Trump Administration Ordered to Reinstate Fired USDA Workers

Thousands of Fired Workers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), must get their Jobs back for at least the Next Month and a half, the Chair of a Federal Civil Service Board Ruled Wednesday.

The Ruling said the recent Dismissals of more than 5,600 Probationary Employees may have Violated Federal Laws and Procedures for carrying out Layoffs.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Supreme Court Reject Trump Over Foreign Aid Bills

The Supreme Court has Rejected Trump (R) Administration’s Request to Lift a Lower-Court Order that Required the Government to Quickly Pay nearly $2 billion that Contractors and Aid Groups say they’re Owed for U.S.-backed Foreign-Aid Projects. In a 5-4 Ruling Wednesday, the High Court’s Majority noted that a Deadline the Lower Judge set last week to Pay the Bills had already Passed, and the Justices urged the Judge to show “due regard for the feasibility” of any Future Deadline He might set.

The Order is a Significant but Potentially Short-Lived Victory for Operators of Foreign Aid Programs who Warned of Devastating Consequences from the Administration’s Abrupt Freeze and Dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. A Broader Legal Fight over the Future of the Agency is continuing to play out in the Lower Courts.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the Court’s Liberal Justices in Declining to Disturb the Judge’s Order. The Court’s other Four Republican Appointees Dissented.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Blocks Trump Stopping Funds for Trans Youth Health Providers

Federal Funding for Hospitals across the Country, that Provide Gender-Transition Treatments for People under the age of 19, will Remain in Place under a Federal Judge’s Ruling in Baltimore on Tuesday.

The Preliminary Injunction issued by Judge Brendan A. Hurson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Blocks a Trump (R) Administration effort to Withhold Funds from Hospitals, unless they Stop providing Gender-Transition Treatment to Transgender Youths. A similar Decision in a Separate Case had already Blocked the Administration’s Plan but Aapplied only to Four States. The New Ruling expands to All States, the pause on the Trump efforts while the Legal Case proceeds.

Tuesday’s Ruling came in a Case brought by Six Transgender Individuals between the ages of 12 and 18, along with Parents and Advocacy Groups. Plaintiffs in the Case, who live in: Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York, said that their Access to Treatment was Threatened by Two of Trump’s Executive Orders that seek to Limit Federal Support for Youth Gender Medicine.

One of the Executive Orders directs Federal Agencies to Ensure that Grant Funding for Research or Education does Not Support “Gender Ideology,” which it Defines as the Idea that “males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.” The Second Order specifically Directs Agencies to Withhold Funds from Medical Providers that Offer Puberty Blockers, Hormone Therapies and Surgeries to People Younger than 19 for the purpose of Gender Transition.

After Trump issued the Orders, several Clinics Canceled Appointments, including for Plaintiffs in the Case. Judge Hurson, an Appointee of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr (D), had Issued a Temporary Restraining Order in February, finding that Trump had likely Exceeded His Authority by Directing the Federal Agencies to Withhold Funds Appropriated by Congress. But the Injunction issued on Tuesday, Signals that the Government will need to Overcome Significant Legal Challenges to carry out its Plans. The Judge also found that the Plaintiffs were likely to Prevail on their Claims that the Executive Orders Violated existing Laws Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, as well as the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Guarantees.

The Ruling is the Latest Roadblock in a String of Court Challenges to Trump’s effort to Stop Taxpayer-Funded Institutions and Government Agencies from Supporting Gender Transition and from Recognizing People based on their Gender Identities. “The Court cannot fathom discrimination more direct than the plain pronouncement of a policy resting on the premise that the group to which the policy is directed does not exist,” Judge Hurson wrote.

Last month, another Federal Judge Blocked Trump’s Directive to Withhold Gender-Transition Medical Treatment for Federal Prisoners and to House Transgender Female Inmates with Men. The Administration has sought to Bar Transgender Women and Girls from Competing in Women’s Sports; to No Longer reflect the Gender Identities of Transgender People on Passports; and to Bar References to Gender Identity in Executive Departments and Agencies. Next week, another Federal Judge will Hear Arguments in a Lawsuit Challenging the Administration’s Plan to Bar openly Transgender People from Serving in the Military.

The Order on Medical Treatments, titled “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” states that the Goal is to Protect Young People from Long-Term Effects that may Cause them to Regret undergoing the Treatments. The Trump Administration, the Order says, will Enforce Laws that “prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The Question of when Medical Transition is Appropriate for Young People has been the subject of Heated Debate. Genital Surgery is almost never Performed on Minors. Several European Countries have Limited Puberty Blockers and Hormone Therapy Treatments after Scientific Reviews. Since 2021, 24 States in America have barred Minors from Receiving the Treatments.

But the American Academy of Pediatrics and most Major Medical Groups in the U.S. endorse Youth Gender Medicine as Effective in Relieving the Psychological Distress that many Young Trans People say they Experience when their Bodies do Not Reflect their Internal Sense of Gender. In Court Documents, Plaintiffs and their Families said they Feared Negative Effects, including Anxiety, Depression, and Unwanted Physical Changes, if Treatment were Withheld.

