DC Circuit Rules For Trump In VOA Case

[Rightguide]

5,127 views
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1681166965786697729/HnRm_lk__bigger.jpg

Margot Cleveland​

Subscribe
@ProfMJCleveland
20h • 14 tweets • 7 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Bookmark Save as PDF
BREAKING: HUGE win from Trump Administration and D.C. Circuit enters stay of lower court injunction. Lower court barred Trump Administration from managing Voice of America. D.C. Circuit stayed decision allowing Trump to move forward w/ firings/grant terminations. 1/
2/ Full order. Thoughts follow. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Here is what Trump Administration did and what lower courts order via injunctions:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCv0LwXoAA0L6h.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCv68HWcAAxVg1.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCv_G5XsAAPYcj.png
4/ Court of Appeals decision is based on fundamental issue of "jurisdiction." This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCwJzzW0AA8t0f.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCwMoQXgAAXx25.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCwSNDXkAAFTqA.png

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1918726388271423522.html

As predicted.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Those moron judges just can't quite grasp Article II powers, powers they don't have.

 

[HisArpy]

I personally believe the appeal should have reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss with prejudice and sanction the complaining parties for filing meritless and frivolous pleadings.

The EO reduced the staffing levels to the minimum required by Congress. That in itself is in compliance with Congressional mandates and appropriations. That the terminated employees and the USAGM don't like it doesn't mean that Trump violated any law. This is on top of the lack of jurisdiction issues which the attorneys were either aware of or should have been aware of.

Hence the frivolous pleadings.

 

[Rebel5soul]

They shop judges. The stupider the better as far as they're concerned.

 

[HisArpy]

I left something out.

I personally believe the appeal should have reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss with prejudice and sanction the complaining parties for filing meritless and frivolous pleadings.

I should have inserted here about the Appellate court mentioning that filing additional non-employment related claims in an effort to thwart jurisdiction is improper and doesn't give jurisdiction to the District Courts. This is settled law and again establishes that the pleadings were without merit and were intended for the purpose of delay, harassment, etc. of the defendants.

The EO reduced the staffing levels to the minimum required by Congress. That in itself is in compliance with Congressional mandates and appropriations. That the terminated employees and the USAGM don't like it doesn't mean that Trump violated any law. This is on top of the lack of jurisdiction issues which the attorneys were either aware of or should have been aware of.

Hence the frivolous pleadings.

Seriously, the courts need to rein in the lower courts or this kind of stuff is going to become de rigueur.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Watch. What do you want to bet that there are some lawyers and judges somewhere colluding to think up some clever little legal device to try to thwart the laws anyway?

 

[Politruk]

Why do they want to cut VOA, of all things?!

 

[HisArpy]

Watch. What do you want to bet that there are some lawyers and judges somewhere colluding to think up some clever little legal device to try to thwart the laws anyway?

It's what lawyers do. The only thing which prevents that from being so rampant is that there are checks in the system to prevent the abuses which are being seen in the Federal District Courts right now.

Sanctions for frivolous or meritless pleadings is one. Malpractice claims are another. Bar prosecution and revocation of law licenses are a third.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The best thing about this very important decision is there are several side benefits.

The price of groceries and gas just dropped by eleventymillion percent.

Free medical care for all.

Every fentanyl pill on the planet simultaneously self combusted.

560,623 million brown people decided to leave America on their on will and dime.

ALL HAIL DEAR LEADER!

 

[Rebel5soul]

It's what lawyers do. The only thing which prevents that from being so rampant is that there are checks in the system to prevent the abuses which are being seen in the Federal District Courts right now.

Sanctions for frivolous or meritless pleadings is one. Malpractice claims are another. Bar prosecution and revocation of law licenses are a third.

Sanctions and impeachments are the only things that will stop the madness. There must be consequences.

 

[Politruk]

They shop judges.

Not easy to do that.

