District and Appeals Courts have nothing to do but uphold the law of the land.
So, expect Trump to lose in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Trump can then appeal to the US Supreme Court and lose one of two ways.
First, this case is so easy, the Supreme Court might refuse to hear the case at all.
Second the Supreme Court may hear the case. If so, I expect no worse than 6-3 against Trump, and quite possibly 9-0 which I believe should be the case.
This boils down to my January 24, post What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
I commented “The question is not realistically subject to logical debate, and I can prove it.”
You are free to disagree, and be wrong.
Secondly, please consider what a constitutional expert friend of mind has to say about this issue.
A Terrible Policy as Currently Practiced?
I can easily see why some people would believe that. But they are wrong.
This is a subject that came up with friends of mine, one of whom has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
Friend One (studied law but is not a lawyer):
I am not a lawyer, but I am very much an originalist (and that makes you put a lot of emphasis on the text as written at that time). To me this a clear put down on Trump. Too much time has passed and society and the government has had a common shared view on this for many, many decades. In a logical world this should be 9-0.
Friend Two (Constitutional Expert):
Well, you have stated very well the rationale that underlies the doctrine of res judicata. Generations of immigrants — and by extension, their offspring — have literally for hundreds of years relied on the common understanding of the law. Even if that was technically wrong in retrospect, res judicata says that you cannot unsettle the lives of law-abiding people who have relied on what the courts said the law was. I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.
It would open a hornets’ nest, since most 19th century immigrants were never naturalized — it was understood that one’s kids were Americans by birthright — and thus most of the US population would be rendered aliens. We have no precedents to deal with this and it would be a total judicial mess.
Res Judicata
Res judicata refers to the principle by which one judgment has a binding effect on subsequent proceedings.
My friend comments “I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.”
This might even apply to me. My grandfather came over on a boat. My father was born here. Was he a citizen by birth? If not, then arguably neither am I.
Recent cases may be easier to understand. What about a couple who came into the US illegally 25 years ago at age 35? They had kids who are now suddenly not citizens. Those kids might have kids who are not citizens then either.
Q: Is the Supreme Court really going to mess with this? Let Trump say it only starts now?
A: No and No.
The Elon Musk Sponsored, Ted Mack Legal Amateur Hour
It’s not the least bit surprising these cases are going against Trump.
On Sunday, I commented The Elon Musk Sponsored, Ted Mack Legal Amateur Hour
The problem with the DOGE approach is the mission may backfire spectacularly.
What to Expect from a USAID Shutdown
- My constitutional law expert says “Contractors will sue. There will have been no valid legal basis for stopping contract payments. So, under the contracts, the federal government will pay a bundle in penalties and equitable adjustments.“
- The courts will force a reversal. And no good will come from this approach.
This is the Elon Musk sponsored, Ted Mack Legal Amateur Hour.
That is the problem I have with this, and I have been correct.
I am not against DOGE. I am not against Trump either. In fact, I am openly cheering DOGE.
All I ask, and unfortunately it seems too much to ask, is Presidents uphold the law.
Now we have more rulings against Trump, as fully expected in this corner, as as deserved as well.
I don’t object to the idea the CIA is a political swamp. But I do question demanding buyouts.
Team DOGE has no authority to pay staffers 8 months to do nothing. Moreover there are contracts in place.
Team DOGE has no legal right to cancel contracts either.
For further discussion, please see USAID Cancellation by Trump, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Details
Once again, I am not arguing against the DOGE idea. I openly cheer the idea behind DOGE.
Instead, I am arguing against the methods.
Hypocrites may be happy with the approach, but I assure you that Trump can achieve much more by going about this in a constitutional manner.
Here is the sad fact of the matter, the more Trump tries to skirt the law, the harder it will be to get a deal with Democrats than can clear a Senate filibuster.