Judge Hurson’s Order focused Largely on the Fundamental Issue of Separation of Powers. He cited another Ruling related to a Challenge to the Administration’s Sweeping Freeze on Trillions of Dollars in Federal Grants and Loans, writing that the Government in this Case. has “likewise attempted to wrest the power of the purse away from the only branch of government entitled to wield it.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

14 States Sue DOGE

Fourteen States have filed a Federal Lawsuit against Trump (R) Elon Musk, Challenging Musk's Role as Head of the New Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Accusing Him of being a "designated agent of chaos" whose "sweeping authority" is in Violation of the U.S. Constitution.

"Musk's seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen, or a click of a mouse, would have been shocking to those who won this country's independence," reads the Complaint, which was filed Thursday in Federal Court in Washington, D.C. Led by the State of New Mexico, the Lawsuit Argues in often Dramatic Terms, that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution calls for Someone with such Significant and "Expansive Authority" as Musk to be formally Nominated by the President and Confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

"There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual," says the Lawsuit, filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez (D) and Officials from: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. "Although our constitutional system was designed to prevent the abuses of an 18th century monarch, the instruments of unchecked power are no less dangerous in the hands of a 21st century tech baron." Two of the 14 States are Led by Republican Governors.

Separately, 26 Current and Former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Employees and Contractors, brought Suit against Musk Thursday, in a Lawsuit that makes the same Constitutional Claim. That Suit, filed in Federal Court in Maryland, asks a Judge to Block Musk and any DOGE Subordinates from continuing their Budget-Slashing Work, unless Musk is Nominated by Trump for an Official Position and Confirmed by the Senate.

"The scope and reach of his executive authority appear unprecedented in U.S. history," that Lawsuit says. "His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies."

The Suit filed by the 14 States says the Constitution Blocks the President from Overriding "existing laws concerning the structure of the Executive Branch and federal spending." As a result, the Suit says, the Commander-in-Chief from is Forbidden from Creating or even "Extinguishing" Federal Agencies, and from "slashing federal programs or offering lengthy severance packages as a means of radically winnowing the federal workforce," in a nod to the Trump Administration's "deferred retirement" offer to Government Employees.

DOGE, led by Musk as the Centerpiece of Trump's Campaign promise to Trim the Federal Government, has Found itself in the Crosshairs of Multiple Federal Lawsuits, which Allege that it has Improperly accessed Sensitive Records and is Unlawfully Gutting Government Agencies. Federal Judges have Temporarily Blocked DOGE from Accessing Sensitive Data at the Treasury Department, while the Department of Education recently Reached an Agreement to Limit DOGE's Access to Student Loan Records.

A Lawsuit Challenging the Dismantling of USAID also Resulted in a Temporary Order that Blocks the Agency from Placing more than 2,000 Employees on Leave. "The President does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally dismantle the government. Nor could he delegate such expansive authority to an unelected, unconfirmed individual," Thursday's Lawsuit says.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution has Generally been Interpreted to require that Anyone deemed a "Principal Officer" of the U.S. Government must be Confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The White House has called Musk a "Special Government Employee" as Head of DOGE, now changes to someone else as Head. In their Lawsuit, the States insisted that Musk has such "significant authority" and such "unprecedented and seemingly limitless access across the federal government," while Reporting "solely to President Trump," that he is actually serving as a "Principal Officer."

"Musk is far more than an adviser to the White House," the Lawsuit says. "He executes the President's agenda by exercising virtually unchecked power across the entire Executive branch, making decisions about expenditures, contracts, government property, regulations, and the very existence of federal agencies."

The Lawsuit claims that Musk's DOGE "has inserted itself into at least 17 federal agencies," and that Musk has "authority to direct and veto the staffing decisions of" multiple Federal Agencies. "The specifics of Musk's conduct within various agencies confirm that he is wielding the power of a principal officer, a principal officer that has never previously existed," the Lawsuit says. "As a result, all of Musk's actions are beyond his authority and contrary to law," says the Suit.

The 14 States are asking a Federal Judge to at least Temporarily Limit Musk's Ability to Cut or otherwise Overhaul Federal Agencies, and they want the Judge to Declare "that Musk's officer-level governmental actions to date, including those of his subordinates and designees" are Unlawful.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump on Funding Colleges Allowing Illegal Protests

Trump (R) said Tuesday, that He will Block Federal Funding for Colleges and Universities “that allow illegal protests” on their Campuses. “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned or permanently sent back to the country from which they came,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social Post, though He did Not Specify an Enforcement Mechanism.

“American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” Trump added. The President’s Post comes a day after Multiple Federal Agencies announced they will be Reviewing Contracts and Grants with Columbia University and deciding whether to continue them, due to Allegations of Antisemitism on its Campus.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Supreme Court Deals Blow to EPA

The Supreme Court sided with San Francisco on Tuesday, in a Challenge to Water Quality Regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Ruling that could have Sweeping Implications for the Agency’s Ability to Limit Offshore Pollution. The 5-to-4 Decision Dealt another Blow to the Agency, which has recently sustained several Losses before the Court over its Efforts to Protect the Environment.

