These are getting spread on all the different threads, so I figured we could consolidate here.

The one I wanted to start with is the OVERLY broad lawsuit in front of Trump's bestie Chutkan.

As drafted, the Order would prohibit Donald Trump & heads of agencies from assessing data or firing anyone. Would be most restrictive of all TROs entered to day if Court enters.

2/ Full proposed order. That court it to be filed on Saturday suggest is will be entered over weekend. https://t.co/6VQkJ680qk

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2025

4/ . . . . continued b/c Government just responded, and as I was saying! pic.twitter.com/AA1aKLtnkk

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2025

6/ Government asks to convert TRO to PI or to enter stay and injunction bond! pic.twitter.com/4OcnVKkSmz

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2025

8/8 This is one to watch both for what lower court does but change of appellate court or SCOTUS stepping in if lower court enters TRO.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2025

Everyone's been assuming TROs can't be appealed but in this order that just dropped, Judge Katsas argues convincingly in his dissent that when lower court impinges on the POTUS's core Article II powers, immediate appeal should be available. https://t.co/jPUYvvILpK

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 16, 2025

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Judge Chutkan does NOT enter TRO (yet!), and instead orders parties to appeal tomorrow. As my THREAD below noted, she seemed poised to enter widely unconstitutional TRO, but Trump filed response saying so & requesting she wait & hear from parties on Monday. https://t.co/4b34A5MWed pic.twitter.com/ihIF3hJ7bq

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

2/2 Here's link to OLC Memo: Dense but still readable for the intelligent layperson if you are so inclined. Hoping to have more tomorrow on this @FDRLST but short version is Musk/DOGE don't have requisite "authority" to be covered by Appointments Clause. https://t.co/8GZNT0Kp9d

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

I was wondering about this. Other than advising Trump, who then tells him to go for it, what actual authority does Elon have?

2/2 Here's link to OLC Memo: Dense but still readable for the intelligent layperson if you are so inclined. Hoping to have more tomorrow on this @FDRLST but short version is Musk/DOGE don't have requisite "authority" to be covered by Appointments Clause. https://t.co/8GZNT0Kp9d

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

aggiehawg said:

---

I was wondering about this. Other than advising Trump, who then tells him to go for it, what actual authority does Elon have?

2/2 Here's link to OLC Memo: Dense but still readable for the intelligent layperson if you are so inclined. Hoping to have more tomorrow on this @FDRLST but short version is Musk/DOGE don't have requisite "authority" to be covered by Appointments Clause. https://t.co/8GZNT0Kp9d

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

---

People really need to look at the office of
Digital services. Which is what Trump repurposed as DOGE.

Obama created it and segregated it from congressional oversight and appointments. Now the Dem states all of a sudden are trying to insist some lackey DC judge should have final say over the department.

It's bull*****

2/2 Full letter: https://t.co/mI0tYzAxav

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

Sure enough, acting SG Sarah Harris just asked SCOTUS to vacate the D.C. Circuit's order, quoting Judge Katsas's dissent more than a dozen times. https://t.co/VlMW0SKV3d https://t.co/y4tIOj3ndx

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 16, 2025

Katsas, the dissenter, is the third judge on this D.C. Circuit panel that includes leftwing judges Pan and Childs (I wrote about Pan's attempt to rig Trump's j6 case in 2023, here: https://t.co/giU5sXJ13Y)

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 16, 2025

Anyway, various trial court judges are asserting they control the bureaucracy, and leftwing appeals court judges are agreeing. Katsas is saying that according to the Constitution, the president, not trial court judges, control the executive branch. This is one to watch.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 16, 2025

BREAKING: President Trump just filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking them to overturn the lower court judge who reinstated Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel.

“Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an… pic.twitter.com/6dkZ8d4WFC

— George (@BehizyTweets) February 16, 2025

2/ Count 1 is an Appointments Clause count and count 2 a separation of powers count. Appointments Clause claim mirrors one up for consideration tomorrow in D.C. D.Ct. 👀@fdrlst tomorrow where I explain why that claim is fatally flaws.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 17, 2025

4/4 A good time to point out that for all the grift Trump & Doge are killing, fighting the government is the gift that keeps on giving if you're a lawyer.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 17, 2025

She says "fatally flawed", but how long will it take to get in front of a judge that will rule that way based on laws and not on politics?

I pray they anticipated all of these lawsuits and are ready to address them in the right way, in front of the right judge, so that they may continue doing what we need them to do to save this country…

SCOTUS has a new appeal pending. We will see. Dellinger firing is a perfect test case and Trump plea here is straight fire.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: As I predicted, the Trump Administration is vacatur & immediate stay from SCOTUS in case ordering reinstatement of Dellinger--whom Trump fired as Special Counsel. 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 16, 2025

8/ And I now see she also highlighted the Trump Administration seeking a stay of the reinstatement order. https://t.co/bJuMfvccm6

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 17, 2025

Much more at the thread. Using Katsas' dissent from the circuit appeal (which was dismissed) of the TRO is good strategy.

For those of us not savvy on the arguments being made…do we think 1) SCOTUS will recognize the issue and take it up immediately and 2) SCOTUS will rule in favor of the government because it's an absolute no-brainer?

Help me Obi-wan Kanobi…

Well, I'm no Jedi by any means, and you'd have to have divine insight to ever predict the supreme court's actions frankly (it's the most unpredictable court we've got), but I think it's probably 60-40 in favor of Trump getting what he wants here, but maybe closer to a coin flip. Some more thoughts.

I think/hope the pile up of additional injunctions will motivate more of the non-Obama/Biden justices to do something about this craziness, and finally give some stricter standards on district court nationwide injunctions as well as limits as to who the POTUS can fire and for what.

