NYT: Judge Pauses RIF Plans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all academic. Who cares if OMB “can” direct agencies to RIF when the agencies are all either led by flunkies who will RIF anyway or, if they don’t, will be fired and replaced with someone who will RIF?

This whole case is about a very inside baseball esoteric legal question without much practical effect — does OMB/OPM have the authority to DIRECT agencies to RIF? Who cares?

FYI — the answer may be different depending on whether the agency is “independent” or not.

I thought this too. If Trump says at a cabinet meeting "wow it would be great for each agency to cut 15%" you better believe these loser bootlicker would hop to it with maybe possibly Rubio as an exception.

I think the impoundment argument is more interesting.

Did you read the order? This is about the RIFs being conducted in a way that violates the separation of powers because it goes beyond the statutory authority granted by Congress. If Trump wanted to instruct his agency heads to do RIFs in accordance with the law and regulations, fine. The issue is that Trump is destroying agencies created by Congress, not exercising his executive authority in a constitutional manner.

[Anonymous]

How does this affect agencies that already had RIFs?

[Anonymous]

Trump will just as SCOTUS to hear this. They will and will reverse the pause. So don’t get too excited.

[Anonymous]

Rumor was my agency's RIF notices were going out sometime between today and next Friday, so...yeah I'm excited. Every paycheck. I might get some actual work done this week instead of just trying to document everything in case we suddenly close up shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

[Anonymous]

Wow, another liberal judge—what a surprise. We need to remove these activist jurists from any form of judicial oversight. Notice that centrist and conservative judges didn’t do anything to Biden; however, if these left-wing judges keep this up, once we have a Democratic president in office they’ll issue nothing but sham rulings against the sitting president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

[Anonymous]

This explains why our anticipated rif notices were paused. I so welcome the breathing room. And hope this is an inflection point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like it of course. But S Ct and Circuit Courts have already bought into Trump’s view that these kinds of plaintiffs lack standing and individuals must complain through administrative channels first (like MSPB) before bringing a court case.

I believe these cases have plaintiffs that are not Fed employees and so the administrative exhaustion does not apply to them.

It's an open question whether it applies to them. The government argues it does. That was a major issue in the NDCA and DMD probationary termination appeals as well. Standing is a big one. We won't know for a while.

I don’t think it’s that much of an open question. Standing wouldn’t be hard to show for a lot of non-employees affected by RIFs and they don’t have any remedy through MSPB. The cause of action is different. Whether they are a class is a different question.

Well, it’s open enough that different courts are ruling different ways on the same issues.

I admittedly have not been tracking all the cases, but the point is that this case is different from the employee cases where the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not administratively exhausted. If you’re trying to say non-employees have to go through MSPB, that’s just wrong and no court has said that.

Different poster but I also remember some of the other cases where standing went different ways in terms of whether the union had standing. I don't know about these other groups of plaintiffs though.

Standing is not really the hard part of these cases.

I’m sorry but I’ve been tracking dozens of these cases for months and you’re wrong. The supreme court and 4th circuit both have indicated that standing is indeed a “hard” part of these cases, as in a hurdle to be overcome; and moreover that Fausto and other cases may foreclose any judicial review outside the CSRA’s channeling of claims to MSPB and to a lesser extent, FLRA.

As someone who’d like to see these plaintiffs win, it’s frustrating. But that’s how the courts are seeing it. They are going both ways and so far no appellate court has indicated its approval. Perhaps the 9th circuit later this summer or fall.

Standing really isn’t the hard part. It’s the constitutional question that’s harder. Obviously the question of whether the President can dismantle federal agencies in violation of legislation will make it to the Supreme Court.

(also the reason standing isn’t the hard part is because obviously you have to be able to get to the constitutional question without forcing people who have no MSPB rights to go through the MSPB. This is more than an employment case - others have standing and they don’t have to go through MSPB.)

I don’t disagree, but several courts have. That’s all.

A court said a non-employee plaintiff with standing had to go through MSPB?