NEW: Obama-Appointed Judge Orders DOGE To Restore USAID Operations

[mystery-ak]

NEW: Obama-Appointed Judge Orders DOGE To Restore USAID Operations

Published 6 seconds ago

on March 18, 2025

By Chris Powel

A federal judge appointed by Barack Obama has stepped in to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), effectively overriding the Trump administration’s push to reduce the bloated agency.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang issued a ruling Tuesday, claiming that Musk’s cost-cutting measures likely violated the Constitution in “multiple ways.” In his injunction, Chuang ordered Musk and DOGE officials to restore access to USAID’s computer systems, halt further staff reductions, and refrain from interfering with the agency’s operations per Politico.

Chuang’s 68-page ruling argued that Musk and DOGE “effectively eliminated” USAID, leaving it unable to perform its legally required functions—though the judge did acknowledge that Trump administration officials could still implement drastic cuts if done through official channels.

“If a president could escape Appointments Clause scrutiny by having advisors go beyond the traditional role of White House advisers who communicate the president’s priorities to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the Appointments Clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality,” the judge wrote.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ actions, taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis—including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID officer—likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways,” Chuang continued.

more
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/new-obama-appointed-judge-orders-doge-to-restore-usaid-operations-mace/

[jafo2010]

Ignore the man.

I say terminate all these judges.

[Smokin Joe]

Ignore the man.

I say terminate all these judges.

Yep. Find the fiscal trail to this one, too.

[240B]

enforce it

[bilo]

Rubio is not bringing these people back, or giving them access to anything.

The admin. has to start ignoring these "judges".

[rustynail]

Ignore the man.

I say terminate all these judges.

With Extreme Prejudice?

[Fishrrman]

OK, guys.

Once again, I'm going to post this.
It's time for a... well, a time for a "Constitutional" change between the Executive and the Judiciary.
And Mr. Trump is the one to bring it about.
Goes like this:
==========
There needs to be proclaimed (yes, proclaimed) "The Trump Doctrine" on the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary branches.

This proclamation must re-define how much power the federal courts have to exercise against the president and his powers.

No individual federal judge anywhere should have the power to overturn executive action.
At the district court level, when and where federal/nationwide policies are impacted, judges should have no more power other than to issue an opinion (strictly an "opinion", not a "ruling").

It will be up to the president as to whether to accept or reject such an opinion.

If rejected, then it can be appealed upwards to the next level. The president should declare in his proclamation that only a judgment by the full appellate court (NOT a 3-judge panel) will be binding -- and ONLY within the confines of that district -- AGAIN, IF the president chooses to accept the ruling.

And after that, we're left with the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this is going to carry more weight, but I've come to the (very personal) conclusion that even the 9 justices in their black robes should not be entrusted to dictate final decisions before the American people.

Rather, in matters of national social and cultural importance, any U.S. Supreme Court decision should be "annullable-cancelable" by a vote of the U.S. Congress and Senate.

Frankly, I don't even trust most of our "elected leaders" (do YOU?).
I'd rather see such matters put up to a national vote -- much like the Swiss people do RIGHT NOW.
==========

Perhaps it's time to come out and say it:
End the rationale behind Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Declare it dead.
Start over.

How does THAT hit ya?
Sorry if you don't like this post.

[verga]

The mere fact that he is an Obozo appointee, says all you need to know.

[MeganC]

These judges need to explain why they think they have executive authority.

[Fishrrman]

Megan expounds:
"These judges need to explain why they think they have executive authority."
NO.
It will be up to Mr. Trump to INSTRUCT them as to why they do not.
The judiciary -- at ALL levels, including the Supremes -- CANNOT accept this.
They cannot reform themselves.
It will be up to the Executive to set an entirely new Constitutional policy by defining it anew.

Re-read my reply 6 in this thread, above.

[MeganC]

Ignore the man.

I say terminate all these judges.

The Senate doesn't have the balls to fire these activists from the bench.

[Kamaji]

The Senate doesn't have the balls to fire these activists from the bench.

The Senate doesn’t have the basis to remove them, which can only be done via impeachment.  It is precisely this sort of attempt to cow the judiciary through threats that caused the Founders to give federal judges lifetime tenure subject only to removal by impeachment. 

In other words, y’all are acting in precisely the manner the Founders were afraid of when they drafted the Constitution.

[DCPatriot]

The Senate doesn’t have the basis to remove them, which can only be done via impeachment.  It is precisely this sort of attempt to cow the judiciary through threats that caused the Founders to give federal judges lifetime tenure subject only to removal by impeachment. 

In other words, y’all are acting in precisely the manner the Founders were afraid of when they drafted the Constitution.

Then how about you serve up some advice on how you would solve the current problem instead of seemingly cheering them on?

Or, does your acute Trump Derangement Syndrome make that impossible?

