A judge accuses Trump of defying a court order. Surprise Not. 
Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order
NBC Reports Judge Finds Trump Administration Violated Court Order Halting Funding Freeze
A federal judge in Rhode Island on Monday said that the Trump administration had violated his order halting a sweeping federal funding freeze and ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding.”
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell handed down the order after the plaintiffs in the case, a coalition of 22 states, said the government had not restored funding in several programs despite his Jan. 31 order temporarily halting the wide-ranging Office of Management and Budget directive that had caused chaos and confusion across the country.
“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” McConnell wrote, even though his order lifting the freeze had been “clear and unambiguous.”
It’s the first time since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration that a federal judge has accused his administration of defying a court order.
“The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud. But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud,” McConnell wrote. “The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country.”
He said the “pauses in funding violate the plain text” of the temporary restraining order he issued on Jan. 31, and ordered that funding be immediately restored for the duration of the time his TRO is in effect. The order is expected to remain in place until at least a hearing on a preliminary injunction later this month.
In a separate case Monday, unions suing the administration over U.S. Agency for International Development employees’ being placed on administrative leave alleged the agency wasn’t complying with a different judge’s order temporarily reinstating those employees.
Their filing said they had “become aware that Defendants have not fully complied with the terms of this Court’s order,” including by continuing to lock employees out of their computer system. “Those members, therefore, cannot assess whether they have been reinstated from leave,” it said. They requested an emergency hearing.
Correct Rulings
We are a nation of laws. I did not like it when Biden put himself above the law and I don’t like it when Trump does the same.
Restoring funding is the correct legal ruling, and I applaud it. Trump will lose on the leave issue, and I will applaud that too.
“But mommy, Biden did it too” is not a legal excuse.
Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
CBS News reports Third Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
A federal judge in New Hampshire on Monday blocked President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, becoming the third judge to do so amid more than half a dozen legal challenges to the president’s directive.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante said at the end of a brief hearing that he would grant the request for a preliminary injunction sought by New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, LULAC and Make the Road New York. The three groups filed the first federal lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump’s executive order, which he signed on his first day in office.
Laplante’s order comes on the heels of two others issued by federal judges in Washington and Maryland last week that barred enforcement of Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order nationwide. The Justice Department has appealed one of those decisions, from U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In the hearing before Laplante, Cody Wofsy, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued on behalf of the immigrant-rights groups, said Mr. Trump’s order is a “fundamental attack” on the Constitution and is “straightforwardly illegal” under Supreme Court precedent.
Not Even Close
Given the US Supreme Court has already twice ruled on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, it would be shocking if any District or Appeals Court would rule any other way.
On January 21, I wrote Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birth Citizenship Is Headed to the Gutter
Let’s review Trump’s unconstitutional order ending citizenship by birth. There’s over a dozen challenges already.
On January 23, I wrote A Court Appointee of Reagan Correctly Blocks Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
As predicted in this corner, a District Court quickly blocked Trump’s unconstitutional order eliminating birthright citizenship.
During a hearing on the matter, Judge Coughenour said of Trump’s executive order, “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
CATO comments
When the 14th Amendment was drafted, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had a settled meaning: It referred to a person who was subject to U.S. law. Foreigners who visit are required to follow American laws. They are, in every sense, subject to U.S. “jurisdiction,” or control. An exception is the children of diplomats, who are immune from American laws. Additionally, certain Native Americans born on sovereign tribal lands were also exempted, though the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made them citizens by birth.
Every case since has affirmed citizenship, especially United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898, and Regan v. King 1943.
Since the Supreme Court has already twice ruled on this matter, the District and Appeals Courts have nothing to do but uphold the law of the land.
So, expect Trump to lose in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Trump can then appeal to the US Supreme Court and lose one of two ways.
First, this case is so easy, the Supreme Court might refuse to hear the case at all.
Second the Supreme Court may hear the case. If so, I expect no worse than 6-3 against Trump, and quite possibly 9-0 which I believe should be the case.
This boils down to my January 24, post What Were the US Senators Thinking When They Debated the 14th Amendment?
I commented “The question is not realistically subject to logical debate, and I can prove it.”
You are free to disagree, and be wrong.
Secondly, please consider what a constitutional expert friend of mind has to say about this issue.
A Terrible Policy as Currently Practiced?
I can easily see why some people would believe that. But they are wrong.
This is a subject that came up with friends of mine, one of whom has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.
Friend One (studied law but is not a lawyer):
I am not a lawyer, but I am very much an originalist (and that makes you put a lot of emphasis on the text as written at that time). To me this a clear put down on Trump. Too much time has passed and society and the government has had a common shared view on this for many, many decades. In a logical world this should be 9-0.
Friend Two (Constitutional Expert):
Well, you have stated very well the rationale that underlies the doctrine of res judicata. Generations of immigrants — and by extension, their offspring — have literally for hundreds of years relied on the common understanding of the law. Even if that was technically wrong in retrospect, res judicata says that you cannot unsettle the lives of law-abiding people who have relied on what the courts said the law was. I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.
It would open a hornets’ nest, since most 19th century immigrants were never naturalized — it was understood that one’s kids were Americans by birthright — and thus most of the US population would be rendered aliens. We have no precedents to deal with this and it would be a total judicial mess.
Res Judicata
Res judicata refers to the principle by which one judgment has a binding effect on subsequent proceedings.
My friend comments “I cannot think of a clearer case for its application.”
This might even apply to me. My grandfather came over on a boat. My father was born here. Was he a citizen by birth? If not, then arguably neither am I.
Recent cases may be easier to understand. What about a couple who came into the US illegally 25 years ago at age 35? They had kids who are now suddenly not citizens. Those kids might have kids who are not citizens then either.
Q: Is the Supreme Court really going to mess with this? Let Trump say it only starts now?
A: No and No.
The Elon Musk Sponsored, Ted Mack Legal Amateur Hour
It’s not the least bit surprising these cases are going against Trump.
