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.

[MeganC]

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.

You're not identifying any limits on their claimed powers.

Seriously, what can't they do?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You're not identifying any limits on their claimed powers.

Seriously, what can't they do?

1) They cannot stop an appeal.
2) Outside their courtroom, I think they are just regular citizens. Not sure what would happen if a geratriac USSC beat his/her spouse to death. Maybe Kamaji can weigh in.
3) they can be impeached. I think lesser judges don't need to go through the impeachment process. Samuel Chase remains the only USSC impeached.
4) They have no direct enforcement powers outside of their courtroom I believe. US martials might be a special case, not sure.

In terms of interpreting the law, there really is no limit AFAIK, other than their decisions can be appealed and rendered useless.

[MeganC]

1) They cannot stop an appeal.

Yes, they can and yes, they do.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/federal-judge-blocks-appeal-in-age-discrimination-lawsuit-against-boeing-spirit-aerosystems

2) Outside their courtroom, I think they are just regular citizens. Not sure what would happen if a geratriac USSC beat his/her spouse to death. Maybe Kamaji can weigh in.

Plenty of restraining orders, search warrants, and other such legal actions have been signed/ordered by judges on golf courses, at restaurants, at their homes, and etc.

3) they can be impeached. I think lesser judges don't need to go through the impeachment process. Samuel Chase remains the only USSC impeached.

Federal judges don't impeach each other, fair enough.

4) They have no direct enforcement powers outside of their courtroom I believe. US (marshals) might be a special case, not sure.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which enforces federal court orders, is also part of the Department of Justice and ultimately not under the direct control of the Federal courts but instead under the control of the President. Agreed.

[jafo2010]

Kamanji takes the argument to a point that says, to do anything, and we become Nazis and Communists.  I disagree.

If these radical judges have nothing better to do with their time, then I suggest they have too much time on their hands.  I say cut the number of judges in half, not necessarily targeting these judges, and tell the POS John Roberts get your house in order, or perhaps we half the remainder again.

Bouncing John Roberts might be the cure too.  He is not doing his job.  The reasons could be anything, but through the years, he sure appeared compromised to me.

I am tired of people claiming you are a Nazi if you do this or that.  Has gotten real old.  Trump is NOT a dictator. And I am tired of hearing that nonsense from the Degenerate Party too.

As long as we haven't corrected the problem  with what happened with the election in 2020, we no longer have our republic.  I believe steps need to be taken to reign in the abuse by the different people in government, starting with the judicial branch.  If Roberts is not going to do his job, and as long as radical judges believe they have license to do as they please, I say reign them in.  Cut their numbers in half.  Tell Roberts get your house in order, or we cut the number in half again.

I have worked with many attorneys, and we have become subjugated to the least honest people in America, people with no integrity, and they control all three branches of government, and frankly, I am tired of their bullsh*t!!!  So, reduce their ranks in the judicial branch, and throw the gauntlet down to Roberts and tell him to do his f***ing job!!!!!!

I am not opposed to reducing the Supreme Court to five members too.  The Dems want to expand it to gain more power, I say cut the b*st*rds down and let them know they are not in control.

I have zero respect for anyone in the judicial branch of government.  They are just as corrupt as the legislative branch.  When I saw the photo of Roberts at Epstein Island with Clinton, I say indict and toss everyone that went to Epstein Island.

You want to know who is running this corrupt government, start getting rid of the bad apples.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

1) They cannot stop an appeal.

Yes, they can and yes, they do.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/federal-judge-blocks-appeal-in-age-discrimination-lawsuit-against-boeing-spirit-aerosystems

2) Outside their courtroom, I think they are just regular citizens. Not sure what would happen if a geratriac USSC beat his/her spouse to death. Maybe Kamaji can weigh in.

Plenty of restraining orders, search warrants, and other such legal actions have been signed/ordered by judges on golf courses, at restaurants, at their homes, and etc.

3) they can be impeached. I think lesser judges don't need to go through the impeachment process. Samuel Chase remains the only USSC impeached.

Federal judges don't impeach each other, fair enough.

4) They have no direct enforcement powers outside of their courtroom I believe. US (marshals) might be a special case, not sure.

