Courts, Media

“We’re Winning Across the Board”: Raskin Takes a Premature Victory Lap Just Before a Slew of Court Losses

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases.

For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions.

There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue.

On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief.

He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.”

Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of DOGE, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.”

There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.”

This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general.

Even before Raskin’s boast, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.”

Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward.

Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.”

These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.”

Of course, Raskin is not alone in the perils of premature celebration:

 

For those members like Raskin opposing the freeze on hiring and payouts, there is even an example of losing to the Freeze due to a premature celebration:

The race is far from over so both sides may want to stay focused on the finish line in the ongoing litigation.

 

 

252 thoughts on ““We’re Winning Across the Board”: Raskin Takes a Premature Victory Lap Just Before a Slew of Court Losses”

  1. Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn’t Sleepy Joe Biden demand Equalization, in that this War is far more important to Europe than it is to us — We have a big, beautiful Ocean as separation. On top of this, Zelenskyy admits that half of the money we sent him is “MISSING.” He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden “like a fiddle.” A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only “TRUMP,” and the Trump Administration, can do. Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues….

    From Trump on Truth Social

    1. I’ll remember this when Russia goes after Moldova next and China invades Taiwan.

      Does the “S” stand for “Sudetenland”?

    2. #74. You’re restating Vance’s point at Munich. Trump is meeting with Putin because the US doesn’t fund his war.

      Vance simply said the US doesn’t have the money to fund it and no interest in supporting a censored European union.

      Now DJT can open trade with Europe instead of 3rd worlds, hopefully? Cheeses and wines from France, tomatoes and pastas from Italy, olive oil from Greece and Greece needs the business. Better food quality.

      Thanks

      1. I agree with you but thank Trump. I do not wish to take credit for what Trump wrote at Truth Social (From Trump on Truth Social).

    3. Trump’s lying is at a whole level beyond political spin. It’s the kind of lying people with dementia or are mentally ill say. The kind of nutty lying said without any awareness the lie can easily be checked out. $50 million, then $100 million to Gaza for condoms, condoms Hamas is making bombs out of? Trump might as well also claim he’s the Queen of England. If he did, his followers would fall all over themselves trying to prove it’s true.

      1. Trump is transparent. In his prior conference with Zelensky and others people were invited to sit and listen and given permission to record and air everything said at the meeting. You can probably find some of those tapes on line, but you won’t look because you are a liar who makes things up.

  2. Raskin seems as far-out a leftist as there is in the House. What kind of whacked constituency sends an America-hater to Congress repeatedly? Raskin’s a demolitionist.

  3. In times of yore amongst the vermillion cliffs of the high desert you may have heard beep – beep and seen a cloud of dust.

  4. Jonathan: There’s nothing like a full record. Over 45 lawsuits have been filed against DJT’s EOs. And in many of the cases TROs have been issued to halt DJT’s illegal orders. One of the first cases brought was against DJT’s order ending birthright citizenship. A judge in Seattle has deemed the order clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

    In the case before Judge Chutkan in DC 14+ state AGs claim Elon Musk and his DOGE frat bros are illegally accessing personal and confidential information of Americans without any legitimate purpose. In that case you falsely claim Judge Chutkan “balked at the demand for an injunction…”. All Chutkan did was deny the plaintiff’s request for a TRO–not an “injunction”. She has ordered another hearing for today at 5:00 pm to consider plaintiff’s claims. They will then be given the opportunity to provide further evidence to support their request for relief–either a TRO or a preliminary injunction.

    So it’s untrue that “courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases”. The denial of TROs in some cases doesn’t mean those cases are over. Those cases will still proceed to more evidentiary hearings to determine whether injunctive relief should be granted. The denial of a TRO is just the beginning of litigation, not the end.

    And it’s not true, as you claim, that “President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures…”. The fact is Elon Musk is not a “federal official” and DOGE is not an official agency of the government. Musk is a private citizen but he is acting as an “inferior officer” which requires Senate confirmation. And he doesn’t have that! Musk’s illegal acts are subject to other lawsuits.

    The problem is that litigation takes time. And time is on the side of Musk. By the time courts find what he is doing is illegal the damage will already have been done!

    1. It makes no difference how many lawsuits are filed. They will work their way through the courts. Many have already been struck down and most will not succeed. Regarding the birth right citizenship issue, it doesn’t matter much what a lower court says, that will be appealed and will certainly be heard before the Supreme Court.

      The EOs from the 47th President are well constructed. The President has learned a thing or two from his last time in office.