On Sunday, I commented The Elon Musk Sponsored, Ted Mack Legal Amateur Hour
The problem with the DOGE approach is the mission may backfire spectacularly.
What to Expect from a USAID Shutdown
- My constitutional law expert says “Contractors will sue. There will have been no valid legal basis for stopping contract payments. So, under the contracts, the federal government will pay a bundle in penalties and equitable adjustments.“
- The courts will force a reversal. And no good will come from this approach.
This is the Elon Musk sponsored, Ted Mack Legal Amateur Hour.
That is the problem I have with this, and I have been correct.
I am not against DOGE. I am not against Trump either. In fact, I am openly cheering DOGE.
All I ask, and unfortunately it seems too much to ask, is Presidents uphold the law.
Now we have more rulings against Trump, as fully expected in this corner, as as deserved as well.
I don’t object to the idea the CIA is a political swamp. But I do question demanding buyouts.
Team DOGE has no authority to pay staffers 8 months to do nothing. Moreover there are contracts in place.
Team DOGE has no legal right to cancel contracts either.
For further discussion, please see USAID Cancellation by Trump, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Details
Once again, I am not arguing against the DOGE idea. I openly cheer the idea behind DOGE.
Instead, I am arguing against the methods.
Hypocrites may be happy with the approach, but I assure you that Trump can achieve much more by going about this in a constitutional manner.
Here is the sad fact of the matter, the more Trump tries to skirt the law, the harder it will be to get a deal with Democrats than can clear a Senate filibuster.
In the case of recent illegals having children just deport the mother. It is time we got rid of the infestation.
Mish, may I ask you and your constitutional law expert who believe that res judicata requires us to continue the practice of birthright citizenship, how is that even relevant? Trump’s order is prospective not retrospective. Your relatives’ claim of birthright citizenship is not being challenged at all. By pretending this is a “good argument” you are introducing a false but highly emotional charge to garner support for your rational arguments. You are better than this, as evidenced by your courage in stating a legal opinion that is contrary to that of many of your subscribers.
Ask yourself this. By what authority can Trump change the constitution from here going forward?
Since he can’t, you have your answer and there is no need to waste his time.
So stop the nonsense.
Trump does not have any authority to change the Constitution. But he does have the authority for enforcing the nation’s laws and in doing so every President must first decide how to interpret them. His interpretation is different than yours and perhaps mine (I am an attorney but have no opinion on this issue until I see the briefs of those who have spent a lot more time studying the precedents and appropriate writings of drafters at the time the 14th Amendment was written), but the Supreme Court will correct him if he is wrong. Then we will have the answer to the question. Until then, everybody has an opinion and we are all free to call each other’s opinions nonsense.
The bottom line is this is all theatre. There will be very little government cost savings unless congress defunds some programs. It’s all a show for the goobers.
The last paragraph on Mish’s column seems to indicate that both parties would agree to do this and uphold the law if followed. Unfortunately, this is a naive opinion.
I do agree that a constitutional discussion is in order to settle the migrant issue once for all. If the present senators and congress is unable to come to a conclusion, then it is on us voting public to make it an issue and send representatives who support this to the next congress.
that is my humble opinion.
I noted that at CNN Trump continues to have a good approval rating. My guess is that should Trump continue on then the Democrats will stop demanding judicial adverse rulings. The more questionable things that are unearthed will add to Trumps popularity as this goes on and if he can keep t going to the midterms there will be real change in the air for once.
Is there a principle of legal interpretation whereby any law should never be interpreted in such a way that it benefits criminals (e.g., people who break U.S. immigration law)? If not, there should be. It’s common sense. We all know that the 14th Amendment was one of 3 Reconstruction amendments designed to protect African Americans. Who cares what how many interpretations were piled on it afterwards? Those interpretations can be reversed. Raise your hand if you think the original framers of the 14th Amendment would have agreed with this statement: “the children of people who are not legally supposed to be in the U.S. will now be entitled to become citizens”. I just don’t believe that, regardless of the personal invectives that Mish may rain upon me. The Supreme Court got it wrong in the Dredd Scott case, and again with inferring a Constitutional right to abortion. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we get a 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding Trump’s EO.
Who are these Americans, according to recent polling, who have serious doubts about whether Donald Trump will respect the Constitution and follow the law, but this majority overlaps with those who voted for Trump and give him favorable job performance ratings so far? I cannot square the idea that someone would vote for a person that they have serious doubts will uphold the Constitution as President and give that President high marks so far in spite of the almost unquestionable unconstitutional actions that have been taken so far. Add to this the indefensible dropping of the Eric Adams corruption case that was proceeding forward after evidence was presented to a grand jury and he was indicted on that evidence and the order to not enforce a law that was put in place to prevent corporate bribery by U.S. companies when doing business internationally. These are undoubtedly the actions of a person who has no respect for the law and does not have the ability to separate right from wrong.
Oh you mean like the imprisonment of J6 people without trial.
That kind of Constitutional Law run by Biden DOJ
There were not only trials, there were for most of the cases jury trials and with many admissions of guilt.
Maybe you should read the Constitution about a fair and speedy Trial.
Not placed in a Cell without due process for an in-determinant amount of time.
Also the part where 5000 FBI personnel were employed to go after 1600 people. Most of whom were guilty of unauthorized Trespass.
Oh there was the guy who put his feet up on Pelosi’s desk that in Biden fantasy world called Garland, was really serious criminality.
It does not matter what your group thinks the whole Nation is witness to how fast Borders got closed under Trump as opposed to being lied to by Biden administration that nothing could be done.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the justices held that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”
Wong’s parents were legal resident aliens. No court has held that the children of illegals get automatic citizenship.
Cato suggests that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means everyone who is in the US, because foreigners who visit the US are required to follow American laws. That interpretation makes the phrase redundant because the Amendment already states it applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the US.” We are referring to people who are already in the US.