The U.S. Marshals Service, which enforces federal court orders, is also part of the Department of Justice and ultimately not under the direct control of the Federal courts but instead under the control of the President. Agreed.

Well, not sure about that case you mentioned, of course, do you think if these judges could stop Trump from appealing they sure as hell would and you know that. They can't. Really they're just slowing things down.

[MeganC]

Well, not sure about that case you mentioned, of course, do you think if these judges could stop Trump from appealing they sure as hell would and you know that. They can't. Really they're just slowing things down.

Which is why I don't mind when the occasional judge gets vehemently rebuked. Right or wrong, this gives all of them a necessary reminder of their place in the world.

Much like the anecdote about how in Rome a triumphant Caesar would ride into Rome to the roar of adoring crowds. And there would be three people in the chariot. Caesar, the driver, and a low-ranking slave.

When the crowd would roar for Caesar the slave would remind him, "You are just a man."

Some of these judges require such reminders.

Preferably peacefully. Otherwise like Gaius Julius Caesar they can be reminded in a different way. 

[MeganC]

Hey, she can Google. Cool!

Yup. I do research. 

Apparently posting a Wiki page that points out uncomfortable facts is uncomfortable for some people. That's a shame.

Silencing discussion of the problem will do nothing to address the problem.

Now if the US Senate would take ownership of judicial activism and at least hold hearings on the topic then maybe we could get somewhere. But they won't.

Thus I end up asking the question of what can't these judges order the President to do or not do.

The scenario of a judge ordering the President not to eat at McDonald's comes to mind. Can the President simply ignore this order or is it supposed to be litigated when the courts have no such authority to begin with?

There need to be some well defined boundaries that these judges cannot cross. Elsewise we end up with judges inevitably seizing power over the country.

And then what? You won't be able to get a court order to stop them so what do you do?

[MeganC]

Pookie even sees the problem I see.



I am sorry if I am perhaps impolite in what I post but the problem remains.

[mystery-ak]

Which is why I don't mind when the occasional judge gets shot. Right or wrong, this gives all of them a necessary reminder of their place in the world.

This sentence needs to be remove from all the above posts.

I am responsible for what is posted on TBR and I sure don't want some LEO swatting me....everyone please remove it...or I will

[MeganC]

You weren't merely discussing a problem, you had no problem with a judge being vehemently rebuked, and said so. Which IMO makes our forum a target of authorities. I'm with DC, please self censor that comment if you can.

Done. Feel free to edit your posts accordingly.

[mystery-ak]

Thank you @MeganC

[libertybele]

This sentence needs to be remove from all the above posts.

I am responsible for what is posted on TBR and I sure don't want some LEO swatting me....everyone please remove it...or I will

Reminds me of a similar situation with Chosen Daughter   

[MeganC]

Thank you @MeganC

You're welcome. My apologies if I sometimes say something inappropriate.

In this case I suppose it comes down to the simple paradigm of FAFO which seems to apply universally. I would prefer more people do less of the former so they can avoid more of the latter. 

[Wingnut]

Reminds me of a similar situation with Chosen Daughter   

Man she was one f'd up POS  Hadn't thought about her for years.  Hope to never think about that whore again.

[jmyrlefuller]

Yeah. @MeganC , just for the record, don't EVER talk about wishing death on government officials on a public forum.

I get it. It's tempting to know there's a permanent, irrevocable solution to the stubborn problem of corruption. But these are human lives, whether we like them or not. That, and the Secret Service (among other agencies that monitor this stuff) aren't going to take too kindly to that kind of talk.

[DCPatriot]

Yeah. @MeganC , just for the record, don't EVER talk about wishing death on government officials on a public forum.

I get it. It's tempting to know there's a permanent, irrevocable solution to the stubborn problem of corruption. But these are human lives, whether we like them or not. That, and the Secret Service (among other agencies that monitor this stuff) aren't going to take too kindly to that kind of talk.

@jmyrlefuller

This has already been handled via PMs.  It's Saul Goodman!  

[libertybele]

@jmyrlefuller

This has already been handled via PMs.  It's Saul Goodman!  

  "Better Call Saul" -- one of my hubby's favorites.

