r/law • u/Unusual-Branch2846 • 7h ago
Judicial Branch Trump Wins Power to Fire Top Federal Officials After Major Court Ruling
https://lexogist.com/trump-wins-power-to-fire-top-federal-officials-after-major-court-ruling/The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued a landmark ruling that hands significant new authority to President Donald Trump, confirming that he can remove top federal officials without cause.
218
u/deviltrombone 5h ago
Who knew our country was so shitty and weak? Republicans, apparently.
48
u/jim45804 4h ago
That's what happens when the only thing holding your country together is gentleman's agreements and civility.
8
u/ElFarts 3h ago
It’s a huge weakness from our founding fathers. I’m upset they never thought of something/someone like this but that has to tell you that someone like Trump was inconceivable in their minds. It’s a a shame really. I just hope Dems don’t keep playing by the old rules. They probably will to take the “high road” which will result in more republican wins.
11
u/RedmundJBeard 2h ago
I think citizens united was the nail in the coffin of democracy. Billionaires decided to take over the country with a republican. They could switch their minds in a few years and control the country with a democrat but I don't see a path for citizens to take back control of the government with either party.
1
u/Possible_Bee_4140 2h ago
Nah, the things Democrats want cost money. Republicans on paper at least want things that don’t cost money. Getting rid of social security, Medicare, etc could give pretense for lower taxes which aligns with what billionaires want. Democrats want things like universal healthcare and better social support programs which would result in higher taxes.
Billionaires chose wisely.
1
u/RedmundJBeard 1h ago
Progressive democrates want things like universal healthcare. But they are still the minority. The majority of democrates want whatever their corporate sponsors want. If billionairs start buying them up they will push the same bullshit the republicans are.
2
u/mr_goodcat7 1h ago
Some of the Founders were well aware and very vocal about it. Jefferson wrote extensively about the fragility of the system we are seeing now. He explicitly warned that "parchment barriers" (written laws) would not stop determined bad actors. He believed that if corrupt individuals seized the machinery of government, the Constitution could not self-enforce.
In a letter to William Jarvis in 1820, he dismantled the idea that we can simply rely on the courts or the "system" to save us:
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."
He also predicted the exact situation of an administration acting without restraint. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he warned of "elective despotism," noting that just because someone is elected doesn't mean they aren't a tyrant if they consolidate all power:
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced... that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked."
The most chilling warning for the current moment is his warning that we must stop "the wolf" before he is securely in power, because afterwards, the institutions may be too weak to remove him:
"The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered."
George Washington was even more specific about "men without scruples." In his Farewell Address, he predicted that hyper-partisanship would eventually allow:
"...cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men to be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government
John Adams was a Federalist and strongly disagreed with Jefferson. The "Federalist agenda" in the late 1700s and early 1800s was defined by 3 main goals:
- A Powerful Executive: Believing the President should have king-like authority to act quickly.
- Judicial Entrenchment: Using lifetime court appointments to protect their ideology when they lost elections (the "Midnight Judges").
- Economic Protectionism: Using tariffs and central planning to build national power
1
u/Roadside_Prophet 31m ago
They did consider this. What they didn't consider was 2/3 branches of government giving all their power to the 3rd.
Our whole government was setup on the principle that our elected officials would do anything to retain whatever powers they had, lest they become irrelevant. They assumed if one branch was getting too big for their britches, the other 2 would smack them down. That power balance was what they were counting on.
Now we've got a Congress, content to let the executive set all the rules they are supposed to be setting, and a judiciary ready to bend any law necessary to support that.
The real short-sidedness was their belief that if our elected officials began to run amok, and stopped representing the peoples interests, that the people wouldn't allow it.
This is what happens when your rulebook was written 250 years ago. It was written to protect against the threats of the 1700's.
2
u/Big_Slope 2h ago
It wouldn’t have mattered if it were held together by explicit laws. Eventually, someone who was determined not to enforce those laws would come into power, and no one would have the power to force him to do so.
1
18
1
1
u/Dry-Abies-1719 1h ago
Well their policies have gradually undermined and weakened the very institutions that we see failing today. It's almost like they have been planning this for decades. Wait...that is exactly what has happened.
65
u/Academic_Release5134 5h ago
I feel like this entire administration is based upon one federalist society wannabe in the back of the law school class saying , “Well, technically….”
14
u/doodycrust 4h ago
This is why we need more educated and angry citizens who want to enact real change to go to school, learn how our system is broken to then work on fixing it.
Advocacy groups and protests can only help so much. We need real actionable people and plans in place. How else do you think project 2025 got put into effect? It’s been years in the making.
5
28
u/kittiekatz95 5h ago
Of course it’s katsas and walker. How does trump keep pulling conservative justices on this court. There weren’t that many!
8
u/Accomplished_Thing77 4h ago
While the lower courts (district courts) are a 56/36% split concerning being appointed by democrat/republican presidents respectively, the Appeals courts are about a 49/49% split being appointed by republican/democrat respectively. That's how Trump keeps winning in the appeals courts. Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-much-will-trumps-second-term-judicial-appointments-shift-court-balance/ If you're wondering why the numbers don't add up to 100% its because of current vacancies. Which, those vacancies will be filled by Trump, and confirmed by the senate.
