Court says that USAID must be reinstated
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Not exactly. DOGE/Musk were told to ensure that USAID can reoccupy its former headquarters. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-dismantling-usaid-unconstitutional-orders-musk-restore-access/story?id=119923733 Judge Chuang wrote that Musk's takeover "usurped the authority of the public's elected representatives in Congress to make decisions on whether, when, and how to eliminate a federal government agency, and of Officers of the United States duly appointed under the Constitution to exercise the authority entrusted to them." While Judge Chuang rebuked Musk's role within the Trump administration, the exact implications of the decision on the operations of USAID are unclear. DOGE and Musk were also ordered to submit a written agreement within two weeks that ensures USAID can reoccupy its former headquarters in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. |
Anonymous
DOGE doesn't run the building, so this order is pointless. |
Anonymous
| Liberal judge doing what liberal judges do lol |
Anonymous
oh, their actual jobs? yeah, how terrible /s |
Anonymous
+1 Judge who respects the Constitution pointing out that DOGE usurped the authority of publicly elected representatives. Sorry that first PP doesn't know about or respect the constitution (nothing lol about it). |
Anonymous
Oh, so if they don't run that then you are saying they also had no authority to kick the USAID employees out of the building in the first place, and that DOGE had no authority to be in the building and was llegally trespassing when they entered. The next orders should be to charge them criminally. |
Anonymous
|
This ruling may not save USAID, but it may rein in DOGE. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/18/us/trump-president-news#chief-justice-roberts-impeachment-trump
The ruling by Judge Theodore D. Chuang of U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland appeared to be the first time a judge has moved to rein in Mr. Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency directly. It was based on the finding that Mr. Musk has acted as an officer of the United States without being properly appointed to that role by President Trump. Judge Chuang wrote that a group of unnamed aid workers who had sued to stop the demolition of U.S.A.I.D. and its programs were likely to succeed in the lawsuit. He agreed with their contention that Mr. Musk’s rapid assertion of power over executive agencies was likely in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause. The judge also ordered that agency operations be partially restored — though that reprieve is likely temporary. He ordered Mr. Musk’s team to reinstate email access to all current U.S.A.I.D. employees, including those on paid leave. He also ordered them to submit a plan for employees to reoccupy a federal office from which they were evicted last month, and he barred Mr. Musk's team from engaging in any further work “related to the shutdown of U.S.A.I.D.” Given that much of the agency’s work force and contracts have already been terminated, it was not immediately clear what effect the judge’s ruling would have. Only a skeleton crew of workers are still employed by the agency. And while the order barred Mr. Musk from meddling with the agency personally, it suggested that he or others could continue to do so after receiving “the express authorization of a U.S.A.I.D. official with legal authority to take or approve the action.” As early as Feb. 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had assumed control of the agency and had directed a variety of cuts in his own authority. The judge noted that Mr. Rubio could declare his intent to permanently close the agency’s headquarters within 14 days of his order, and the offices would remain closed. But the finding that Mr. Musk had personally, and unlawfully, overseen the dismantling of the agency offered a firm rejection of his operation’s authority. In the sternly worded order, Judge Chuang warned that any skirting of its requirements could result in his holding Mr. Musk or members of his team in contempt. Lawyers representing the government had previously argued in that case that the Department of Government Efficiency, or the U.S. DOGE Service, was in fact not headed by Mr. Musk and was serving in an advisory capacity. They said Mr. Musk had no authority to steer decisions on his own. But Judge Chuang appeared to dismiss those claims entirely, noting that Mr. Musk had targeted and celebrated actions to dramatically downsize U.S.A.I.D., including the firing of a vast majority of its workers and the cancellation of around 90 percent of its contracts and grants. “DOGE has taken numerous actions without any apparent advanced approval by agency leadership,” the judge wrote, reeling off a list of other examples at the Education Department, the National Institutes of Health and the Energy Department, where Mr. Musk’s associates apparently recommended cuts on their own. “Taken together, these facts support the conclusion that U.S.A.I.D. has effectively been eliminated,” he wrote. |
Anonymous
| Where is the case saying that doge isn’t a real agency? Because that also isn’t how any of this works |
Anonymous
|
I found this article, dated March 16, about the future of USAID, very interesting. Reinstating it may be the easiest way forward.
https://www.devex.com/news/exclusive-inside-the-closed-door-meeting-on-usaid-s-future-109654 |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Durr hurr, and you told that teachin’ lady that the only letters you need to know are U, S and A? |
Anonymous
And they wouldn’t have to do it if right wing fascist MAGA freaks didn’t do what right wing fascist MAGA freaks do. Lol. |
Anonymous
|
J. DOE 1-26,
Plaintiffs, v. ELON MUSK, in his official capacity, UNITED STATES DOGE SERVICES, and the DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, Case Civil Action No. 25-0462-TDC You can see it on the tracker: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ They hadn't updated it on the main page of the tracker so it look a little digging. In these times, news media really should be listing the title of the case as well as the case number. I'm tired of seeing these news stories and having to try to figure out which one it is. It might help if the tracker also listed the judge it has been assigned to, because the media will usually name the judge. The TRO was requested weeks ago. So they will go to the appeals court and, I expect, the Supreme Court. Last I checked, SCOTUS had had 6 cases sent to it (regarding injunctions) and I think ruled against the govt on 3 of them. List is now up to 129 cases. Karoline is going to be whining about some nobody low level judge disobeying the constitution, I'm sure. |
Anonymous
I'm unclear on this, and it's probably buried in the various cases naming Musk as a defendant (quite a few of them). I had heard last week it was determined to be an agency subject to FOIA vs PRA. How that ties into Congressional oversight and confirmations I can't say I know anything about. |