You are so FOS! 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The Senate doesn’t have the basis to remove them, which can only be done via impeachment.  It is precisely this sort of attempt to cow the judiciary through threats that caused the Founders to give federal judges lifetime tenure subject only to removal by impeachment. 

In other words, y’all are acting in precisely the manner the Founders were afraid of when they drafted the Constitution.

Actually she's sorta right. GOP probably has the votes to impeach in the HoR but it'd never make it through the Senate, which requires a supermajority as you well know.

[Kamaji]

Then how about you serve up some advice on how you would solve the current problem instead of seemingly cheering them on?

Or, does your acute Trump Derangement Syndrome make that impossible?

You are so FOS! 

I already have: follow the process that is laid out in boring documents like the APA, or the FTC enabling legislation, document the predicates that are required before action can be taken, and then move deliberately; stop flailing around as if the federal government were twitter and the staff a bunch of adenoidal twenty-something’s who can be cowed by a bunch of posing and shouting. 

But apparently, that’s too boring for y’all and doesn’t get gonad-pleasing yelps out of the liberal media, despite the fact that it might actually deliver lasting results.

So go f**k off with your false TDS b.s. and your false claims that I’m cheering them on, whomever “them” is.

[cato potatoe]

Well, the progressives would not remove one of their judges even if he went on a shooting spree at the local shopping mall.  And we aren’t going to have 40 consecutive years of conservative presidents.  District court judges can issue one injunction after another, basically running out the clock until their “team” regains the presidency.  So the question is whether it is reasonable to expect the other side to live with asymmetrical warfare as they watch their country be changed irrevocably.  Or do some of these absurd rulings simply get ignored. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Well, the progressives would not remove one of their judges even if he went on a shooting spree at the local shopping mall.  And we aren’t going to have 40 consecutive years of conservative presidents.  District court judges can issue one injunction after another, basically running out the clock until their “team” regains the presidency.  So the question is whether it is reasonable to expect the other side to live with asymmetrical warfare as they watch their country be changed irrevocably.  Or do some of these absurd rulings simply get ignored.

I'm sure Biden would have been thrilled to ignore the courts. They would have socialized medicine, student loan forgiveness, all sorts of things.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Ignore, Appeal, Challenge Constitutionality, Challenge Jurisdiction, Challenge Standing

When did Federal judges become Grand Inquisitors?

[cato potatoe]

I'm sure Biden would have been thrilled to ignore the courts. They would have socialized medicine, student loan forgiveness, all sorts of things.

His group of radicals would have welcomed the opportunity, if the lower courts had issued dozens of injunctions.  The strain on our system is coming from his side.  We watched them make a mockery of immigration law in attempt to establish a one party state.  It created a problem that cannot be solved without using the extra-constitutional methods last employed by Eisenhower. 

[Wingnut]

Ignore, Appeal, Challenge Constitutionality, Challenge Jurisdiction, Challenge Standing

When did Federal judges become Grand Inquisitors?

As Monty Python said. No One expects the Judicial Inquisition!

[Kamaji]

So,  because Trump is throwing a temper tantrum, we’re going to become exactly the sort of authoritarians the left is always accusing us of?  The Nazis also “ignored” the independent judiciary until they were able to replace them with dependent lapdogs who always got the “correct answer” regardless of what the law actually said.  The soviets, of course, just took the most expedient measure and “fired” the judiciary by imprisoning and killing them, to be replaced with dependent commissars. 

Is that really where we want to be headed, because that’s the direction y’all are pointing in. 

[Smokin Joe]

I get it. It's all about checks and balances.

Pay checks and bank balances.

How many of these judges directly or indirectly benefit from the funds NGOs get from USAID and the business their relatives get from the millions of illegals?

[MeganC]

So,  because Trump is throwing a temper tantrum, we’re going to become exactly the sort of authoritarians the left is always accusing us of?  The Nazis also “ignored” the independent judiciary until they were able to replace them with dependent lapdogs who always got the “correct answer” regardless of what the law actually said.  The soviets, of course, just took the most expedient measure and “fired” the judiciary by imprisoning and killing them, to be replaced with dependent commissars. 

Is that really where we want to be headed, because that’s the direction y’all are pointing in.

Okay, kindly tell me what limits you think the Federal judiciary currently has. What can't they do?

[DefiantMassRINO]

There are limits to judges' jurisdictions and standings.  It's good juror's prudence to hold judges accountable for demonstrating that their actions are within their codified jurisdications and standings. 

Otherwise, judges are just tyrannical kings and warlords in black robes.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Okay, kindly tell me what limits you think the Federal judiciary currently has. What can't they do?

I believe they have some direct powers with the US martials, but in essence we can ignore them, and so can the Democrats, then the US will become a tinpot dictatorship maybe something like what they have in Africa, and each side will visit atrocities upon the other upon entering office. Fact is that there needs to be an independent judiciary to interpret law. Only solution is to appoint better judges. Term limits won't work, Biden appointed a shit ton of judges and so did Obama.