Supreme Court Slaps Trump Down

[Fuzzy1975]

When or if this case goes back up on appeal

Hopping yourself on the fence eh wrongway.....lol

 

[ll74]

When or if this case goes back up on appeal The President will likely prevail in this matter. This suit is brought by individuals and NGOs who are suing for the government for money and breach of contract. These suits are not typically filed in U.S. Federal District Courts. The correct venue for suits of this type is the U.S. Court Of Federal Claims. If this case goes back up to the SCOTUS on appeal it could be thrown out on that ground alone, and I thin that Justice Alito alluded to this as well.

This will end up back at the Supreme Court.

 

[Politruk]

No inferior court has the authority to dictate how the President governs or to assume control over Executive Branch operations. The Executive Branch is coequal with both Congress and the Supreme Court, and its independence is firmly established by the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.

The three branches are separate but not equal. The executive has the most power because it does the day-to-day governing -- but the judiciary has power over the executive in the right legal circumstances. Even a district court (the level below appellate or circuit courts) has the authority to issue an order binding on the president.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Ignore it

It's hard to with all the tweeting and tv interviews. It craves the attention.

 

[Rightguide]

This will end up back at the Supreme Court.

I could see it happening. I could see it thrown out as well by the Appeals Court. I could see Judge Ali ruling quite differently in a matter of an appealable Preliminary Injunction. I can see in the case of a ruling against the President requiring him to make the payments, a federal judge ordering the plaintiffs to post a bond in an equal amount in case Trump eventually wins on appeal and they have to repay the money.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I could see it happening. I could see it thrown out as well by the Appeals Court. I could see Judge Ali ruling quite differently in a matter of an appealable Preliminary Injunction. I can see in the case of a ruling against the President requiring him to make the payments, a federal judge ordering the plaintiffs to post a bond in an equal amount in case Trump eventually wins on appeal and they have to repay the money.

You can see everything, but Trump losing at the SCOTUS....*chuckles*

 

[schism666]

vetteman:
I could see it happening. I could see it thrown out as well by the Appeals Court. I could see Judge Ali ruling quite differently in a matter of an appealable Preliminary Injunction. I can see in the case of a ruling against the President requiring him to make the payments, a federal judge ordering the plaintiffs to post a bond in an equal amount in case Trump eventually wins on appeal and they have to repay the money.

i can see you're in a cult, vetteman.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I could see it happening. I could see it thrown out as well by the Appeals Court. I could see Judge Ali ruling quite differently in a matter of an appealable Preliminary Injunction. I can see in the case of a ruling against the President requiring him to make the payments, a federal judge ordering the plaintiffs to post a bond in an equal amount in case Trump eventually wins on appeal and they have to repay the money.

I wouldn't put my money on the DC appeals court.

 

[Politruk]

I wouldn't put my money on the DC appeals court.

Wouldn't put your money which way?

 

[Rebel5soul]

Wouldn't put your money which way?

The appeals court is most likely to back the judge. I'd need 3:1 odds to bet otherwise.

 

[Rightguide]

I wouldn't put my money on the DC appeals court.

Never do. I just listed some possibilities even though the odds are slim and none. Today there will be a new hearing on an appealable preliminary injunction. First off they're in the wrong court, suits against the federal government for money claims or breach of contract are made in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In such cases for injunctive relief, one has to show that you're likely to succeed on the merits and that there is Irreparable harm, which by definition means one cannot be made whole by the payment of money, but here plaintiffs are claiming there is irreparable harm because they haven't been paid money, their claimed remedy is the payment of money, so that means there cannot be irreparable harm under preliminary injunction standards, which do require a showing of irreparable harm, the likelihood of succeeding on the merits, and a balancing of equities. So in my humble opinion, there are some nonstarters here. We'll see what happens in the coming hours.

 

[Rightguide]

JUST IN: Federal Judge Denies USAID Contractors Emergency TRO to Block Trump’s Termination of Their Contracts​

by Cristina Laila Mar. 6, 2025 1:20 pm

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/about/

Another Judge gets it.

 

[KingDJT]

Another WIN!!

 

[ll74]

Another WIN!!View attachment 2508076

The statement on the left is factual.

The statement on the right is horseshit.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Might as well put another trump failure here

Powerful Speeches From Trans Dems Flip 29 Republicans, Anti-Trans Bills Die In Montana

Transgender Reps Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell delivered powerful speeches on the Montana House floor on Thursday. Republicans defected en masse to join them in voting against anti-trans bills.

 

[LLCox]

View attachment 2508201

 

[UltraChad]

Might as well put another trump failure here

Powerful Speeches From Trans Dems Flip 29 Republicans, Anti-Trans Bills Die In Montana

Transgender Reps Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell delivered powerful speeches on the Montana House floor on Thursday. Republicans defected en masse to join them in voting against anti-trans bills.

It wasn't the powerful speech, it was the fact that it wasn't legal.

 

[Rightguide]

When or if this case goes back up on appeal The President will likely prevail in this matter. This suit is brought by individuals and NGOs who are suing for the government for money and breach of contract. These suits are not typically filed in U.S. Federal District Courts. The correct venue for suits of this type is the U.S. Court Of Federal Claims. If this case goes back up to the SCOTUS on appeal it could be thrown out on that ground alone, and I thin that Justice Alito alluded to this as well.