The rules of statutory construction require that all words in the statute should be given meaning. It makes sense the phrase applies to all those who are here legally, because in applying for entry they submitted themselves to US Jurisdiction. Whereas, those who entered illegally did not.
It makes sense to think clearly.
Ans you don’t. Your position refuted many times.
And… we have BINGO : )
A judge’s order appeared, ex parte—meaning only one side could speak. No warning. No defense allowed. Just a wall erected between Treasury officials and their own department’s data.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat whose office is leading the case, welcomed the ruling, saying nobody was above the law.
Democrats lie that no one is above the law.
Dictator Trump gets bandied about quite a bit.
Why he said he wanted to turn Gaza into a paradise in Mid East. Course that means relocation of Gazans.
All kinds of people upset with that vision.
Geez almost as if those same countries in Mid East had some skin in game in their area of the Globe. Would never had known it given how long things have been out of bounds.
Almost as if some dictator intervened and said straighten this out or we will.
Enough is enough says Trump the dictator.
Myself kind of Glad someone said it.
Local governments all up in protest. Guess they will have to find common ground and stop the carnage.
Hey kids, Daddy’s home and boy oh boy is he pissed.
He’s the rage bait. I’m the dictator.
Expect Jacksonian action by the Trump administration. Activist judges will be ignored.
They have no army and, if the new military recruitment numbers are true, Trump will certainly have one soon.
It’s amazing to me how many commentors here rightfully bitched and moaned about Biden overstepping his authority, but now cheer when Trump does the same. Hypocrits of the highest order. You all preach constitutional restraint when the opposing party is in power, then preach against it (out of vengeance) when your chosen party is in power.
Just cut the crap and admit you want a dictator.
Simps simpin’ for me.
Hypocrisy is inseparable from politics. Best not to play that game and focus on improving your own life.
it’s the result of understanding that rule of law is applied selectively. If only there was a way to not do that…..hmmm.
Trump is now the king of the United States of America. He will not abide by any court rulings that he doesn’t agree with. Who is going to stop him?
He’s not the king. I am.
Don’t care. Trump will do what he wants. He is above the law now. The constitution means nothing to him. I accept that.
What bothers me is his wimping out on tariffs. I thought his 25% tariffs on all imported steel and aluminum would start right away. But no. Wait till March 1. Then watch him back down; again.
He will claim a few meaningless “wins” from other countries. And his supporters will eat it up, like they always do.
How the heck is he going to bring back manufacturing and jobs, and rake in all that tariff money if he keeps backing down?
Also, i see that US Gulf coast refiners are refusing Mexican oil as the water content of their oil has increased from 1% to 6% recently and can’t be used in US refineries. Which means more imported oil from Canada and Columbia.
Did you care about the Constitution during the pandemic? No. Pound salt.
Haha! You believe this without any evidence whatsoever! You get a gold star!
Indeed, I know vaxx-tard covidiots when I see them.😉
I don’t even know why I bother anymore.🤷♂️
You shouldn’t bother. Best to go back to hiding in your parents basement while you wait for the covid zombie apocalypse.
It was you fearmongers who cancelled the Constitution in the face of a puny China virus.
Your kind attack people who just didn’t want to take your mediocre, ineffective, and untested vaxx-product.
Take your DEI-CRT-BLM-LGBTQIIAP-globo-homo self elsewhere. We Americans don’t want anything to do with you, you cotton?
That puny virus killed over 1 million Americans over a two-year period, which is more American deaths than were attributed to the puny war fought against the Nazis and the Empire of Japan in the 1940s. You say our response to a highly contagious novel virus was not Constitutional. What was unconstitutional in the context of a national emergency?
The stats you are trying to quote do not reflect what you think they do. I work on those kinds of databases. The cause-of-death is not listed as “SARS-CoV-2.” Rather, that statistic is a union of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and any-cause mortality.
Therefore, in the U.S., we have no choice but to look at all-cause mortality: indeed, there was some excess all-cause mortality in 2020, and it was marginally higher than the last bad flu year vis-à-vis population.
However, if the virus EcoHealth Alliance and NIAID created in Wuhan is so lethal, then how come we unvaxxed are not dead?🤔 How come the homeless population was not eradicated? And why did highly-vaxxed America fare no better than un-vaxxed Africa?
Everyone I know came down with something in the subsequent two years, vaxxed or not: their outcomes were the same. The vaxx-product did nothing. Scientifically and medically this makes complete sense, as the R number of coronavirus is too high to effectively vaccinate against.
Take any therapeutic you want—I won’t stop you—but don’t force non-sterilizing, experimental vaxx-products on others.
Do your “excess mortality” numbers adjust for the significant drop in vehicle fatalities because driving declined significantly? Did they adjust for the lower number of elective surgery and related complications that result in a certain number of deaths and so on? Did people at risk contract Covid-19 and die of COPD or some other condition that became severe as a result of having Covid-19, sure. But Covid-19 was the catalyst that resulted in these deaths just like diabetic people do not die of diabetes, they die of chronic conditions caused by having much higher blood glucose levels than non-diabetic people for an extended period of time. Your trying to make a distinction that for most practical purpose is meaningless and you are using meta-data statistics without adjusted for extraordinary circumstances.
The thing is, these are all leaps that we do not have the data to substantiate. All of the data is dirty. There are confounding variables everywhere.
(And, yes, if you died in a traffic accident, your corpse would’ve been swabbed for C19, and your death listed as a C19 death if it were positive.)
Nevertheless, you neglected the main point: why did the ‘unvaxxed’ populations fare no worse?
Uttar-Pradesh—a province of 200-million people with almost no vaxx uptake—had no excess mortality.
Therefore, across-the-board it fails the null-hypothesis. But beyond that, it comports with nigh-everyone’s anecdotal observations.
Put another way: if the vaxx-product was so good, and the virus so obviously dangerous, you wouldn’t have had to force people to take it.
Most of the deaths were iatrogenic. Dr.s Fareed and Tyson early treated some 20,000 Covid patients with zero deaths. The CDC wasn’t interested in how they did that. Covid was never actually treated as a public health crisis.