The Case was Notable because it created Unusual Alliances. Liberal San Francisco found itself on the same side as Mining and Petroleum Trade Groups. like the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, in Opposing the EPA.

The Dispute fundamentally focused on Human Waste and how San Francisco Disposes it. The Question before the Court was whether the Clean Water Act of 1972 allowed the EPA to impose Prohibitions on Wastewater Released into the Pacific Ocean, and to Penalize the City for Violating Them. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the Majority, said the EPA was entitled to impose Specific Requirements to Prevent Pollution, but Not to make Polluters responsible whenever Water Quality generally Falls below the Agency’s Standards.

“When a permit contains such requirements,” He wrote, “a permittee that punctiliously follows every specific requirement in its permit may nevertheless face crushing penalties if the quality of the water in its receiving waters falls below the applicable standards.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined the Majority Opinion, and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined most of it. Justice Amy Coney Barrett Dissented, joined by the Court’s Three-Member Liberal Wing, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Barrett said the Agency was Entitled to Supplement Specific Requirements for Water Discharge with more General Standards based on Changes to Water Quality. The need for the Second kind of Regulation, She wrote, quoting from the Government’s Lawsuit, “is on display in this case — discharges from components of San Francisco’s sewer system have allegedly led to serious breaches of the water quality standards, such as ‘discoloration, scum and floating material, including toilet paper, in Mission Creek.’”

Justice Barrett added that Polluters can file Targeted Challenges to Rules if they believe them to be Unfair. But “a statutory rewrite” was Not Warranted, She wrote.

In the Lead-Up to the October Oral Argument, San Francisco Officials had pushed Back on the Notion that they were Challenging the Federal Government’s ability to Regulate the Environment. They said they just wanted Clarity on the Rule for the City’s Wastewater Permit, so that the City could Ensure it Complied with the Clean Water Act, they said.

The Lawyer for San Francisco had Argued that City Officials did Not have Clear Guidance on how to Comply with the Clean Water Act, and had been “exposed to crushing criminal and civil penalties even when it otherwise complies with its 300-page permit.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Reverses Trump Firing of Appeals Board Chair

A Federal Judge Ruled Tuesday, that the Trump (R) Administration’s Firing of a Federal Employee Appeals Board Member was Unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras Ruled in Favor of Cathy Harris, who Chaired the Three-Person Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) during the Biden Administration. He Indefinitely Reinstated Her to her Post on the Board, writing that Federal Law Prevents Presidents from Removing Members of the MSPB without Cause. “The President’s attempt to terminate Harris was unlawful,” Contreras wrote in a 35-page Decision.

The Order allows Harris to Return to Her Post, Granting Her Full Access to the Benefits of Her Office while Barring the Trump Administration from Recognizing any Other Person as a Member of the MSPB in Her Position.

Harris was Fired via a One-Sentence email from the Presidential Personnel Office last month. She had Four years left in Her Seven-year Term on the MSPB, from which the President can only Remove Members for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Contreras’s Order dictates Harris will continue to Serve as a Member of the Board for the Duration of Hher Term, unless She’s Removed for One of those Reasons.

During a Hearing Monday over Injunctive Relief, Justice Department (DOJ) Lawyer Jeremy Newman said the Constitution Vests in the President “Sole Authority and Duty” over the Executive Branch, including over Firings. "The president must be able to remove at will principal officers who exercise executive power", He Argued.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, a Lawyer for Harris, called the Government’s Theory of the Case “Breathtaking,” suggesting it amounted to Empowering the President to “fire anyone in the executive branch” while Congress “can’t do anything about it. The plaintiff deserves relief in this case,” He said.

Contreras Ruled that the MSPB Falls within the Scope of Supreme Court Precedent giving Congress the Power to Specify the Length of Members’ Terms, and Determine under which Circumstances the President may Remove those Members.

“The President thus lacks the power to remove Harris from office at will,” the Judge wrote. “Because the President did not indicate that he sought to remove Harris for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, his attempt to terminate her was unlawful and exceeded the scope of his authority.”

Harris’s is One of Several Lawsuits Challenging Firings of Independent Federal Agency Leaders with Statutory Removal Protections. The Head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), plus Democratic Appointees to Multimember Commissions, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), have also Challenged their Firings.

A Different Federal Judge Ruled Saturday, that Trump’s Ffiring of OSC Director Hampton Dellinger was Unlawful, which the Justice Department quickly Appealed. That Case already reached the Supreme Court, though the Justices Punted on the Trump Administration’s Request to Wipe the Lower Court’s Temporary Reinstatement of the Official. The Challenge will likely return there soon.

Contreras acknowledged Monday, that His Ruling would likely be Appealed to the Supreme Court in Short Order, as well. “That’s where all of us are heading,” the Judge quipped.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker