President Trump and his adviser Elon Musk address the media in Washington, D.C. on March 11 Mandel and /AFP Closed subtitles
A federal judge in San Francisco appears ready to temporarily block the Trump administration's comprehensive overhaul of the federal government.
Clinton-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston held a hearing Friday in a lawsuit filed by the Labor Union, nonprofit and a coalition of local governments, in which they argued that President Trump had “substantially reorganized and demolished the federal government without Congress’ authorization.”
Illston appeared to agree with the plaintiff and asserted at the hearing that the Supreme Court precedent made it clear that while the president does have the right to seek change in the institution, he must do it in a legal way. She went on to say that the critical shift in the Trump type is trying to “have to work with Congress.”
The plaintiffs are seeking temporary restraining orders to suspend the government's planned massive layoffs. The temporary restraining order cannot be appealed, but the government is expected to appeal any injunction issued by the judge in the future.
Ayerston said “the powers of the legislative branch” may be needed. She noted that during his first term, Trump did actually seek Congress’ approval of a similar restructuring plan.
"He could have done this here, but he didn't," Aleston said.
The case is just the latest in a series of court battles, testing Trump's restrictions on the enforcement of authority.
In court documents, his government argued that he had “inherent authority” to exercise control over those who enforce state laws.
On Friday, Trump administration's attorney, Deputy Attorney General Eric Hamilton, argued that the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order was inappropriate given that Trump had signed an executive order to reshape the administration for the first time.
He and other attorneys wrote in an earlier court filing: "The plaintiffs are not entitled to any TRO because they waited too long to file this motion, so any 'emergency' is entirely their own production."
Plaintiff’s lawyers believe that only now can they determine what measures are being taken by the agency that enforces Trump’s directives because his administration has been operating.
"They are trying to isolate judicial review by not disclosing their implementation," the plaintiff's attorney Danielle Leonard told the court on Friday.
Hamilton also argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, as the government argues in many other cases involving federal employees. Instead, matters involving personnel issues within the federal government must be brought to the bodies caused by Congress to listen to such complaints, he said.
Judge Ayerston seems to be unconvincing about this argument, and the questioning of Hamilton (a radical reform of the entire administration) is a congressional aimed at passing these executive channels.
Plaintiffs - including the United States Government Employees Federation and its several local branches, the American Public Health Association, and cities in Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco, have asked the court to direct Trump's guidance agencies in a February 11 executive order to prepare for Volkswagen layoffs and shutter plans, including implementing unreasonable plans, and temporarily conducting temporary plans, and temporarily improving the agency (temporary scope) (including temporary positioning agencies) (including Recultif infructif infructif) (including Recultif infructif infructif) (the office).
Plaintiff’s attorneys have argued that agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs are executing plans “not based on their own independent analysis or reasonable decisions” but based on the president’s execution orders and instructions from Elon Musk’s Governor General’s team, the Office of Personnel Management, Personnel Management and Management and Budget.
The Trump administration has defended the executive order, saying it provides instructions only with a broad attitude, while clearly expressing that any action taken must be "consistent with applicable law."
"This directive is a direct way for the president to exercise unquestionable powers to require subordinate agencies to determine what the law allows and then take any action available legally to raise the president's priorities," the government lawyer wrote in court documents.
Leonard said in court that the government's perception is not an accurate description of executive orders.
"This is a mandatory order directing the agency to start doing it immediately in the way the president directs it," she said.