That’s what I was getting at in a roundabout way with reference to Uttar-Pradesh.😅
Wasn’t Trump the one who championed the vaccine?
Yeah, he did. DJT was proud of “Operation Warp Speed.” However, he’s clearly on the record stating that he never wanted to mandate anything.
Cancelled the constitution? Wait till you see what *I* am doing to it…
He can’t. Mom says chicken tendies have gotten too expensive.
I don’t waste much time on things that I can’t control.
Lol! “I” cancelled the Constitution? That’s pretty funny. “I” don’t even vote.
Perhaps you forget that Trump was in charge when the “puny China virus” appeared. Everything that happened after that was on him. He crowed about how “everyone in the world” was impressed with his amazing response to the China virus. He’s our pandemic hero. You should bow down before him rather than ragging on poor little old me.
“…Perhaps you forget that Trump was in charge when the “puny China virus” appeared. Everything that happened after that was on him…”
Didn’t you just tell me above that hypocrisy and politics go together, and that I should avoid pointing it out and focus on myself? I 100% agree with that assessment by the way and thanks for pointing that out. However, aren’t you doing the same thing here? Not trying to play gotcha, just saying, buddy.
Yes. Hypocrisy and politics go together. If you engage in politics, then you engage in hypocrisy. The difference is that I am not engaged in politics. I am merely an external observer. I do not vote. I do not care which party is in power. I have no vested interest in politics at all. Other than to observe and profit from it.
This might be the first time you uttered something worth considering. Since all presidents are now operating above the law, one might ponder the possibility of congress wrestling some of that control back. nah, that’ll make it harder to fundraise.
Reading your column, I do recommend that you read a book called: When China Attacks by Col. Grant Newsham. It is an eye opening view of the Chinese and if you see what is happening globally, you will understand what China is doing without a war in true sense.
If every American understands what China is doing without going into war, it is mind boggling that most of the nations are not able to face Chinese in a manner that needs to be dealt with.
God help us !
In a fascist state laws don’t mean anything.
Eventually, everyone that voted for Trump will get to the FAFO stage.
FO what?
Welcome to gitmo, sinner!
Ask the MAGA farmers who had contracts with USAID that were summarily shredded.
Ask the Latino guy in FL whose Venezuelan wife had her protected status suddenly canceled & she has to be sent back to Venezuela.
a 90 day pause = contracts shredded or just chirping MSM talking points now
Laws comes to mean nothing when judicial activism prevails over sober and just application of law. We have crossed that line long ago and have entered interesting times.
Trump is just blatantly breaking laws.
If a judge rules against Trump’s criminal behavior that’s hardly “judicial activism”.
admit it. you kind of have a thing for him.
When SCOTUS would overrule Biden’s attempts at loan forgiveness, his administration would “narrow the scope” on subsequent attempts.
Fact Check: Did Biden Ignore Supreme Court Over Student Loan Forgiveness?
Trump prefers the shotgun approach.
Trump “wants to convince Americans as much as foreigners that he’s tough. And that perceived toughness is, to him, an end itself, often in spite of damage his approach has done to alliances, or even to the stated goals of Trump’s own foreign policy.”
Trump veers toward the ‘madman theory’ while his aides are trying to sound sane | CNN Politics
When the method employed is effectively shooting oneself in the foot…
there is no method to the madness…
only madness in the method.
Can’t be tough with boobs as big as his.
If congress doesn’t vote to raise the debt limit and the Government isn’t allowed to borrow more money, and only money coming in can be used, who gets to decide what programs get funded ? Is it Mish , the judge or the president ? Does the judge issue ruling making congress vote the way he wants so the programs all get funded . This is silly talk so the judicial branch is going to take over the treasury ? Ha Ha .
In 2020 we elected a eunuch and they made him president. In 2024 we elected a president and they made him a eunuch. Go figure.
He only ever had a little mushroom to begin with.
Congress is the only one who can stop him so they have to decide if what the judge says has merit. If they allow the president to proceed then they think the judge is wrong. The previous congress thought the supreme court was wrong to rule Biden couldn’t forgive student loans so they let him continue. The government majority ruled 2-1.
All hail Trump because he is the king for the next four years. He should ignore all the judges. He is only responsible to the House or Representatives. Huzzah!!!
As he should be, the house of representatives represents the people of the country.
You utterly misunderstand the way the system is basically set up. I say this as a professional and professor multiple decades. “Biden got away with something” is not a legal defense or reason to hastily trash the system. There may be a reason for the American people, through Congress or Constitutional Amendment (all under the Constitution) to debate this, deliberate, and reform something, but not at all in the way you say it. There is a spectrum between “trash everything now” and “never change anything.” Our setup is a very careful balance in this spectrum, bequeathed to us by the founders. It has procedures, not anything some uninformed bystander supposes it might be. There is a path, just not what you said.’Congress (allegedly) did something once under Biden’ does not describe that path at all.
I am not advocating for the path that was taken, merely pointing out that it exists. It’s kind of like congress vetoing the judicial branch in the same way they can veto the executive branch. And it is noteworthy that our Founders didn’t put anything in place to force the executive branch to obey the judicial branch, they seem to have left that up to congress.
But take a step back and look at what our Founders intended…that the majority of the people get to decide the direction we go. Congress represents the people so if congress doesn’t step in, then the people are deciding what should be taking place. You also have to remember that judges/justices are not God/perfect and it’s up to the people to decide if they are making a mistake. Very similar to Trump being convicted as a felon, but still getting elected as president. The power is to the people.
yeah we should allow this to continue, rogue judges, ex parte, not following civil procedure to protect this grift…LOL
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1889172190282821690
Birth right citizenship I agree with. However, these ex parte cases from lower federal courts without defendents present or able to defend themselves and judges not following US code of civil procedures rule 65c by waiving bonds for these liberal AGs filing cases is bullsheet. I would ignore them and tell them to issue bench warrants and send the FBI. If judges are NOT going to follow civil procedures why does Trump have to abide by a ruling. Stopping people from voluntary resignations, capping overhead draws on grant money is comical they are even fighting this waste of tax payer dollars.
