Quote:

---

Indeed, the TRO the Plaintiff States proffered to the Court on Saturday would ban Musk, DOGE, "and their agents, officers, and employees, or anyone acting in active concert with them," from accessing data systems and information at a variety of federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and Commerce. The proposed TRO would further prohibit Musk, DOGE, "and their agents, officers, and employees, or anyone acting in active concert with them," from firing, furloughing, or otherwise placing on leave any employees working for those same agencies.

As the Trump Administration stressed in its Saturday night response, the language is so "exceedingly broad" that, as written, it would even ban the President and Senate-confirmed officials from accessing data or terminating federal employees if they collaborate with Musk or DOGE in the decision-making process. More fundamentally, the Trump Administration's response continued, the proposed injunction was completely disconnected to the Plaintiffs' legal theories.

While the Court will assuredly benefit from a more fulsome response from the government before it rules on the TRO, the Trump Administration's weekend filing already hammered the two fatal flaws underlying the states' request for injunctive relief: The Plaintiff States have failed to establish either a likelihood of success on their underlying legal claims or an imminent injury flowing from the Defendants' allegedly illegal conduct.

---

More from Margot HERE

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Indeed, the TRO the Plaintiff States proffered to the Court on Saturday would ban Musk, DOGE, "and their agents, officers, and employees, or anyone acting in active concert with them," from accessing data systems and information at a variety of federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and Commerce. The proposed TRO would further prohibit Musk, DOGE, "and their agents, officers, and employees, or anyone acting in active concert with them," from firing, furloughing, or otherwise placing on leave any employees working for those same agencies.

As the Trump Administration stressed in its Saturday night response, the language is so "exceedingly broad" that, as written, it would even ban the President and Senate-confirmed officials from accessing data or terminating federal employees if they collaborate with Musk or DOGE in the decision-making process. More fundamentally, the Trump Administration's response continued, the proposed injunction was completely disconnected to the Plaintiffs' legal theories.

While the Court will assuredly benefit from a more fulsome response from the government before it rules on the TRO, the Trump Administration's weekend filing already hammered the two fatal flaws underlying the states' request for injunctive relief: The Plaintiff States have failed to establish either a likelihood of success on their underlying legal claims or an imminent injury flowing from the Defendants' allegedly illegal conduct.

---

More from Margot HERE

---

Based on this summary then, hawg, how do you think this judge will rule? And if it is the favor of the states, where do you think higher courts will rule, again, based on this summary you linked here?

TheCurl84 said:

---

I think this thread is gonna need an interpreter.

---

yeah, instead of a bunch of legal jargon tweets, maybe some text and explanation of what it all means would be nice.

MagnumLoad said:

---

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.

---

Crickets….apparently no one knows or is willing to say.

No one is responding as it is a ridiculous thing to suggest and is being pushed by social media "personalities" without a solid basis.

Court proceedings take time. The government is merely another party in most of these proceedings and has a duty to abide by the court rules in appealing decisions that they don't like.

It is a question. That's all. However, although you may not be one, lawyers have a way of obfuscating anything.

Quote:

---

Based on this summary then, hawg, how do you think this judge will rule? And if it is the favor of the states, where do you think higher courts will rule, again, based on this summary you linked here?

---

A) Chutkan is an awful judge. Her rulings on Jan 6th cases showed that. Expect she'll issue a preliminary injunction. How broad that turns out to be, I can't say.
B) The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is largely feckless, depending on the panel, and then en banc on rehearing. I'd expect the DC Circuit will punt and rubber stamp.
C) I am a bit concerned about the squishiness of ACB, Roberts and maybe Kavanaugh. Taking it up immediately or delaying until it goes through other appellate procedures.

By all rights, SCOTUS should be unanimous as this is clearly a separation of powers question that a federal trial court cannot run Article II Executive Branch agencies, even for a very short time. Should be a no brainer for an originalist and strict constructionist.

MagnumLoad said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

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.

---

Crickets….apparently no one knows or is willing to say.

---

a judge can hold any of the lawyers on the case, or really anyone in the department at issue in contempt.

criminal contempt would be putting them in jail. Trump could pardon that.

civil contempt would be making them do something until they complied with the order. so it would depend on the specific case. say the court issued an order that language on transgender could not be taken off a website. the judge could issue civil contempt order of $1000 per day until it was restored. if the person didn't pay, then they could be arrested. its not clear if that is still civil or becomes criminal contempt at that point.

we aren't going to find out what happens though. this is all though exercise.

BMX Bandit said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

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.

---

Crickets….apparently no one knows or is willing to say.

---

a judge can hold any of the lawyers on the case, or really anyone in the department at issue in contempt.

criminal contempt would be putting them in jail. Trump could pardon that.

civil contempt would be making them do something until they complied with the order. so it would depend on the specific case. say the court issued an order that language on transgender could not be taken off a website. the judge could issue civil contempt order of $1000 per day until it was restored. if the person didn't pay, then they could be arrested. its not clear if that is still civil or becomes criminal contempt at that point.

we aren't going to find out what happens though. this is all though exercise.