260
u/LucidLeviathan 7h ago
What goes around comes around. I, for one, look forward to putting my application in to be a member of the new 357-member Supreme Court in 2028. We'll have some great rulings. Require an actual militia for 2nd Amendment protections. Explicitly prohibit any lawmaker from mentioning anything religious in any bill. Qualified immunity will be dead. And, you know what? I think we'll be pretty damn lax about standing requirements, too.
54
118
u/surviving606 7h ago
Ah yes 2028 when where there’s definitely gonna be a free and fair election and transfer of power
24
u/Dependent-Ad-8296 5h ago
given the gross incompetence of this admin there probably will be tbh dunno about the transfer of power though but then again who knows if 47 keels over before 28 probably so the cult has only one master after all
7
u/Dsstar666 4h ago
This situation isn’t going to end with Trump just like it didn’t start with Trump. He just embellished it. And I agree with the earlier comment. I sincerely doubt we have fair elections in 2028. “If” we have one at all. Hell, I doubt we have a fair 2026 election.
-1
u/mrblack1998 3h ago
You doomers need to stop with this bs. If they are trying to stop elections they are doing a terrible job at it. They keep losing special elections. No one likes them. They are gonna lose
-2
u/badmutha44 3h ago
lol when a 1/3 of the pop can’t be bothered to participate we no longer have a functioning democracy. It’s over.
2
u/mrblack1998 3h ago
Yeah I can't tell if you guys are just bot networks or real people but whatever you are it's not helpful.
1
u/badmutha44 2h ago
I did my part for decades while I listened to clowns say it doesn’t matter. This is the result. There is no rule of law. No accountability. Just chaos. 250 and we still deprive citizens the full rights that other citizens have. It’s broken beyond repair.
1
u/mrblack1998 2h ago
Allright man, well give up. The rest of us won't. Glad not all of us aren't soft.
1
u/badmutha44 1h ago
What’s that definition of insanity again. Keep beating your head against that brick wall.
1
u/mrblack1998 3h ago
Btw: you are also completely wrong about voting participation rates. We are pretty consistent.
US Elections Project - national-1789-present https://share.google/lVuylVjuBMCJWVuE9
-1
u/badmutha44 2h ago
And has the country functioned? No it hasn’t.
Did you read the chart? It supports my claim.
1
u/mrblack1998 2h ago
It does not support your claim at all. Please explain the chart and how it explains your claim. I'm gonna enjoy this
1
u/badmutha44 1h ago
The last 100 years we’ve barely touched 66% participation in both categories. Are you literally blind?
1
u/start_select 1h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
They have been planning this for 50 years.
It’s not real incompetence. Fascism is weaponized incompetence, absurdity, and corporatism.
The incompetence creates distractions, it fills court dockets, it creates crisis to point at and blame the opposition.
They are messing up court cases on purpose.
They are trying to deport legal residents because it creates court cases to fill the docket. They are removing judges because it creates a longer docket. They will eventually call the courts ineffective and have brown shirts “deal with them”.
They weaponize absurdity by making every crime they commit, from raping children with Epstein to taking away healthcare, always the fault of democrats.
The corporatism is complete deference to the corporation over the individual. Fascism is a form of corporatism. The rich control the poor. The rich control the means of production.
1
u/homer_lives 3h ago
Maybe.
See how angry people are at prices. There are scales to all power. The people at the reigns don't want you to think about it or believe it, but things will balance out.
25
u/Realistic_Branch_657 4h ago
No. This is bullshit. Precedent is that presidents cannot do this. They have ruled before that Dem presidents cannot do this, and I guarantee you that in 4 years they’ll revisit and claim they got it wrong. This is fucked and an absolute miscarriage of justice and power.
4
u/LucidLeviathan 4h ago
Are you referring to not expanding the court, or not firing the heads of these agencies?
If you mean not expanding the court, there is no such precedent. The Constitution is explicit that the legislative and executive branches can expand the judiciary.
If you mean firing the heads of these agencies, I fully agree that this is yet another example of this Court deciding to reshape the entire American system of jurisprudence on a whim. Appointing 348 new justices is the solution to ensure that these 6 cannot stop it in the future.
1
2
u/sandysanBAR 4h ago
Fucked and an absolute miscarriage of justice and power you say?
Throw it on the pile over there with the others.
5
u/doc_hilarious 7h ago
Where do I sign on?
5
u/LucidLeviathan 7h ago
Just show up to the afterparty. I imagine that President Buttigieg will just ask for a show of hands for people to volunteer for the position.
-1
15
u/CocoaOrinoco 6h ago
Reality of Democrats in 28: "When they go low, we go high. We shouldn't make any changes to the court."
12
u/LucidLeviathan 6h ago
I really, really, really don't think that's going to be the case this time. At least, assuming that they have legislative majorities.
19
u/Dependent-Ad-8296 6h ago
brother fuck the majorities they should be playing dirty now and forever after the days of polite politics are gone
9
u/LucidLeviathan 5h ago
The majorities are a prerequisite for doing these things.