I don't think you are going to see SCOTUS immediately take this case up because there is no urgency with this case. dillinger gets to keep his job a little bit longer. at the end of the day, that does not warrant SCOTUS taking up a TRO appeal is how I think they will view it. If an injunction is entered (which I think everyone expects), then the normal appeal timeline can take place, SCOTUS may take it up then if circuit court doesn't get rid of the injunction

I fail to see any enforcement powers these activist judges have. Why not just ignore them until SCOTUS rules, if they do? Heck, Biden ignored SCOTUS.

Or go judge shopping like the dems do, and file and get a different ruling? Then move on.

So what keeps these judges from simply extending TROs indefinitely?

FireAg said:

---

So what keeps these judges from simply extending TROs indefinitely?

---

Writ of mandamus issued by their superior court ordering them to have a hearing and rule.

But today is a federal holiday, so don't expect much court action.

There is a time limit within which the TRO expires and the court has the option to enter into an injunction pending trial on the merits.

There are quite a few of these cases where the court has issued an ex parte TRO, which means without the defendant presenting their case. That makes the injunction hearing a moment of critical importance.

It is also considered that a ruling at the injunction hearing is a strong indicator of how the court will rule if there is a trial on the merits.

aggiehawg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

So what keeps these judges from simply extending TROs indefinitely?

---

Writ of mandamus issued by their superior court ordering them to have a hearing and rule.

But today is a federal holiday, so don't expect much court action.

---

Okay, but what if their superior courts are like-minded and don't issue such instructions?

Finally. Been waiting for a thread like this.

Troy91 said:

---

There is a time limit within which the TRO expires and the court has the option to enter into an injunction pending trial on the merits.

There are quite a few of these cases where the court has issued an ex parte TRO, which means without the defendant presenting their case. That makes the injunction hearing a moment of critical importance.

It is also considered that a ruling at the injunction hearing is a strong indicator of how the court will rule if there is a trial on the merits.

---

There is also a bad winter storm coming in. So courts could also be hampered in certain locales which would have the practical effect of extending the time the TRO is in effect. BUT extending the time for posting the bond is also a problem as TROs are not deemed to be in effect without it.

Not that these courts seem inclined to follow procedure.

FireAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

So what keeps these judges from simply extending TROs indefinitely?

---

Writ of mandamus issued by their superior court ordering them to have a hearing and rule.

But today is a federal holiday, so don't expect much court action.

---

Okay, but what if their superior courts are like-minded and don't issue such instructions?

---

Then Bondi goes to the supremes.

TheCurl84 said:

---

I think this thread is gonna need an interpreter.

---

Yes please. If one of you legal eagles could spell this out in English for us IANALs that would be much appreciated. My eyes are glazing over reading some of these Xeets.

FTAG 2000 said:

---

FireAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

FireAg said:

---

So what keeps these judges from simply extending TROs indefinitely?

---

Writ of mandamus issued by their superior court ordering them to have a hearing and rule.

But today is a federal holiday, so don't expect much court action.

---

Okay, but what if their superior courts are like-minded and don't issue such instructions?

---

Then Bondi goes to the supremes.

---

Okay, and then is it reasonable to expect that SCOTUS will take it up and rule expeditiously?

What happens if we dig and find that, oh I don't know, Justice Roberts is being funneled money through this USAID money laundering scheme?

Roberts doesn't have sole authority on taking up cases

Quote:

---

What happens if we dig and find that, oh I don't know, Justice Roberts is being funneled money through this USAID money laundering scheme?

---

it only takes 4 justices to hear an injunction case, so if they don't take it up that means that one of Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is being funned money.

If everyone can learn the federal appeal process, this will simplify the noise that social media is presenting.

Federal district courts are the trial courts. They conduct hearings and trials.

If you don't like the result there, you appeal to one of the federal circuit courts. For reference, Texas is in the 5th circuit. If you don't like the appellate result, you can ask for an en banc review by the circuit court.

If you don't like the circuit court results, you finally get to appeal to the Supreme Court.

A key fact to remember is that neither the circuit nor supreme court hear evidence. Both levels of court rely upon the trial record produced by the district court.

While there are exceptions to expedite the review of a district court decision, they are limited to clear violations of black letter law and generally don't go into interpretations of that law.

These processes take time to complete and you need a good district court record to have a chance to win at the other levels.

I hope this helps.

Quote:

---

it only takes 4 justices to hear an injunction case, so if they don't take it up that means that one of Thomas, Scalia, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is being funned money.

---

. . . from the grave?

Seriously, what are the real consequences of ignoring a district court ruling? A SCOTUS ruling (which Biden circumvented)?

Wouldn't it take some DOJ action?

Anyone?

I know abidance is traditional.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

it only takes 4 justices to hear an injunction case, so if they don't take it up that means that one of Thomas, Scalia, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is being funned money.

---

. . . from the grave?

---

those democrats are relentless

Thread. No ruling on TRO. But Chutkan thought it important enough to have a hearing on a holiday.

Hearing about to get underway in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom related to blue state lawsuit against Elon Musk/DOGE seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Musk from:

(1) Accessing or continuing to access any data systems and the information and code contained…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) February 17, 2025

Hearing concludes. Chutkan says she will rule on TRO and issue further scheduling within 24 hours.

So essentially--the blue states want Chutkan to prevent Musk and DOGE from accessing federal data to make recommendations related to firings, program cutbacks. The states claim…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) February 17, 2025

BMX Bandit said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

it only takes 4 justices to hear an injunction case, so if they don't take it up that means that one of Thomas, Scalia, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is being funned money.

---

. . . from the grave?

---

those democrats are relentless

---

Scalia was the biggest conservative (Originalist) on the court for many years sans Thomas.

It was a tragedy to lose him so early.