@bballard25.bsky.social
Reposted
In her opinion, among other bases, she finds that OMB's order likely violates the "major questions" doctrine. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![When an agency seeks to "exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,"
the "sheer scope of [an agency]'s claimed authority" can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny. Ala.
Ass 'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 764 (2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). In such situations, the court "expect[s] Congress to speak clearly" when conferring such authority.
OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (quoting Ala. Ass'n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764). The Supreme Court has referred to this principle as the "major questions doctrine." Id. at 122 (Gorsuch, J…, concurring).
Based on the cases in which the Supreme Court has invoked the doctrine, this case easily qualifies.
See Ala. Ass'n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764 (applying the doctrine where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented a nationwide eviction moratorium affecting up to 17 million tenants); OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117-18 (applying the doctrine where OSHA required all federal
employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations).
"When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate 'a significant portion of the American economy,'" the court "typically greet[s] its](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreibixaph26l6yadpjeau3foy2ajeyv3e2dguv6l4egit5tanmuww44@jpeg)
![announcement with a measure of skepticism." Util. Air Regul. Auth. Grp., 573 U.S. at 324 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 159 (2000)). Here, Defendants attempted to freeze as much as $3 trillion dollars the sum total of "all activities related to [the] obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance." OMB Pause Memorandum, at 2.
That is "no everyday exercise of federal power." OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 20 F.4th 264, 272
(6th Cir. 2021) (Sutton, C.J., dissenting)).
The scope of power OMB seeks to claim is "breathtaking," and its ramifications are
massive. Ala. Ass'n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764. Because there is no clear statutory hook for this broad assertion of power, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreicakbyew5vfghzy2quaiydbe4324fxe26uh6n65ebnkjytyyfmj74@jpeg)
February 25, 2025 at 7:43 PM
In her opinion, among other bases, she finds that OMB's order likely violates the "major questions" doctrine. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Reposted
Incredibly chilling and clear-eyed piece from @frank-bowman.bsky.social spelling out the implications of Trump’s latest executive orders—which, stripped of their muddled legalese, essentially anoint him as a monarch with absolute power. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Trump Issued Perhaps His Most Terrifying Executive Order on Tuesday
Having already subdued Congress, Trump has now openly announced that the Führerprinzip governs the executive branch.
slate.com
February 21, 2025 at 10:24 PM
Incredibly chilling and clear-eyed piece from @frank-bowman.bsky.social spelling out the implications of Trump’s latest executive orders—which, stripped of their muddled legalese, essentially anoint him as a monarch with absolute power. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Reposted
SCOTUS' second and final decision is Lackey v. Stinnie. By a 7–2 vote, the court holds that plaintiffs' lawyers are not the "prevailing party"—and can't collect attorneys' fees—when they win a preliminary injunction, then the state repeals the challenged law. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![Section 1988(b) permits courts to award attorney’s fees to
a “prevailing party.” A party “prevails” when a court conclusively resolves his claim by granting enduring relief on
the merits that alters the legal relationship between the
parties. Critically, both the change in relationship and its
permanence must result from a judicial order. A preliminary injunction, which temporarily preserves the parties’
litigating positions based in part on a prediction of the likelihood of success on the merits, does not render a plaintiff a
“prevailing party.” Nor do external events that moot the
action and prevent the court from conclusively adjudicating
the claim. Because the drivers in the present case gained
only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became
moot, they do not qualify as “prevailing part[ies]” eligible
for attorney’s fees under §1988(b).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreihte5yx2krhmgxuzwmotbbd4ykmkmouaphdhcipvoakcrtifoye2e@jpeg)
February 25, 2025 at 3:17 PM
SCOTUS' second and final decision is Lackey v. Stinnie. By a 7–2 vote, the court holds that plaintiffs' lawyers are not the "prevailing party"—and can't collect attorneys' fees—when they win a preliminary injunction, then the state repeals the challenged law. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Reposted
Judge AliKhan reiterates that the Trump administration has NO unilateral authority to suspend all federal financial assistance—saying the move violates the major questions doctrine, and citing Gorsuch for support. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![When an agency seeks to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance,”
the “sheer scope of [an agency]’s claimed authority” can trigger heightened judicial scrutiny. Ala.
Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 764 (2021) (per curiam) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). In
such situations, the court “expect[s] Congress to speak clearly” when conferring such authority.
OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117 (quoting Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764). The Supreme Court has
referred to this principle as the “major questions doctrine.” Id. at 122 (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
Based on the cases in which the Supreme Court has invoked the doctrine, this case easily qualifies.
See Ala. Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 764 (applying the doctrine where the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention implemented a nationwide eviction moratorium affecting up to 17 million
tenants); OSHA, 595 U.S. at 117-18 (applying the doctrine where OSHA required all federal
employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreida7j5s7ijhzxfj5vjsnnuoljso4aiwvoztdfvrilclx4kveot7vq@jpeg)
February 25, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Judge AliKhan reiterates that the Trump administration has NO unilateral authority to suspend all federal financial assistance—saying the move violates the major questions doctrine, and citing Gorsuch for support. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Reposted
CA5 reverses Emperor Amarillo's attempt to bankrupt Planned Parenthood.
Unanimous, bipartisan panel of two normie GWB judges and Obama judge.
storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/02/...
Unanimous, bipartisan panel of two normie GWB judges and Obama judge.
storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/02/...
February 26, 2025 at 7:45 PM
CA5 reverses Emperor Amarillo's attempt to bankrupt Planned Parenthood.
Unanimous, bipartisan panel of two normie GWB judges and Obama judge.
storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/02/...
Unanimous, bipartisan panel of two normie GWB judges and Obama judge.
storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/02/...
Reposted
I remain convinced that the Supreme Court will block Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, and will to do by a lopsided vote. Yes, even THIS Supreme Court. Here's why: slate.com/news-and-pol...
Why Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship Will Backfire at the Supreme Court
Donald Trump issued a patently unconstitutional executive order purporting to abolish birthright citizenship to children of millions of immigrants.
slate.com
January 21, 2025 at 7:36 PM
I remain convinced that the Supreme Court will block Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, and will to do by a lopsided vote. Yes, even THIS Supreme Court. Here's why: slate.com/news-and-pol...
Reposted
Donald Trump has instructed the Justice Department and DHS to rescind protections for transgender prisoners and immigrant detainees under the Prison Rape Elimination Act: theappeal.org/trump-execut...
‘People Will Die’ from Trump’s Trans Prisoner Crackdown, Experts Warn
Trump's executive order eliminating transgender rights in prison will hurt or kill trans prisoners, experts warn.
theappeal.org
January 22, 2025 at 4:37 PM
Donald Trump has instructed the Justice Department and DHS to rescind protections for transgender prisoners and immigrant detainees under the Prison Rape Elimination Act: theappeal.org/trump-execut...
Reposted
These emails, sent across agencies, compel all federal employees to snitch on any colleague whose work might have some vague DEIA inflection. Those who refuse to snitch will be disciplined.
Seems designed to put all workers who aren’t white men under a cloud of suspicion. Truly vile stuff.
Seems designed to put all workers who aren’t white men under a cloud of suspicion. Truly vile stuff.
The acting director of the Office of Personnel Management (the feds' H.R. department) is telling federal employees to rat out their DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility) colleagues by emailing "[email protected]."
chcoc.gov/sites/defaul...
chcoc.gov/sites/defaul...
January 22, 2025 at 11:25 PM
These emails, sent across agencies, compel all federal employees to snitch on any colleague whose work might have some vague DEIA inflection. Those who refuse to snitch will be disciplined.
Seems designed to put all workers who aren’t white men under a cloud of suspicion. Truly vile stuff.
Seems designed to put all workers who aren’t white men under a cloud of suspicion. Truly vile stuff.