 

[Politruk]

Sanctions for frivolous or meritless pleadings is one. Malpractice claims are another. Bar prosecution and revocation of law licenses are a third.

Frivolous pleadings violate the ethics code. Trump's lawyers could grieve the plaintiffs' lawyers to the relevant Bar. But they never do, because they know the pleadings are not frivolous.

 

[Rightguide]

I personally believe the appeal should have reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss with prejudice and sanction the complaining parties for filing meritless and frivolous pleadings.

The EO reduced the staffing levels to the minimum required by Congress. That in itself is in compliance with Congressional mandates and appropriations. That the terminated employees and the USAGM don't like it doesn't mean that Trump violated any law. This is on top of the lack of jurisdiction issues which the attorneys were either aware of or should have been aware of.

Hence the frivolous pleadings.

I agree. As we noted weeks ago, District Courts lack jurisdiction over claims involving monetary damages or contractual disputes; such matters properly fall under the exclusive purview of the Court of Federal Claims. Moreover, the Appellate Court correctly identified the District Court’s failure to comply with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that plaintiffs post a bond to cover potential costs incurred by defendants if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful. This is not a trivial procedural lapse, it is a legal breach that has improperly enabled plaintiffs to pursue temporary restraining orders without assuming any financial risk.

The Appeals Court further criticized the District Court for exceeding its authority by issuing directives to the President concerning the management of USAGM federal employees, actions that, in its words, “implicate the Executive Branch’s foreign-affairs authority.” The court underscored the constitutional overreach by warning that the injunction infringed on the Executive’s exclusive prerogative to “speak with one voice” on behalf of the United States.

 

[HisArpy]

Frivolous pleadings violate the ethics code. Trump's lawyers could grieve the plaintiffs' lawyers to the relevant Bar. But they never do, because they know the pleadings are not frivolous.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[HisArpy]

I agree. As we noted weeks ago, District Courts lack jurisdiction over claims involving monetary damages or contractual disputes; such matters properly fall under the exclusive purview of the Court of Federal Claims. Moreover, the Appellate Court correctly identified the District Court’s failure to comply with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that plaintiffs post a bond to cover potential costs incurred by defendants if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful. This is not a trivial procedural lapse, it is a legal breach that has improperly enabled plaintiffs to pursue temporary restraining orders without assuming any financial risk.

The Appeals Court further criticized the District Court for exceeding its authority by issuing directives to the President concerning the management of USAGM federal employees, actions that, in its words, “implicate the Executive Branch’s foreign-affairs authority.” The court underscored the constitutional overreach by warning that the injunction infringed on the Executive’s exclusive prerogative to “speak with one voice” on behalf of the United States.

I'm wondering how the court is going to get out of requiring the posting of the bond. Because you know it will.

 

[Politruk]

I agree. As we noted weeks ago, District Courts lack jurisdiction over claims involving monetary damages or contractual disputes; such matters properly fall under the exclusive purview of the Court of Federal Claims.

That is not true. A personal-injury suit for monetary damages, if federal jurisdiction is present at all, can be litigated in district court. I've done it many times.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm wondering how the court is going to get out of requiring the posting of the bond. Because you know it will.

The Appellate Court cited the absence of a bond as evidence that the Executive Branch would suffer “irreparable harm” if the injunction were allowed to stand. This serves as a clear directive: either require the plaintiffs to post a bond in accordance with Rule 65, or refrain from issuing the injunction altogether.

 

[Rightguide]

That is not true. An personal-injury suit for monetary damages, if federal jurisdiction is present at all, can be litigated in district court. I've done it many times.