---

So how will it go then, in your opinion?

are you talking about a specific case? then I'd need to know which one.

if you are asking generally how its going to go, some injunctions will be struck down by circuit courts or SCOTUS may have to get involved, but not at the TRO stage. Trump isn't going to just ignore the courts and proceed as he wants, no matter how bad the liberals and people on twitter want you to think thats what is going to happen

BMX Bandit said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

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.

---

Crickets….apparently no one knows or is willing to say.

---

a judge can hold any of the lawyers on the case, or really anyone in the department at issue in contempt.

criminal contempt would be putting them in jail. Trump could pardon that.

civil contempt would be making them do something until they complied with the order. so it would depend on the specific case. say the court issued an order that language on transgender could not be taken off a website. the judge could issue civil contempt order of $1000 per day until it was restored. if the person didn't pay, then they could be arrested. its not clear if that is still civil or becomes criminal contempt at that point.

we aren't going to find out what happens though. this is all though exercise.

---

Ok. Thank you. But would not arrest or enforcement of fines require action by the DOJ? Not a rhetorical question. I am asking because I don't know.

I was speaking in general terms…

So what are the chances that Trump plays nice with the courts now because DOGE has already uncovered far more data than they are letting on, and this stall won't allow them to "clean things off the books"?

It's clear the establishment wants to stall, presumably so they can try to cover their tracks…

Is it possible DOGE already has their tracks and the map, and so stalling will be fruitless?

I think my biggest fear is that these stall tactics could be used to try to clean up before folks get caught…but I would feel better about it if we already have goods on them because DOGE really did move through things at lightning speed…

Quote:

---

But would not arrest or enforcement of fines require action by the DOJ?

---

it would US Marshalls, who are under the department of justice, but if a federal judge tells them to round some one up, they are going to do it.

I count at least 3 lawyers on this thread. All of us are trying to communicate that this will go through normal legal processes and will not go down the "Tell the courts to get an army path" that is being advocated by small minded folks.

The legal process will take time as almost zero legal proceedings are resolved in a week or less.

Troy91 said:

---

I count at least 3 lawyers on this thread. All of us are trying to communicate that this will go through normal legal processes and will not go down the "Tell the courts to get an army path" that is being advocated by small minded folks.

The legal process will take time as almost zero legal proceedings are resolved in a week or less.

---

And what most folks are truly worried about is not the stall…it's the idea that the stall allows the crooks time to cover their tracks…

Thanks again BMX. That would be interesting given the parties involved.

That is a concern and there is nothing to prevent these small delays.

Put your hopes in forensic accounting and data tracing as ignoring a court ruling isn't going to happen.

Troy91 said:

---

That is a concern and there is nothing to prevent these small delays.

Put your hopes in forensic accounting and data tracing as ignoring a court ruling isn't going to happen.

---

Unless…DOGE actually moved much faster than they let on…which means they already have the goods and just haven't released everything they know just yet…

ETA: I think you're implying that the hope is precisely that…

Troy91 said:

---

I count at least 3 lawyers on this thread. All of us are trying to communicate that this will go through normal legal processes and will not go down the "Tell the courts to get an army path" that is being advocated by small minded folks.

The legal process will take time as almost zero legal proceedings are resolved in a week or less.

---

I think small minded folks caused and/or facilitated the mess that the Trump administration is trying to clean up.

Oh, I think the data is locked in a way that Doge has a lot more than they have chosen to share.

I also think that the bombastic presentation of doing everything at once created a gap for a judge to call small timeouts (TROs) until they can get a briefing as to why the plaintiffs don't have a case.

We are seeing this play out in most of the cases IMO.

Yes, judge shopping is a thing and anyone who doesn't do it is a fool. This is what lawfare looks like. Blue admin causes red states to file in Lubbock and Amarillo to get national injunctions. Red admin creates the reverse.

The best part is that, due to Congress's refusal to pass budget legislation, the legal fights over admin actions are what is running the US for the last 15 or 20 years.

I am holding out hope that, since they've had 4 years to prepare for this effort, they game planned what the D/Swamp response would be in advance, so they knew what to expect and exactly how to respond to it…

Troy91 said:

---

Oh, I think the data is locked in a way that Doge has a lot more than they have chosen to share.

I also think that the bombastic presentation of doing everything at once created a gap for a judge to call small timeouts (TROs) until they can get a briefing as to why the plaintiffs don't have a case.

We are seeing this play out in most of the cases IMO.

Yes, judge shopping is a thing and anyone who doesn't do it is a fool. This is what lawfare looks like. Blue admin causes red states to file in Lubbock and Amarillo to get national injunctions. Red admin creates the reverse.

The best part is that, due to Congress's refusal to pass budget legislation, the legal fights over admin actions are what is running the US for the last 15 or 20 years.

---

Since Clinton and Newt maybe.

Edited to add; weren't federal district courts created by congress? They don't appear to me to be constitutionally based.

I currently work for a red state agency that is an active participant in lawfare.

