XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns, law.court.federal

When President Trump returned to the White House, he didn’t just get to
work cleaning up Joe Biden’s mess—he set his sights on dismantling decades
of entrenched bureaucratic bloat, waste, and corruption. With a relentless series of executive orders and policy directives, Trump reignited his
mission to drain the swamp—this time with laser precision and zero
patience for the status quo.

Predictably, the left went into full-blown panic mode. Liberal legal
groups immediately launched a barrage of lawsuits, cherry-picking friendly courts in a shameless attempt to stall Trump’s agenda. They’re terrified
of losing control over the bloated regulatory state they’ve used for years
to push policies they could never pass through Congress.

But that strategy just hit a major roadblock. In a landmark ruling on
Saturday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump
administration a decisive legal victory—one that could fundamentally
change how activist judges and forum-shopped cases interfere with
executive authority.

"This is a huge victory for President Trump and his Article II powers
granted in the United States Constitution. It's also a victory for US
Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and VOA," Kari Lake told Fox News Digital.
Lake now serves as a USAGM senior advisor to the Trump administration. "We
are eager to accomplish President Trump's America First agenda which has
always been to modernize and make our government efficient while cutting
waste, fraud, and abuse.”

The appeals court's 2-1 ruling Saturday emphasized the judiciary's
deference to executive authority in matters concerning federal employment
and contractual decisions.

The court noted that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to
interfere with the administration's personnel actions and funding
decisions, particularly regarding grant agreements with non-federal
entities like Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

This ruling Trump's March 14 executive order (EO), which aimed to
dismantle USAGM operations.

This ruling effectively reins in district courts that have been
sidestepping proper jurisdictional channels in cases challenging Trump administration actions. The decision serves as a clear reminder that
courts themselves must operate within their prescribed legal boundaries.

According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The
Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point:
jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications. As Cleveland explains, many
of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has
explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate.

The court’s decision also strikes at the heart of a broader legal strategy being used by leftist groups to stymie Trump’s reforms—namely, the claim
that the administration is engaging in “wholesale dismantling” of
agencies. But as the ruling makes clear, the Administrative Procedure Act
was never designed to handle such broad-based political grievances, and Congress never waived sovereign immunity to allow them.

In another key point, the court found that the lower court also
overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something
Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts.
All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used
to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda.

Margot Cleveland
·
May 3, 2025
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
12/ In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3
key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction
over grant terminations;


Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
13/ c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction
by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm
to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article
III obey Article I.
11:14 AM · May 3, 2025


Margot Cleveland
·
May 3, 2025
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
13/ c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction
by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm
to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article
III obey Article I.
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
14/14 Final thought: It is next to impossible to reconcile opinion here
with same panels refusal to clarify stay in other case involving USAID and grants from legal perspective. Practically: Judge Katas in other case
figured decision on merits would be soon enough so no harm.

The significance of this decision extends far beyond these specific
cases—it establishes clear jurisdictional parameters that could affect
dozens of pending lawsuits against Trump administration policies. While
the administration won't prevail in every case, this ruling suggests
courts may need to more carefully consider their jurisdictional authority before issuing sweeping injunctions against executive actions.

The D.C. Circuit Court just handed Trump a game-changing victory that will
help him clean house in 2025.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/05/04/trump-just-got-a-game- changing-legal-victory-n4939477

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)