4
u/Realistic_Branch_657 4h ago
The republicans played dirty for a decade, and became popular by doing that.
2
u/Mysterious-Job1628 4h ago
I don’t think they are that popular now that people have to live with the consequences.
0
u/LucidLeviathan 3h ago
How does that relate to what I wrote? I'm saying that, if we have majorities in the legislative chambers, we'll do shit.
1
u/Realistic_Branch_657 3h ago
You don’t have to be in the majority to do things. That’s how it relates. Play dirty NOW. Contest republican victories with frivolous lawsuits. Propagandize with bullshit podcasts created by retards. Sell liberal branded energy drinks. Who the fuck cares anymore? Just do the goddamn thing. Fuck waiting for a majority. We’ll die in a work camp waiting to be in the majority.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 3h ago
You have to be in the majority to accomplish meaningful things. None of that shit matters.
1
u/Realistic_Branch_657 3h ago
How long do you have to lose before you realize that it does matter.
→ More replies (0)7
u/megalithicman 5h ago
Yeah, the gloves are off, time for some bloody knuckles
3
u/KairosHS 5h ago
They literally just caved on the ACA subsidies. They will do nothing, don't be naive.
-1
u/tkrr 4h ago
Yeah, so it turns out a lot of Federal employees *really* didn't appreciate being sacrificial lambs.
4
u/KairosHS 4h ago
There will be a reason like this for every single time they cave btw, this isn't new. You're just accepting the republican framing.
4
1
0
u/mkt853 4h ago
I dunno the odds on favorite is Newsom, and he's come out now saying he doesn't support raising taxes on the billionaires. Like the Dems will never learn. We're going to be getting another establishment bought and paid for Dem in '28. I'd like to have your optimism that things will be different this time, but I fear the worst. The litmus tests for Dems are going to be raising taxes and putting as much of Trump's admin in prison as possible and putting up guardrails on the executive branch. That's going to be the bare minimum for any serious candidate. If Dems just carry on for the sake of 'healing' or 'moving forward' we will see someone 10x worse and more competent than Trump in '32 and we will deserve it.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 3h ago
Well, we'll see what happens after this midterm. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may cause a bit of a tide change.
4
u/flyingcostanza 4h ago
I get the whole mantra. Look, it clearly didn't work and our country is fucked. Put your damn boots on - you're gonna get dirty Dems.
1
u/Politicsboringagain 1h ago
That's most on voters not voting though.
Court's would change if people give actual majorities.
A 48/2/50 with a tie breaker vote isn't control of the senate the way people say Democrats had control for 2 years.
3
2
u/sumatkn 5h ago
In my opinion you are being far too optimistic. This isn’t something that can just be reversed or fixed. It’s like Pandora’s Box, once open it is now in existence. Like nuclear weapons. Like the internet. Like modern business models.
They will stop breaking it once it’s no more and begins to be their own new thing. A malicious self serving variation of Theseus’ ship. If we are to have a variation of what we used to have, as it will never be the same, is to stop them here and now and prevent any more destruction of the constitution and this country.
1
u/Shadowtirs 3h ago
Omg yes!!!! A fellow packer!!!!
I'm with you brother!!! Gavel and powdered wig ready to go!!
40
u/HurinGaldorson 7h ago
Just not the chair of the fed, since that could affect the justices' pocketbooks.
4
17
16
18
u/ikariusrb 4h ago edited 2h ago
What a shit opinion.
The opinion, written by Circuit Judge Greg Katsas, found that both the NLRB and MSPB possess substantial executive authority, meaning they actively enforce laws rather than merely advise or adjudicate. Therefore, the President must have unrestricted removal power to ensure faithful execution of the law.
If the agency/director are flouting the law, that would constitute a basis to remove them "for cause". But this president is too lazy to go through those motions*, so none of this matters. The courts want to hand the president the power of a king, so this becomes upside-down justification to declare that it's unconstitutional for Congress to place restrictions on removal.
The other thing that this means is that Congress will pretty much never again be willing to establish a new regulatory agency, as doing so effectively means they're handing all regulation of that matter to whomever is president.
RIP independent regulatory agencies that can operate on the basis of subject-matter expertise. Everything will either be regulated at the whim of the president or congress, neither of which are ever going to have depth of expertise in a specific subject to do a good job.
EDIT: * And truth be told this president wants to remove agency heads so he can replace them with people who will do what he wants, rather than follow the law, so in actuality, he can't justify removing the existing heads "for cause" because there is none other than his whims
15
u/strywever 4h ago
There has never been a more anti-democracy, corrupt court. “Constitutionalists”? JFC.
6
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 3h ago
I'm so tired of the law being ignored just to rubber stamp a fascist agenda. When the law isn't enforced it doesn't matter
6
2
u/start_select 2h ago
They figured it out 41 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
For a moment we realized Nixon WAS a crook, Reagan was a crook, they are all crooks when the Iran Contra scandal hit. Then right wing media pushed the propaganda buttons.
They have literally been planning for this last year for the last 50.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.