      These EOs are within the powers of the Presidency. He is after all the chief executive.

      I am not worried. This is our system. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Also, the President now has an army of attorneys.

    2. This is what you said – “The problem is that litigation takes time. And time is on the side of Musk. By the time courts find what he is doing is illegal the damage will already have been done!”

      I say, from your rear end to God’s ears! I mean, from your MOUTH to God’s Ears! (Sorry, but with you, it is confusing sometimes from which orifice you are speaking.)

    3. “Litigation takes time” is one of the chief laments of impatient and restless progressives. It’s just one more reason they loathe the Constitution and its provision for the separation of powers. It shows clearly their long abiding desire for a dictatorial Executive Branch to their liking. There has never been a political party more desirous of an Executive Branch dictatorship than the one too many well intentioned democrats continue to abide.

  5. We are winning across the board, and that feels good. But why weren’t we winning before? We know what the left offers: corruption and defeat. We placed our trust in the other party. Trump won. That was a defeat not just for the left but for the Bushes, the globalists, and the RINOs. In response, the left resorted to ballot-stuffing and other criminal activities. But this time, we held corruption back from the ballot boxes. We won. And we will keep winning, so long as we stay vigilant. We must remain united, refusing to fall for the false promises of the left. They offer nothing but corruption and a culture of death.

  6. Dear Prof Turley,

    Sure. If recent prior presidents can assassinate and/or ‘torture some folks’ at will, spy wholesale on U.S. citizens (see also sec. 702), suspend Habeas, lie to Oversight committees, the ‘gang of eight’ (& ipso facto Congress), meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations, and classify it all at the highest levels . .. then I guess President Trump has the authority, under Art. II, to at least look at the books.

    There could be some waste, fraud and abuse going on. .. if that’s ok with the Democrats.

    [Whether or not Trump takes a scalpel or a wrecking ball to some of these Federal agencies should be open for debate .. . although I will insist upon sharing any of the ‘savings’ via Direct deposit rather than a future tax break for the rich and famous.]

    *hell, they may impeach Trump over this: “Russia and the United States shook hands today on an agreement to resume full diplomatic relations and establish Ukraine peace talks, cementing an extraordinary reversal of international policy under Donald Trump’s presidency.”

  7. I want everyone here to know that I’m really angry about Trump stopping the Social Security check to my 125 year old great great great great grandmother. Oh the inhumanity of it all. What a heartless villain the man is. One can certainly understand why all the sitonyourasses in government are so upset. That free sex change operation I was so looking forward to has now been put on hold. Before you know it Trump is going to put a stop to stealing a women’s luggage at the airport. We do indeed live in dire times perpetuated by an evil tyrant. With all this happening we have no choice but to take the fight to the streets. Give me a minute. I have to reapply my lipstick.

    1. But you’re fine with the Billy Bobs who spent their school years obsessed with their truck, skipping class, partying, and now whining they got left behind and can’t afford a house on the pay they get working a grain elevator. Gotcha.

  8. Thank You Prof. Turley for writing about a very good topic. I would like for you to explain our federal Judicial system from the bottom up to the supreme court. I understand to a degree but would like to hear it from aa much more knowledgeable person.

  9. If the treasury collected $10 for e every time the pronouncement was made that “We got Trump now!” The debt would be paid

  10. Are we not getting tired of the hysteric delusion from the left. It makes you wonder about the average IQ of the remaining dem supporters to still accept the baseless blather from the prog politicians. This reaction to Trump’s victory is the best illumination of the core soul of progs.

  11. Ever since the start of the progressive era the Judicial Branch has been an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party. The Constitution’s provision for the separation of powers has long been the target of its most intense dislike and loathing. There has never been a political party more desirous of an Executive Branch dictatorship than the one too many well intentioned democrats continue to abide. He’s one foremost among the rabble and himself quite the quintessential rascal that Raskin guy.

    1. “Ever since the start of the progressive era the Judicial Branch has been an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party.”

      Precisely as intended by the Founders (watch the idiot trolls misinterpret this one 🙂

  12. #74. Democrats watch Sunday morning TV news and nothing else. They believe it and repeat it to each other the following week. It’s reinforced in the nightly news Pavlovian style. Teach it, speak it, reinforce it.

  13. jeremy is winning so much he’s even tired of winning. He’s saying “No, No President Trump. It’s too much winning. I can’t take it anymore”.