You are confusing two issues.
Looking at the data – and mass firings that are illegal
Cancelling all of USAID illegal
We don’t care.
If you don’t care, then you do not deserve all of the freedoms and opportunities that our liberal democracy has created over the last 80 years.
I deserve a trillion dollars and the title of World Emperor, nothing less.
I am not following. USAID is not cancelled, it’s a 90 day pause. How do you prove harm or standing for a pause in payments, Ex Parte and not following civil procedures.
Where are the mass firings? He’s offered voluntary buyouts? If the case is centered around mass firings, when did that happen? If the ruling is about mass firings that have not happened how did the plaintiff prove standing or harm for an event that hasn’t happened.
Rhode Island Judge McConnell orders unfreezing DOE grants and the judges daughter works for the DOE and no conflict of interest in that ruling?
Ex Parte ruling that restricts the congressionally confirmed Treasury Secretary from accessing treasury and did not following civil procedure.
Trump has no authority to pay people 8 months to do nothing. The idea is ridiculous and even if not it violates contracts.
As for harm, it is equally ridiculous to suggest no one was harmed by the delays. Many people were.
Can I not pay you for 90 days?
Would you be harmed?
The ruling is proper, expected, and now upheld by an Appeals Court.
I have a post on this tomorrow.
thanks for the clarifying point in today’s article…”Had DOGE sought to block just fraudulent payments we would not be in this situation” so bull in a china shop approach backfired
Yes, that is my position.
Again, I am 100% in favor of DOGE stopping this nonsense. But the correct approach is case-by-case.
$40 billion in payments go out through this system. Musk Blocked all of them.
Innocent parties were illegally harmed.
Adding this to my post.
good addition…
If judges aren’t going to follow civil procedures, they should be removed.
The President has executive authority, the Judge has no authority to stop him.
Trump needs to move ahead.
Did you sleep through civics class?
The only one that can stop him is the House of Represtatives.
Math class with exponents bats clean-up.
What does executive authority mean to you? Are there any constraints on executive authority in your view? If you believe that there are constraints what are those constraints and how are they enforced?
I don’t care. Ignore them. They have no enforcement mechanism.
Face it. The Constitution is a dead letter. The agencies being audited are themselves unconstitutional. Adhering to it will not make the Left behave any better should they ever return to power.
Isn’t it ironic that the “defenders of democracy” rely on lawsuits covertly funded with taxpayer funds filed before unelected judges appointed by presidents elected as long as 4 decades ago?
Reagan should have done this 40 years ago. The old fool looks like a bigger disaster every passing year.
If fraud and theft were eliminated then the entire eCONomy would collapse.
Some District Judge in Rhode Island is not the final word. Not even close.
Fraud vitiates all agreements. Any contract made under fraudulent pretext has no basis to demand payment. The judge demands he make payments to anyone with a contract regardless of if the contract was entered into legally or not.
We of course should pay attention to the headlines, but that is always a bait to keep our eyes and minds off the the CONSTANT theft going on in Government Circles.
Nothing is gonna happen, positive or negative, without the Two-ring Circus (minus the cool animals).
So, the leviathan, U.S. government bureaucracy rolls on. It is bankrupting us all and will be difficult to stop.
The funding of all these corrupt activities is the responsibility of congress. Both parties have been responsible for this bad behavior since the Kennedy Admin.
It will be the responsibility of voters to put more honest people in congress. Until then we will have $2T deficits, that turn into $3T.
Nothing get fixed until lobbying is illegal.
Until then, we have a republic, if we can keep it.
“JD Vance and Elon Musk question judges’ authority over Trump”
What “patriots,” threatening the very foundation of our government established when we punked England.
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States “ … unless some district judge in Rbode Island doesn’t like what the president does. lol
Americans are too stupid to see it… even dumber than the ones that post here. USA is a colony of South Africa now!
The US have the best laws that money can buy.
A bargain, really.
With all due respect, Biden NEVER put himself above the law. He and his administration lost their cases in court, and they respected the outcome. Trump has put himself above the law since he entered politics. In his first term, Trump was fortunately surrounded by some adults who actually knew the law and managed to uphold it against Trump’s urges. Nevertheless, Trump ended up attempting a coup against the US government on J6. Since he got away with that coup attempt, he doesn’t see a reason to respect the law anymore, and we are now heading straight toward a constitutional crisis. See you on the other end.
three willful ignoramus downvotes.
The ignorami are ascendant!
The constitution was written by wussies for wussies. Real men, real patriots, force their will upon the rest. Citizens properly become subjects. Once he takes Canada and Greenland, King Donald will become Emperor Donald. And we subjects will properly bow before him.
Not him… me.
I believe Mr. Biden willfully went against the Supreme Court by continuing to forgive
Student Loans after it had been struck down by SOTU
Biden NEVER went against the Supreme Court. You seem not to be able to understand US legal proceedings. But I admit that understanding legal proceedings in our new authoritarian state is not really useful anymore.
With all due respect? Except for the truth.
must have forgetten he flat out said he will ignore SCOTUS and still provide student loan relief…your selective memory and faux outrage is comical
And I railed against that.
But “Biden did it too” is no excuse
I know you did, I read it. Biden SL case was not Ex Parte in the lower courts…Trumps DOJ was not allowed to defend the president, speak or warned about the proceedings and the judge did not following civil procedures. If they waived bond it was not written anywhere in the TROs anywhere.
You’re right inviting 15 million unvetted third worlders to waltz across the border and begin accessing government services is completely in keeping with the law and American norms!
Take the plastic bag off your head…
“just an elderly man with a poor memory”. lol.
A much more detailed explanation here: https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/more-revolution-from-the-insurrectionist
Inferior judges are going to get a slapdown.
