Huge Win at Appeals Court for Trump – Widespread Ramifications

Jonathan Turley posted on X about a big win in the D.C. Circuit. They issued a major ruling in favor of the Trump Administration. They lifted a stay on the Administration’s decision to terminate contracts and positions at Voice of America.

The order (via Margot Cleveland)

• The lower court barred the Trump Administration from managing Voice of America.
• The D.C. Circuit stayed the decision and is allowing Trump to move forward with firings and grant terminations.
• The Court of Appeals decision is based on the  fundamental issue of “jurisdiction.” This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to the Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.
• The Court of Appeals decision is also significant because it addresses the “wholesale” “dismantling” argument being presented in several cases (such as USAID cases).
•  The Administrative Procedures Act is NOT for such claims either, and Congress did not waive such immunity!
• Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to restore grants because Congress gave that authority to the Court of Claims.
• The Court of Appeals also notes how the SCOTUS decision compels that result…which it DOES and yet the district court ignored SCOTUS.
• The decision stressed why claims about grants must go to the Court of Claims.
• The Court of Appeals again highlights that with no bond the harm to government is irreparable. It also noted that the Voice of America isn’t being shuttered. The Court of Appeals also notes that the Judiciary Branch must follow the law too!
• In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes three key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration:

a) no jurisdiction over firings;

b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;

c) you can’t get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction by creative pleading of claims under other theories;

d) With no bond, harm to the government will outweigh other harm;

e) The public has an interest in Article III obeying Article I.

Judge Katas in the other case figured the decision on merits would be soon enough, so no harm.

Turley writes, “The decision severely undercuts the arguments used by other district courts, particularly jurisdictional arguments. This is only the latest appellate decision pushing back on district court injunctions. However, the analysis will reach beyond the confines of this case,” Turley wrote.

PowerInbox