  14. Joe Rogan interviewed Mike Benz, former US State official, recently on his show. The information related by Mike Benz regarding USAID funds, was appalling, horrific and upsetting. Our government has been overthrowing other countries political systems for decades, per Mike Benz. The fact that it can be verified online from the usa.gov website is truly astonishing per Mike Benz

    I only listened to the first 30 to 45 minutes of the Joe Rogan show but it might be worthwhile for others to listen to it themselves. That Jamie Raskin is hiding all of this and more proves the communist he is through and through

    1. I had never heard of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project until Mike Benz mentioned it on the joe rogan show. Mike alleges that the OCCRP was used to bring down Rudy Giuliani, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, fueled The Russian Collusion Hoax, the fraudulent impeachment of Donald Trump, and other Republicans with USAID Taxpayer funds. In brief, USAID was used to turn on Americans. Simply appalling

      Unmasking OCCRP: Investigative Giant or U.S. Government Tool?

      Dec 20, 2024

      The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is the world’s largest consortium of investigative journalists, recognized for its role in exposing corruption, organized crime, and financial misconduct globally. Since its establishment in 2006, OCCRP has partnered with prestigious media outlets like The Guardian, Le Monde, and The New York Times, contributing to landmark investigations such as the Panama Papers, Cyprus Confidential, and the Russian Asset Tracker. Despite its achievements, the organization operates under a cloud of controversy due to its structural reliance on U.S. government funding.

      https://rcsgs.org/publications/research/unmasking-occrp-investigative-giant-or-u-s-government-tool

      2. If this organization was so effective; how did they miss the goings on of the biden crime family – or was their radar only pointed towards republicans?

        1. It was dirty politics using the taxpayer’s money, in essence, trying to frame Americans to bring them down and neutralize them so they could not damage the democrats. As I said above, we need to find laws that were broken and prosecute people. The people that do these things generally aren’t afraid because they don’t believe they will go to jail. When they are discovered, too frequently they become more valued by despicable people.

  15. Trump has had some wins, but cannot get complacent. Gotta keep working and working hard to cut the fraud, waste and abuse.

    1. From the perspective of a former primarily diagnostic industrial maintenance electrician, spanning about three decades, if Trump knew what he was doing he’s be ‘fine-tuning’ the federal government in accordance with various provisions of the US Constitution, not throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s about time someone informs him he’s nothing more than the current occupant of the office of the highest civil servant in America; here to protect and to serve ‘us,’ from people like him. Signed: SLAM@81.

      1. Funny, the majority of American’s voted for him to do exactly what he is doing. He is delivering on his campaign promises. That is something refreshing to see. That is why so many Americans approve of DOGE’s progress. That is why so many not just American’s but other people support his actions in trying to get a peace deal between the Ukraine and Russia. He is actually trying to end the war.

          1. @anon prayteller

            Pray tell, who provoked the bear?

            NATO missiles in the Ukraine would be roughly equivalent to Russian missiles in Toronto or Boston. How long would a US president put up with that?

            The blame starts with Obama and Nuland. Evil people.

            Ukraine loses the East and Crimea. Ask me if I care.

            1. I do not want to predict the deal.

              But I will predict the longer term future.

              Russias decline over the next decade+ will result in Ukraine regaining crimea and its eastern Oblasts.

            2. Not a difficult question. Trump’s statement was akin to saying that the US is responsible for the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.

          2. Don’t waste time reasoning with Trump supporters who have suddenly embraced pacifism when it comes to military conflict. The U.S. built and leads the global order that has lifted billions out of poverty since WWII, creating unprecedented affluence worldwide. When Nixon went to China, he opened the door for its integration into the global economy—an integration the U.S. continues to safeguard. Yet Trump is willing to abandon that leadership, leaving China eager to fill the vacuum as the world’s dominant power.

            America’s influence helped lift China out of poverty, making it a more stable global player with something to lose. But Trump supporters don’t care. They simply parrot his latest talking points, no matter how absurd. None of them gave Canada a second thought until Trump falsely claimed it was a major source of fentanyl. Now they all believe it. His lies enter their minds and are instantly processed as fact. And if confronted with counterevidence? They won’t acknowledge a valid point—if it contradicts Trump, it must be wrong and met with insult, not reason.

          3. “who started the Ukraine war?”

            If I had to pick one person, it would be VIctoria Nuland. Of course, she was just serving her Deep State masters (and doing disservice to The People).

        2. Obviously, the vast majority of Americans don’t even know the difference between governance and politics. A majority also elected Biden, Obama, Bush, etc. and constitutional America continued to decline in the fashion of the Soviet Union, the British empire, the Roman Empire, etc. and the dinosaurs. With my work history, I see the entire US Constitution as a much simpler control system program than many I worked with in industry, especially as the whole thing is written in old but clear and concise English. Trump may be delivering on his promises but he’s certainly not getting it right. Signed: SLAM@81.

          1. What is Trump “not getting right ?”
            Foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the Executive.
            You can disagree with Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine and Gaza, but you they are constitutional. ‘

            The executive powers of the president include not wasting Government funds and eliminating fraud.
            They include determining the staffing requirements to fulfill the requirements congress imposes.

            What is it that Trump is doing that you think is unconstitutional ?

            Thus far he is
            Keeping campaign promises
            acting within the constitution
            doing what people elected him to do.

            What would be better than managing all three of those ?

            1. While the executive branch leads foreign policy it does not exclusively control it. The Constitution grants Congress several key foreign policy powers like the power to declare war (Article I, Section 8), control over funding for military and diplomatic efforts, the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties (Article II, Section 2), oversight of trade and foreign commerce (Article I, Section 8), and confirming ambassadors and high-level diplomatic officials.

            2. John, as I’ve previously tried to post, I hold that the ‘letter of the law’ of the US Constitution includes the Preamble, which most people and the courts ignore. If Trump were to take a little time to ‘fine-tune’ his efforts he’d find that, regardless of what the relatively ignorant majority want, one of the most costly and damaging problems is FDA approved food poisoning causing about another 6,000 unsuspecting Americans to die prematurely today. If you believe that Covid-19 was a real pandemic then you probably still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, minimally. I’m hoping RFK, Jr. as head of HHS will at long last get the FDA to reverse a few of it’s worst toxic food additive approvals and start saving taxpayers now $Trillions (Covid-19 ‘scamdemic’ included), on cheaply and easily prevented chronic diseases and premature disability and mortality. I’m neutral on the vaccine issue but now have sixty years experience with chronic disease and am regular prescription treatment free at age 81. Sadly, Trump’s own mental health is questionable at best due to questionable diet, which is most obvious as the obesity (and it’s effects) epidemic. What’s more important than health and wellness? Signed: SLAM@81.

              1. The constitution’s preamble has no operative clauses. Therefore it can’t be law.

      2. The oath of office is not protect and serve.

        For more than half of this countries existance the Federal Budget was less than 3% of GDP. Lincoln won the Civil war with less than 5% of GDP.

        Cutting federal spending is not something you need protected from – 80% of the country wants it.

        Almost 80% wanted 1.6T cut from the federal budget in 2011.

        Trump is protecting and serving the country.
        Protecting us from the return of inflation – even hyper inflation if we do not get spending under control

        If you want medicare and Social Security to exist in a decade, we need to cut waste and fraud now.

        Please tell me of the 1/2T musk has found – what is it that you think we should keep ?

        2. What poll says 80% of the country wants the cuts Musk is making? I looked for one but couldn’t find it. You do have a tendency toward exaggeration and misinformation so I’d like to see what it actually says.

  16. Riskin is a hard core leftist, just like his father, the co-founder of the Institute for Policy Studies, a pro-Soviet propaganda “think tank” that blamed the cold war solely on the US. The world would be better off if he followed his son’s example instead and self removed his carbon footprint from this world. He is a despicable politician.

    1. #74
      It’d take 50 years to get the place up and running and that’s if all went right.

  19. Turley got it right. I think he’s still an academic hack (my wife’s opinion of him, she’s an attorney) and would get his ass handed to him in the courtroom if he were the lead in a case. But I’m able to admit he got it right.

    2. #74

      Chutkon or Raskin and all are all subject to blackmail and extortion. Just like the Chicago mafia had photos of J. Edgar Hoover and got away with murder.

      On the surface Trump is looking for treason and sabotage of the American economic system and political system while creating efficiency. The common man is looking for a 5 dollar chicken and a 2 dollar loaf of bread with correct weights and measures as proof.

      Raskin lies. It’s of no value.

  20. When even a Swamp Sleaze like Tanya Chutkin declines to enjoin Trump, the Demoncraps *should* be able to see the writing on the wall. The fact that they are too damned self-absorbed to glean even so obvious a clue does not bode well for their future. Thankfully.

    1. She’s a swamp sleaze cuz she followed the rule of law in the case she oversaw indicting your hero Donald Trump. You’re either retarded or your 10.

      1. No she did not follow the law. Just on the issue of presidential immunity SCOTUS obliterated her.

        Please name something Trump actually did that is not protected by the first amendment.

Comments are closed.