Shut up and tell it to the Appellate Court just quoted. In addition, read Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

of Transp., 555 F.3d 1009, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Congress has instead established comprehensive statutory schemes for adjudicating employment disputes with the federal government. 2See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. §§ 1204, 7121–22, 7701(Merit Systems Protection Board); id. § 1214 (Office of the Special Counsel); id. § 7104 (Federal Labor Relations Authority); 22 U.S.C. § 4107 (Foreign Service Labor Relations Board); id. § 4136 (Foreign Service Grievance Board); 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103–05 (Civilian Board of Contract Appeals). These remedial schemes “provide[] the exclusive procedures by which federal employees” may pursue employment- and contractor-related claims. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFLCIO v. Trump, 929 F.3d 748, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., Am. Foreign Serv. Ass’n v. Baker, 895 F.2d 1460, 1461–62(D.C. Cir. 1990) (foreign-service labor-related claims must go through FSLRB); Dalton v. Sherwood Van Lines, Inc., 50 F. 3d 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Contract Disputes Act provides exclusive remedial scheme for covered contracts). “Federal employees may not circumvent [these statutes’] requirements and limitations by resorting to the catchall APA to challenge agency employment actions.” Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “And that principle applies to a ‘systemwide challenge’ to an agency policy… just as it does to the implementation of such a policy in a particular case.” Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 589 F.3d 445, 449 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

 

[Politruk]

Shut up and tell it to the Appellate Court just quoted. In addition, read Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 65 only deals with injunctions and restraining orders, not with suits for monetary damages. Those belong in circuit court, not in the Court of Federal Claims.

 

[Lazaran]

5,127 views
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1681166965786697729/HnRm_lk__bigger.jpg

Margot Cleveland​

Subscribe
@ProfMJCleveland
20h • 14 tweets • 7 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Bookmark Save as PDF
BREAKING: HUGE win from Trump Administration and D.C. Circuit enters stay of lower court injunction. Lower court barred Trump Administration from managing Voice of America. D.C. Circuit stayed decision allowing Trump to move forward w/ firings/grant terminations. 1/
2/ Full order. Thoughts follow. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Here is what Trump Administration did and what lower courts order via injunctions:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCv0LwXoAA0L6h.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCv68HWcAAxVg1.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCv_G5XsAAPYcj.png
4/ Court of Appeals decision is based on fundamental issue of "jurisdiction." This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCwJzzW0AA8t0f.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCwMoQXgAAXx25.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqCwSNDXkAAFTqA.png

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1918726388271423522.html

As predicted.

Rightard and the rest of the RWCJ usual suspects are clueless about how fucked up the whole VOA fiasco is:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/05/03/media/voice-of-america-return-trump-lake

From the article:

CNN —
Less than two months ago, when the Trump administration turned off the Voice of America’s networks and websites, Kari Lake, a fierce loyalist to President Donald Trump, said the agency is “unsalvageable.”

Now, Lake is working on salvaging it, and VOA may be about to come back online. “We look forward to working with you all,” Lake wrote in a Friday night memo to the staffers she sidelined back in March.

On Saturday, however, the plans were thrown into doubt when an appeals court paused the earlier ruling that had prompted the return-to-work message.







We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Rightguide]

Rule 65 only deals with injunctions and restraining orders, not with suits for monetary damages. Those belong in circuit court, not in the Court of Federal Claims.

And that is what was being appealed to the Appellate Court, a District Court Judge's injunction, which had no legal basis.,

 

[Politruk]

And that is what was being appealed to the Appellate Court, a District Court Judge's injunction, which had no legal basis.,

Nothing in Rule 65 supports that conclusion.

 

[Politruk]

I'm wondering how the court is going to get out of requiring the posting of the bond. Because you know it will.

Rule 65: (c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.

The court has the discretion to set it at zero.

 

[Politruk]

Why do they want to cut VOA, of all things?!

Again, why are they doing this? It's not going to make any difference in the budget.

 

[HisArpy]

That is not true. A personal-injury suit for monetary damages, if federal jurisdiction is present at all, can be litigated in district court. I've done it many times.

^someone can't read for shit.

(Contract Disputes Act provides exclusive remedial scheme for covered contracts). “Federal employees may not circumvent [these statutes’] requirements and limitations by resorting to the catchall APA to challenge agency employment actions.” Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2009)