Judge Orders Trump to 'Stop Violating the Law!' Already
Specifically, the Clinton-appointed judge ruled that Trump's Office of Management and Budget broke the law by taking down the public apportionment website where, under a 2022 law that Congress made permanent in 2023, it's mandated to report executive decisions on federal spending within two business days.
The administration removed the website in March, and, soon after, OMB Director Russell Vought sent a letter to lawmakers saying the office decided to flout Congress and scrap the database due to the purportedly 'sensitive,' 'pre-decisional,' and 'deliberative' nature of the information it is required to reveal.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy—watchdog organizations that rely on the OMB database—challenged the move, and Sullivan on Monday issued a partial summary judgment ordering that the administration comply with the law and bring back the website.
According to Sullivan, Trump and Vought relied on 'an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power' to 'claim that their apportionment decisions—which are legally binding and result in the actual spending of public funds—cannot be publicly disclosed because they are not final decisions about how to administer the spending of public funds.'
While the Trump administration argued that the 2022 law encroaches on the executive branch's authority, its objections amount to 'a policy disagreement' with no 'constitutional foundation,' Sullivan wrote.
'Defendants are complaining about the extra work the 2022 and 2023 Acts require. This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,' he wrote. And the fact that the office had previously maintained the database for nearly three years 'further diminish[es] any argument that complying with the disclosure requirement is overly cumbersome or places an impossible burden.'
'The law is clear,' said Sullivan: 'Congress has sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress,' and 'there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public's money. Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
WASHINGTON (AP) — A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held. In reaching her decision, the judge said the 'defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'' One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of NEH Active Grants,' the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equality and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote. The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects. 'Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,' McMahon said. 'Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.' McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration. The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress. The humanities groups' lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils 'to a screeching halt' this spring when it terminated its grant program. The filing is the most recent lawsuit filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations. McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored 'to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.' The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago ‘sanctuary' laws
CHICAGO — A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said that he was pleased with the decision and that the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security and did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies it sees as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, N.Y. It sued four New Jersey cities in May. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during President Trump's first term in 2017. That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party. There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
This post ended up becoming a ‘Democratic confession': Emily Austin
Panelists Emily Austin and Samantha Jo-Roth discuss how Democrats tried to bash President Donald Trump on X for grocery prices on 'Fox News @ Night.'