Jeff Childers had a good take too *: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/heil-slurpy-tuesday-february-11-2025?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=463409&post_id=156922407&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ch1ue&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Washington Post ran a troubling story yesterday under the headline, “Trump allies suggest defying court orders after stinging legal rebukes.” It is true there is a lot of that kind of talk surging around on our side, but defying court orders would be a terrible idea. We are nowhere close to a “defy the courts” moment. Don’t panic until I give the signal.
It is true that a pleonastic series of left-wing judges have been tossing out wokabulary-packed TRO’s like obscenely shaped candy tossed in hairy handfuls from a Pride Parade float. “The president,” WaPo crowed, “has lost nearly every battle in court in the opening weeks of his administration, with some judges using biting and incredulous language to push back on administration plans they have deemed unconstitutional, ill-planned or cruel.”
Indeed, yesterday a Massachusetts federal judge blocked the prefectly sensible 15% overhead cap on NIH grants. Also yesterday, Rhode Island Judge John J. McConnell Jr. scolded the administration for failing to comply with the “plain language” of his earlier TRO requiring the OMB to unfreeze trillions in wasteful and abusive federal grants and loans.
It is starting to seem like the courts would rather run the Executive Branch for themselves.
It is worth noting that amnesiac corporate media completely forgot all the glowing words of praise it heaped on Joe Biden’s “creative” circumvention of a series of Supreme Court decisions stopping his student loan forgiveness schemes. The media’s hypocrisy is frustrating, but it is bait we should not eat.
Let them step on the legal rakes.
Three weeks ago, when Trump first issued his blanket pause on federal spending and his new, Schedule-F “at will” category for federal workers, I suggested that he was laying a trap. You’ll recall we discussed the Reagan-era “unitary executive” theory of Executive Branch powers. I told you then that Trump’s blanket orders were inviting lawsuits right out of the gate to tee up a final showdown at a Supreme Court poised to cement Trump’s budgetary and employment powers into law.
Well, the judges couldn’t resist and have taken the Trump bait. The dizzying slew of TRO’s contains some of the worst and weakest judicial reasoning ever excreted from the federal bench. Patience, young Jedi. We should celebrate these particular TRO’s instead of freaking out over them. Weak, injudicious, poorly reasoned orders are much easier to beat than judicious, well-reasoned orders.
My appellate mentor once told me that an overlong long, apparently devastating order packed with pages of ridiculous factual findings is the best kind of order— even though at first it looks like a death sentence. “The more the robes talk,” my mentor said, “the more we have to work with on appeal.” That advice is truer now than it ever has been.
There is no need for panic. The worst thing Trump’s team could do is overreact and start openly defying court orders—that’s a losing strategy with long-term constitutional consequences. Trump has the Supreme Court. It’s much smarter to let these weak orders pile up and then race them up the appellate ladder, which is exactly what is happening now.
It would be different if the Supreme Court were adversarial. That is what happened to President Lincoln, forcing him toignore the order and arrest Justice Taney’s messenger rather than comply with the ruling in Ex parte Merryman. Lincoln faced an existential crisis where compliance with the court’s order would have crippled the Union’s ability to suppress the rebellion— or to facilitate the Northern Aggression, depending on your point of view.
But either way, in 2025 the Supreme Court is not adversarial to President Trump—it is more inclined to define and reinforce his executive authority rather than dismantle it.
That’s why we must show restraint and hew to the rule of law. Let these leftist lower courts exhaust themselves with legally dubious rulings, and then let the Supreme Court do what it was built to do: settle the matter decisively.
I don’t believe it was accidental that Trump practically invited these challenges from Day One. The President knows all about this kind of lawfare—it was background music throughout Trump 1.0. We have enjoyed a brief, encouraging sprint of cheap success while the Swamp was caught off guard, but we always knew this day of lawfare would come. We are now entering the second phase. Trump is playing a longer game. Everything he is doing now is intended to expand his legal authority—constitutionally—using the very same court system that is currently chucking sand into the machine of reform.
“The Trump administration probably will prevail in some cases,” the WaPo finally admitted, late in the article, “as they wend through the appeals courts or make their way to the Supreme Court.”
The Swamp’s strategy is founded on delay and obstruction. Trump’s counter is acceleration and good politics. He isn’t waiting for these fights; he’s forcing them now, when he has momentum, rather than later, when the bureaucracy might recover and dig in. This flurry of weak rulings will provide the leverage needed for the Supreme Court to weigh in decisively—very likely in the President’s favor.
🔥 As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about the TRO cutting off “political appointees” from access to Treasury’s computer systems, things are proceeding as I suspected. No “compromise” was arranged from the court’s order to “meet and confer.” The briefs were filed late into last night—and the DOJ’s reply was strong. Here’s part of its conclusion:
The broader and fundamental flaw underlying the Order remains. Plaintiffs confirm in their opposition that they seek something remarkable: A court order commanding that a segment of an executive agency be cordoned off from properly named “political appointees,” while giving access to select “civil servants.” The government is aware of no example of a court ever trying to micromanage an agency in this way, or sever the political supervision of the Executive Branch in such a manner. This Court should not be the first. The existing TRO cannot stand.
Believe it or not, the best thing that could happen would be for the Obama-appointed judge to uphold the TRO in full or even in part. Trump’s team would then be all set for an emergency appeal.
Remember: we lose nothing by the delay while these cases climb the appellate ladder. The waste, fraud, and abuse have been happily trundling along for decades. Relatively speaking, a few more months won’t hurt. But the highly visible battle for commonsense reforms infuriates the public, spotlights the left’s contradictions, and forces Democrats to waste valuable political capital defending the indefensible. The best prize lays at the end of the fight: a Supreme Court order completely cutting off lower courts from micromanaging the Executive Branch.
Trump’s legal strategy is brilliant, and it is working. Let the man work.
“It is starting to seem like the courts would rather run the Executive Branch for themselves.”
