Judge tells agencies to restore webpages and data
apnews.com
apnews.com
1. A US court orders something.
2. The Executive Branch enforces that order, as it is responsible for the DOJ which is in turn responsible for the US Marshals (who enforce court rulings).
3. If those people do not enforce the rulings, Congress brings articles of impeachment and impeaches the President or others responsible.
4. Elect/appoint/elevate a new person to carry out the court order.
The Constitution doesn't really account for the possibility that 1/3 of the Senate would disagree with an ignored court order. So hard to say where it goes from there.
Conversely, presumably this is by design since a rogue judge could issue a bad court order and presumably there are mechanisms to deal with these that perhaps involve a large enough quorum disagreeing with and ignoring it.
The constitution is premised on leaders respecting laws and norms.
Supposedly at that stage everyone would stop following their instructions. This may be part of why Trump is so set on replacing huge swaths of the government with loyalists.
Keep in mind that people like the US Marshals and federal agents get guidance from the President all the time. Think "we won't arrest anyone for federal drug laws in states where recreational marijuana is legal."
The difference seems large enough that you could conceivably respond differently to one versus the other.
I think we all know, it's been choreographed for decades now. The supreme court exists as a means of rubber-stamping republican legislation.
That said, in reality, I don't expect there will be any real pushback. It'll be people attempting to work in the constrains of a new system and life will largely still be mostly normal for folks.
Like since we are renaming Gulfs and Greenlands perhaps American people need a new name too...
Is the federal judge correct here or is he overstepping some of his power or is the executive branch truly overstepping some of their power?
I think this has to be settled quickly or things are going to turn more chaotic than they already are.
If the judge is overstepping the resolution rests with the legislature (either changing the law, or if the judge is truly ignoring it, impeachment). Or the decision can be appealed. It's not an excuse to ignore the order.
Removing the data (particularly when it can be archived and served at zero cost to the government) is the only way you can waste taxpayer dollars in this situation. The research has been paid for, taxpaying Americans should be able to access it.
Telling them to restore the information that was already there temporarily is hardly telling the president what to put on an agency site.
It’s a temporary injunction. Extremely common legal procedure pending a real decision in the case.
Removing the info, at least much of it, was a crap decision. But this feels like a massive win for Trump.
You're essentially saying the executive should have no checks on it.
No, a judge is undoing an executive order from a federal agency that did not pass judicial scrutinty for legalitybased on 200+ years of judicial framework and precidence. Nothing to do with information, politics, etc.
this is exactly what the framework of the constitution allows for and happens dozens of times a day every day in every locale.
Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms "Agency Site" in place of the term "Agency Operating under the Executive Privilege of the Federal Government" and "private party" in place of the "The United States".
This is IMO very cut and dry, will get very little media coverage, and I struggle to think how one falls on "This looks good for person X".
"private party" in their comment likely refers to the plaintiff in the case, "Doctors for America", which is a private party.
But I agree with you, though: of course the plaintiff is a private party. Who else would it be, when the government is violating the Constitution? Is upthread expecting the government to sue itself?
It's irrelevant what the content is; the judge didn't rule that specific content needed to go back on the website. He undid the action itself.
Yes, to laypeople that distinction doesn't matter. But it matters a great deal to lawyers and to the agencies.
And note: this is not a win for Trump or his administration. It's egg on his face, because he could have accomplished this without the courts being able to undo it...if he had followed the procedures set forth in the APA (which would have required a few weeks). This injunction is likely to last longer than it would have taken for them to do things correctly the first time.
Republicans already control the 3 branches of federal government. They don't need PR wins any more.
I'm just saying that Trump and Vought are going to make hay with the optics of this. It will seem bizarre to many that the content of a website can be matter for the courts.
It is quite detailed.
There are at least two laws in question. One specifically says that the government must '"provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products,” which HHS defines to include electronic documents and webpages.' (quoting the ruling, which quotes the law) Clearly the government did not do this. The other is the Administrative Procedures Act, which forbids arbitrary and capricious actions by agencies.
Also, if you think the "optics" of this are good, consider whether you want your doctor wasting time trying to find an alternative resource instead of practicing medicine.