As I predicted above:

Trump Scores a Big Win at the Supreme Court​

Chris Queen | 5:01 PM on April 04, 2025

AP Photo/Susan Walsh
The Supreme Court has narrowly ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing administration officials to block millions of dollars in DEI-centered grants to teachers. The 5-4 ruling lifts a lower court’s order that allowed the Department of Education to continue issuing the grants in eight blue states that sued over the freezing of the grants.

“The decision is not a final ruling in the case, and the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court,” reports The Hill.

Five of the justices on the conservative wing of the court ruled in favor of the administration, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissenting. (I know, shocker.)

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics

The illicit use of TROs by anti-Trump District Court Judges to preclude the right of appeal by the President has been stopped in its tracks. The SCOTUS in this case correctly identified the TRO as in fact, a Preliminary Injunction. The Court also highlighted the District Court's failure to require a posted bond (see TRO rule 65). The Court stated as well:

"Moreover, the District Court’s “basis for issuing the order [is] strongly challenged,” as the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA. Sampson,415 U. S., at 87. The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply “if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” 5 U. S. C. §702. Nor does the waiver apply to claims seeking “money damages.”

As predicted below the proper venue for such claims is as I stated the Court Of Federal Claims. You can search those terms under my name and come up with exactly when I stated this many days ago.

"But, as we have recognized, the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders “to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money” along the lines of what the District Court ordered here. Great-West Life &Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204, 212 (2002). Instead, the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on “any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1).

And below, as I noted, the Districts failure to adhere to Rule 65 that requires the "movants" to post a bond that repays the defendant's cost in compliance with a TRO if they do in fact prevail in the case.

"As for the remaining stay factors, respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed. No grantee “promised to return withdrawn funds should its grant termination be reinstated,” and the District Court declined to impose bond."

In addition, this decision pretty much ends the game of TRO shopping in the District Federal Courts, as this decision shifts jurisdiction for suits for money to the Court of Federal Claims where such cases will be drawn out over years.

Go here for the full decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf

 

[ll74]

As I predicted above:

Trump Scores a Big Win at the Supreme Court​

Chris Queen | 5:01 PM on April 04, 2025

AP Photo/Susan Walsh
The Supreme Court has narrowly ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing administration officials to block millions of dollars in DEI-centered grants to teachers. The 5-4 ruling lifts a lower court’s order that allowed the Department of Education to continue issuing the grants in eight blue states that sued over the freezing of the grants.

“The decision is not a final ruling in the case, and the dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court,” reports The Hill.

Five of the justices on the conservative wing of the court ruled in favor of the administration, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissenting. (I know, shocker.)

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics

The illicit use of TROs by anti-Trump District Court Judges to preclude the right of appeal by the President has been stopped in its tracks. The SCOTUS in this case correctly identified the TRO as in fact, a Preliminary Injunction. The Court also highlighted the District Court's failure to require a posted bond (see TRO rule 65). The Court stated as well:

"Moreover, the District Court’s “basis for issuing the order [is] strongly challenged,” as the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA. Sampson,415 U. S., at 87. The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply “if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” 5 U. S. C. §702. Nor does the waiver apply to claims seeking “money damages.”

As predicted below the proper venue for such claims is as I stated the Court Of Federal Claims. You can search those terms under my name and come up with exactly when I stated this many days ago.

"But, as we have recognized, the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders “to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money” along the lines of what the District Court ordered here. Great-West Life &Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204, 212 (2002). Instead, the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on “any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1).

And below, as I noted, the Districts failure to adhere to Rule 65 that requires the "movants" to post a bond that repays the defendant's cost in compliance with a TRO if they do in fact prevail in the case.

"As for the remaining stay factors, respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed. No grantee “promised to return withdrawn funds should its grant termination be reinstated,” and the District Court declined to impose bond."

In addition, this decision pretty much ends the game of TRO shopping in the District Federal Courts, as this decision shifts jurisdiction for suits for money to the Court of Federal Claims where such cases will be drawn out over years.

Go here for the full decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf

This decision has no impact on the TRCOshopping at district courts.

 

[Rightguide]

Of course they do.

Read my post #43 and get educated.

 

[Rightguide]

This decision has no impact on the TRC shopping at district courts.

You mean the TRO shopping? Read the decision and get an education. They cannot be about money and the movants must post a bond. If not it is not a TRO and is appealable.

 

[ll74]

You mean the TRO shopping? Read the decision and get an education. They cannot be about money and the movants must post a bond. If not it is not a TRO and is appealable.

Lol
You're a fucking idiot

 

[Rebel5soul]

SCOTUS has ruled and NONE of the money grubbers are going to see ONE FUCKING PENNY. Further, SCOTUS has basically ruled that ALL money grubbers have to go through the Federal Claims Court AND the claimants will have to post a bond equal to the monies claimed in order to advance their respective cases. This effect ALL such cases.

Go fuck yourself money grubbers.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol
You're a fucking idiot

A towering intellect compared to your gourd of marbles.

 

[Rebel5soul]

A towering intellect compared to your gourd of marbles.

The SCOTUS final ruling makes ALL of these money grubbing cases go away.