What a long winded piece of total nonsense
And breaking the law is not brilliant – it is idiotic – and likely to get Trump impeached after midterms
We can tell Mr. Childers has been to graduate school since he uses big words like “pleonastic”…interesting that he assumes Scotus will simply back Trump.
Birthright citizenship. Would a ruling necessarily be retroactive? Or could it just start ‘from this day forward’? The words ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ were put there for a reason. Otherwise, why add the words?
Arrest a few “judges”.
Give ’em a taste of The Crowbar Motel.
Sure they’ll get out sooner rather later.
But, so many are corrupt that an example certainly needs to be made.
And, if anyone thinks that these black robed bastards haven’t taken the filthy lucre as so many others in DC, you’d be sadly mistaken.
Grow up.
Alito and Roberts are examples 1A and 1B arrest them first.
Haha… nice try. My simps are immune to reason!
Arrested for what crime? Be specific.
But what is going to make the Trump admin actually follow these rulings? I can imagine a scenario where there’s a 9-0 SC decision, just like you, Mish. But I’m not sure Trump cares. What happens then?
Then we all realize Trump loves himself as much as he hates America.
There are plenty of 9-0 SC decisions.
Trump doesn’t really care what the courts rule. He can always just issue 10 more different orders requiring 10 more injunctions.
The goal is simply to shine a light in the darkness and expose things until there is no way the media isn’t talking about these things 24×7. Once public sentiment changes on an issue THEN Congress will act in the way Trump wants just as it has on immigration and DEI.
See also: student loan forgiveness
Then you basically have a banana republic.
We’ve had that for years.
Bananas are delicious!
I’m more of a plantain guy with a side of black beans.
Trump will abide by any SCOTUS decision. There are hundreds of federal judges. Just because the Left can find one who rules that the Secretary of Treasury can’t review Treasury payments doesn’t mean that ruling has to be taken seriously.and the Administration has to shut down all Treasury audits. The Left could get a federal judge to say Trump has to wear his underwear on the outside. That doesn’t mean ignoring such ridiculousness would be a constitutional crisis.
He can do whatever congress allows him to get away with, they’re the only ones who can stop him. They didn’t stop Biden from forgiving student loans even after the supreme court ruled he couldn’t.
ex parte case, not following civil procedure and ruling a congressionally confirmed secretary of Treasury is not allowed to access treasury data will get 9-0 verdict in favor of Trump
The Treasury will get access to the data. The Treasury will not be allowed to fire people breaking contracts.
Happy?
Sure, just issue another EO for the same thing.
The treasury secretary can’t give permission to Musk access treasury systems? Do they have to be Treasury employees, approved by congress, do they have authority over who assists the treasury for free?
According to Just Security, Trump can drastically curtail USAID with executive actions alone…
So he can’t stop fraud, waste and abuse and he must continue to pay for aid to a sesame street show in Iraq if it approved in the system?
Agency is funded by congress via CRs/omnibus/appropriations, no line item budget, but the agency head has no discretion on where the funds go?
If he is not allowed to pause payment he has to approve anything in the system…I haven’t read the law, is that codified in the legislation?
There is always a way. Take the re-re-naming of Fort Bragg to Fort Liberty now back to Fort Bragg:
‘Hegseth restores Fort Liberty’s name back to Fort Bragg to honor WWII hero’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hegseth-restores-fort-libertys-name-045553752.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
Is it the original Bragg tribute? No. But it is the original name.
The birth right citizenship is obviously more difficult, albeit impossible but maybe that isn’t the true intention.
If you study Elon and even Trump to a lesser degree, both love to sue. Elon is notorious for suing people, often just for the hell of it to bury his enemies in legal fees and flat out exhaust them. He doesn’t always lose either so this could be the strategy.
If Trump keeps moving at this pace he will drown the Federal court system in busy work. Israel and Trump are also becoming bosom buddies and if you know anything about law in D.C. then you know it’s a magnet for those of Jewish heritage who could be encouraged to give Trump some easy jump shots from time to time. APAIC could also twist some folks. Actually a lot of folks in Congress.
I don’t think T really thought “they” wouldn’t use a judge in a liberal district to block almost all of his initiatives. It’s the standard liberal playbook.
Cat is out of the bag on this one though. They’ve been forced to do this and it makes the Dems the ones trying to stop the exposure of blatant corruption and keeping illegals in the country after Biden threw the gates open.
In the court of public opinion especially during tax season where everyone now sees where their tax dollars are being wasted and the huge amounts spent on illegals, it’s not a good look.
It also tosses a great deal of the blame back into the Congress. Dereliction of duty in not auditing the bureaucracy and letting “unelected” minions spend the money on all sorts of things voters would never approve of.
Don’t lecture me about laws, no one has been following them for the last two decades, don’t expect me to suddenly be “concerned” when yet another group tramples all over them.
Exactly. Doesn’t matter how many of these orders get blocked by judges because 10 more will be written up followed by 10 more judges reviewing those and on it goes.
I wrote much the same thing as you stated above in another thread. The goal is absolutely to shine a light on these activities and get public opinion behind what Trump/Musk are doing. Public opinion and potential re-election loss is the ONLY way to get Congress to do anything these days and has been for a while.
So keep on keeping on.
lol, as if any unelected piss ant judge has the right to order the president around about things in control of the executive branch?!
Everything is in control of the executive branch. Even your liberty and citizenship. The only thing standing in the breach are those piss ant judges.
Well said.
I agree if we’re talking SCOTUS. Not some random district judge.
If you don’t like the district judges ruling, you appeal to the Supreme Court. But the district judges ruling stands until overruled by the Supreme Court.
“Everything is in control of the executive branch.” Indeed. Now why is that? You’re so close!!
I applaud the methods, as do millions of others. Call me what you will. The judicial system has warped the law in their reckless pursuit of Trump, and now have no standing
Yes, you are a proud hypocrite, with no respect for the law, no better than Trump or Biden.
Mish, see it from the perspective of regular Americans: “No man is above the law,” oh, except for 10-million illegal alien invaders and BLM rioters and looters, that is.