Sitting down and listening to the strategy and tactics of the game a few years ago during an internal legal education course was eye opening.

There are a lot of smart people on both sides of this and they all know how to play the game. Because everyone is pretty talented, the game moves slowly as almost no one makes huge errors that get cases dismissed quickly.

I will say that the blue suits this time seem to be much more reactionary than normal and don't appear to be as well thought out. It will still take each court time to sort through each mess as the blues filed a ton of spaghetti pleadings and have filed a ton of proposed TROs with errors.

Quote:

---

Edited to add; weren't federal district courts created by congress? They don't appear to me to be constitutionally based.

---

You are correct! The constitution only specifically caused to a Supreme Court. Congress creates the rest!

So in theory, Congress could wipe out everyone of these district courts tomorrow! Lol

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Edited to add; weren't federal district courts created by congress? They don't appear to me to be constitutionally based.

---

You are correct! The constitution only specifically caused to a Supreme Court. Congress creates the rest!

So in theory, Congress could wipe out everyone of these district courts tomorrow! Lol

---

Not sure about wiping them all out, but the bureaucracy in general is too large and burdensome.

Thankfully, the courts cannot "get an army", as the only constitutional army is the one commanded by the president.

Troy91 said:

---

I currently work for a red state agency that is an active participant in lawfare.

Sitting down and listening to the strategy and tactics of the game a few years ago during an internal legal education course was eye opening.

There are a lot of smart people on both sides of this and they all know how to play the game. Because everyone is pretty talented, the game moves slowly as almost no one makes huge errors that get cases dismissed quickly.

I will say that the blue suits this time seem to be much more reactionary than normal and don't appear to be as well thought out. It will still take each court time to sort through each mess as the blues filed a ton of spaghetti pleadings and have filed a ton of proposed TROs with errors.

---

I followed all of the Mueller pleadings and Smith's. They weren't stellar examples of lawyering either.

But I do agree the Dem lawfare efforts this time were rushed. They did not expect Trump o move either this fast, nor as broadly as he has.

And the ultimate irony here? Biden fired Sean Spicer from his position on a naval board two months before his term was set to expire anyway. Spicer sued Biden...and lost. Why? Because the POTUS has the authority to fire people at his own Executive Branch agencies.

Are you thinking abut Robb?

4/ Plaintiffs: We are confident we have evidence necessary to get TRO. Judge: Lots of news reports out there. Court can't act based of news reports--they can't find basis for TRO. Plaintiffs: I can point to what has already happen. Absolutely narrowing request. Our concern is how…

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 17, 2025

Quote:

---

4/ Plaintiffs: We are confident we have evidence necessary to get TRO. Judge: Lots of news reports out there. Court can't act based of news reports--they can't find basis for TRO. Plaintiffs: I can point to what has already happen. Absolutely narrowing request. Our concern is how they are using data--for purpose other than designed to be collected. Judge: Tie to complaint?Plaintiff: From statement Musk makes; X posts; DOGE website (workforce; regs; finance): Using data they have access to to decide how to make cuts. So, Educ. Dep't: School notes shortage of educators, poor outcomes, plus money--rely for operational & technical support. What is threatened by DOGE? Plaintiffs: DOGE has affected funding cuts across Educ. including research program, such as Institute of Educational Science have in past studied programs used in New Mexico. Judge: If I don't issue TRO & convert to PI: And you win? If it gets slashed can't you get money. Cuts to nuclear hurts New Mexico. Plaintiff: We're getting reports to DOGE direction called for cuts to CDC staff, including Indian Health Staff, just made public, new secretary is trying to rehire poeple...New Mexico has large tribe...Judge: It has to be extreme harm it has to be imminent, and tomorrow and it will definitely happen. Something that can't be "undone"--difficult or challenging, it can be undone.

---

From my old agency's Facebook page. They are completely bewildered at what has happened and pulling out all the stops. It's mostly the Washington crowd freaking out - they can be hilarious sometimes with their entitled attitude.

Quote:

---

Action Requested: Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is asking for any information that would show harm to the American people in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Michigan, as a result of actions taken by DOGE, Musk, or President Trump against federal workers. She is looking for individuals who have been laid off or fired. She is looking for information about cancelled contracts and the harm those cancellations caused to Americans. She is looking for examples of any information that will serve as evidence in the lawsuit filed by the states listed above against DOGE, Musk, and President Trump. The Judge has asked for this information ASAP. Please send any information or evidence of harm (today if possible) to: American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), at email: president.local1326.afge@gmail.com. Include in the subject line: Evidence for Lawsuit Against DOGE, Musk and Trump.

---

I have half a mind to take that email address and spam the **** out of it …

For when people have the time, Branca breaks down the filing with SCOTUS on the firing of Hampton Dellinger.

Unless I'm mistaken it sounds like Chutkan will file an injunction? In theory, is that supposed to stop DOGe from doing anything?

A PI? If so, can it be brought to SCOTUS on an emergency basis?

Any injunction at this point would be a temporary injunction (until the lawsuit concludes) which can be appealed to circuit court.