[jmyrlefuller]

@jmyrlefuller

This has already been handled via PMs.  It's Saul Goodman!  

Duly noted. 

[MeganC]

Yeah. @MeganC , just for the record, don't EVER talk about wishing death on government officials on a public forum.

I get it. It's tempting to know there's a permanent, irrevocable solution to the stubborn problem of corruption. But these are human lives, whether we like them or not. That, and the Secret Service (among other agencies that monitor this stuff) aren't going to take too kindly to that kind of talk.

Since your post remains unedited and since the topic is not locked then pardon me for needing to respond to it.

What I said was: Which is why I don't mind when the occasional judge gets ****.

This is not the same as encouraging anyone to do anything or saying that I want it to happen.

Likewise, I don't mind when ghetto rats hurt themselves doing their idiotic 'sideshows'. I don't mind when the Russians suffer due to a war that they started. I don't mind when people who burn Tesla dealerships get sent to prison for ten years. FAFO.

And again, pardon me if I do not worship at the altar of the black robed priests of the Almighty Courts. I guess I missed the part of the Constitution that set them apart as more equal than anyone else.

I'll also restate that if the Senate had the balls to hold these people to account with at least the minimum effort of holding hearings into their behavior then that would help get things under control.

Instead the Senate defers to these unelected Democrat activists and the problem gets worse.

And then people like myself are all  when something finally happens because no one else is willing to do their bloody job and hold these people to account.

Our nation is in an extremely fragile state right now. This is illustrated by the violence coming out of the left being directed at innocent people who simply own a Tesla.

This country has already had one civil war and I'd much prefer we not need another to resolve the growing tyranny of the left and their jurists.

[mountaineer]

Larry Alex Taunton
@LarryTaunton
As I and many others have made very clear, USAID is a front for intelligence operations to destabilize regimes and undermine the Trump agenda.
Nothing could be more revealing of the fact than an endorsement from Ilhan Omar, who is herself a fifth columnist.
12:12 PM · Mar 28, 2025

https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1904988603668893798

[Smokin Joe]

What is interesting is the exposure of networks of judges and others who have relatives, even spouses, who are directly or indirectly making bank off the USAID teat through do-little NGOs (directly or indirectly) who are adamant about ruling against the exposure of the money trails and want desperately enough to preserve the gravy train that they do not recuse themselves from the cases that they are assigned which deal with exposure of distribution of funding or halting the funding itself.

It's like a map of one section of the deep state.

[MeganC]

What is interesting is the exposure of networks of judges and others who have relatives, even spouses, who are directly or indirectly making bank off the USAID teat through do-little NGOs (directly or indirectly) who are adamant about ruling against the exposure of the money trails and want desperately enough to preserve the gravy train that they do not recuse themselves from the cases that they are assigned which deal with exposure of distribution of funding or halting the funding itself.

It's like a map of one section of the deep state.

 

[bilo]

What is interesting is the exposure of networks of judges and others who have relatives, even spouses, who are directly or indirectly making bank off the USAID teat through do-little NGOs (directly or indirectly) who are adamant about ruling against the exposure of the money trails and want desperately enough to preserve the gravy train that they do not recuse themselves from the cases that they are assigned which deal with exposure of distribution of funding or halting the funding itself.

It's like a map of one section of the deep state.

It's not just USAID that relatives of judges are making money off of. I hope as the DOJ and FBI get turned around some investigations of these judges begin. If the law has been broken they should be charged. We already know they won't recuse themselves from cases that conflict with the money making of close relatives.

[Kamaji]

What is interesting is the exposure of networks of judges and others who have relatives, even spouses, who are directly or indirectly making bank off the USAID teat through do-little NGOs (directly or indirectly) who are adamant about ruling against the exposure of the money trails and want desperately enough to preserve the gravy train that they do not recuse themselves from the cases that they are assigned which deal with exposure of distribution of funding or halting the funding itself.

It's like a map of one section of the deep state.

Are you implying that the activities of a judge's spouse affect or control the decisions that judge makes as a judge?

[240B]

This is why I do not put, BREAKING, JUST IN, NEW, or whatever like that, in the title. The original article is almost two weeks old.