Double-standards have eroded trust.
Legitimacy is crumbling.
I’m not saying this is good, I’m just saying it is.
(P.S. We never got the “return to normalcy” that we were looking for.)
EddyD, why not just enforce existing laws? No EOs. It seems as though Trump has successfully impacted the border crossings as he had expressed.
Government People can get paid. They can also be sent to a room to do nothing. Still be in compliance with a judicial ruling.
Treasury Secretary has every right to revue how transaction payments are made.
That is the Job description and why there is a Treasury Secretary. Oversight of Treasury workings.
Judges rulings are Not going to stop Public disclosure of graft, corruption and DEI expenditures. Get used to it.
There is also an underlying Tenement of Law that Law must support Justice.
Where there is no Justice the Law has no meaning. Quoting law and not supporting Justice is what has lead the US to where it is now.
And of course none of you are the least concerned about the favors Musk is dishing out. Somehow white South Africans can now immigrate to the US, giving favors to friends, eliminated Direct File at IRS that would have let me file for free, but would have hurt his buddies at Turbo Tax so now I can pay them $130 for me to input all the data the government already has on me. Capitalism at its best. Senators are calling in – want my vote – do not slash programs in my state. Sure all of this has happened in the past but not to this degree. I urge you to check out the favors and carve outs. It is not a pretty picture. Meanwhile he has not done a damn thing about grocery prices.
You do realize crops have to get planted before they show up on Grocery shelves.
Destroying Poultry by Biden administration now leaves farmers without egg laying Hens. Have seen numbers at 100 million chickens destroyed by Biden.
Maybe in click and point computer land things happen instantly, but not in real world.
At this point, I don’t care as long as fedgov is reigned in. We have to adapt the rules of engagement to what the Left uses against us.
Anyone rejoicing over blocking Trump: as awful as he is, he may be the US’s last chance. We can’t expect endless ‘do overs’ or exceptions or benefits from ceaseless bullying of other nations. If these relatively small changes can’t be done, I fear what the future holds as to precipitous cuts and retreats
The Rhode Island judge was nominated by Obama as a favor to Sheldon Whitehouse after the extremely wealthy individual donated 500k to the Democratic Party, most of which made its way back to the Whitehoude campaign.
The judges daughter has a high paying cushy job working for the federal govt.
Nothing is what it seems.
All of these rulings will ultimately be overturned. The Plenary power of the executive cannot be ended by the courts, except where the action directly violates a constitutional mandate. None of the cases presented are on point. And most of the parties lack standing anyway. This is just a continuation of lawfare and SCOTUS will eventually shut it down.
Lastly, you keep digging the hole deeper on birthright. It’s hard to u fees tans why.
No other country, except Canada, in the top 30 for GDP permits it. No EU country permits it. There is no logical reason to permit it, and you have not offered one.
You will ultimately be incorrect here as well. “Subject to the jurisdiction of” was a term of art in the 1600s that meant something very different than how it is portrayed today. Both the legislative history and the debate on the amendment prove that to be the case.
As does English common law, on which the amendment was based.
Believe what idiocies you want.
How the flying F does it matter what other countries do?
Denninger gets it right again. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=252811
I’m glad Karl’s work is getting around.
I believe he is right again.
I can’t access Karl “Ban Hammer” Denninger’s site:
This IP address […..] is barred from all access to the forum.
Either this address is associated with an anonymous proxy service of some kind, or it has been flagged as belonging to or being used by someone who has abused the forum.
He banned me years ago. I can read but not comment.
He enforces almost a complete echo chamber and has a God complex. Wolf is a close runner up. At least Mish allows dissenting opinions.
Yeah, the AngryBear Blog blocked my entire IP address!!😆
You sure praise yourself as being correct a lot. For a “libertarian” you sure sound like you’re okay with spending money that we don’t have that is creating more debt. Talk about hypocrisy.
Libertarianism: The most logically consistent way to ignore reality.
Trump always complained about the deep state; he created one. Watch & weep.
Although I do not like how Trump is going about many of the policy changes, I don’t recall and instance where he was “above” the law. The first items on the list could easily be construed as a disagreement in the interpretation of the ruling.
In all cases I recall, he has adhered to the rulings once made, and moves on to find another way to get it done.
Certainly if anyone has specific cases where he actually put himself above the law like Joe Biden did with Student Loan forgiveness, I am completely open to being corrected/or and better informed.
I’m willing to call a spade a spade, but it needs to be a spade.
Biden also restructured military aid to Israel in order to get around congressional restrictions. I was surprised congress put ANY restrictions on aid to our greatest ally ever.
Englemayer actually said that the Treasury Secretary has no right to access the payment systems. Let that sink in. Englemayer was with Obama at Harvard.
Another swamp judge who thinks he is above the executive branch and can tell the president what he can do or not. Shove it. See you in court
We are a nation of laws? Yes. Start with the constitution. Then look at the lawfare ground game. Again, if you want absolutes, look at Mel Brooks as Moses.
We invented laws to help us get along in vast numbers. They have not been working so well. I am starting to think that the lefties were right about Trump. He will become a dictator, by necessity, in order to carry out the policies he promised, and was elected on. Once accomplished, there will be a peaceful transfer to the next guy..or maybe not.
Correct. Is there any line in the Bill of Rights that hasn’t been watered down or ignored?
Ron Paul always said “follow the Constitution”. He was laughed at and faded into political oblivion. Good man. I voted for him every time he ran for president. Time for different rules of engagement.
The other side just uses the Constitution when it is to their advantage. Otherwise, they dismiss it as an anachronistic relic of old White slaveowners in powdered wigs. The fact that they use unelected judges as a primary tool to “defend democracy” should tell you all you need to know.
Sort of. It’s like asking “how can an NGO be an NGO when all of its funding comes from the government”?
If congress impeach a federal judge and the senate confirm it in a trial ==>
the judge is fired.
Should be done.
D.O.G.E. has BIG BALLS. Do congressional republicans?