Many of us have been waiting for the arguments on May 15th before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case to see if the justices will put long-needed limits on district courts issuing national injunctions. Critics object that Democratic groups are going to blue states in open forum-shopping to secure such injunctions from favorable judges — a record number of injunctions for an Administration that only just passed its 100th day mark. Those complaints are likely to only increase after the new order by District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco. It is arguably the most expansive yet in its scope and assertion of judicial power.
At the request of unions and other groups, Judge Illston (a Clinton appointee) imposed a temporary restraining order (TRO) for 14 days to stop the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale layoffs and program closures across two dozen agencies. For those calling for district courts to be restrained, Judge Illston’s TRO (which often leads to a preliminary injunction) will seem like another court ruling with total abandon.
Trump is carrying out his pledge to dramatically downsize the government, including targeting waste and unnecessary or superfluous programs. One can certainly disagree with that judgment. The unions and Democrats opposed the pledge during the campaign. However, after the public elected him, the question is whether a single district judge has the ability to stop a president from implementing such policies.
Unions insist that Congress set up a specific process for the federal government to reorganize itself and that that process is not being followed. Specifically, Illston is arguing that the process includes consultation with Congress. The law, 5 U.S.C. § 903 states in part:
(a)Whenever the President, after investigation, finds that changes in the organization of agencies are necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title, he shall prepare a reorganization plan specifying the reorganizations he finds are necessary. Any plan may provide for—
(1) the transfer of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of another agency;
(2) the abolition of all or a part of the functions of an agency, except that no enforcement function or statutory program shall be abolished by the plan;
(3) the consolidation or coordination of the whole or a part of an agency, or of the whole or a part of the functions thereof, with the whole or a part of another agency or the functions thereof;
(4) the consolidation or coordination of part of an agency or the functions thereof with another part of the same agency or the functions thereof;
(5) the authorization of an officer to delegate any of his functions; or
(6) the abolition of the whole or a part of an agency which agency or part does not have, or on the taking effect of the reorganization plan will not have, any functions.
The President shall transmit the plan (bearing an identification number) to the Congress together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that the reorganization is necessary to carry out any policy set forth in section 901(a) of this title.
The law has always occupied a gray area since a president has the authority under Article II to run the executive branch and remove individuals. Judge Illston recognizes that inherent authority as a “prerogative of presidents to pursue new policy priorities and to imprint their stamp on the federal government. But to make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.”
The lawsuit was filed last week, and the court issued its order not long after arguments.
Judge Illston did acknowledge that two courts of appeal recently rendered decisions against jurisdiction in such cases in Widakuswara v. Lake, No. 25- 5144, 2025 WL 1288817 (D.C. Cir. May 3, 2025) and Maryland v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 25- 1248, 2025 WL 1073657 (4th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025). The court notes that those decisions are not binding on a San Francisco district court and rejects their value as “persuasive authority.” Judge Illston declared that “Tthe [sic] Fourth Circuit offers no reasoning for its conclusion that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and this Court finds the dissenting opinion in that case more robust and more persuasive. ” It similarly embraced the dissent in the D.C. Circuit case.
Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the challengers, told the court that Trump is destroying the government, insisting, “It’s an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail.”
For critics, it may look more like Article III devouring Article II. The order will only heighten the pressures leading into the May 15th arguments in Washington. It will also increase pressure on Congress to move forward with legislation designed to rein in district courts in the use of national or universal injunctions.
Here is the order: AFGE v. Trump
If anything, Trump vs the Deep Justice State illustrates the flaws in our governance. One dingbat federal judge – AKA a lawyer, albeit in funny clothes – shuts down an elected president. Obviously, we are voting for the wrong top job. We should get a list of these judges and vote on them nationally.
Everyone knows democrats are trying to run out the clock. The democrats are determined to collapse the country with debt and leverage it into socialism, with amnesty for illegals, and end capitalism for all time.
Harris only lost by 2.3 million votes, certainly on the knife edge of a hurdle easily jumped with increasingly sophisticated voter fraud.
How can Congress have any say over what happens in the Executive Branch? My reading of the Constitution says it can not. The President likewise cannot tell Congress what to do in their Branch.
Voters elect presidents to represent them within constitutional and legal boundaries. If any president – of either party – is loyal to their Oath of Office loyalty oath there would be few if any lawsuits started and decided by judges.
When a president is lawless and disloyal to their Oath of Office (violating the laws of Congress or violating the U.S. Constitution), judges are similar to “referees” penalizing law breakers for stepping out-of-bounds.
When presidents violate these well established rules it creates a huge number of frivolous lawsuits. Pam Bondi should reimburse taxpayers for each and every one of these unnecessary frivolous lawsuits. Lawsuits trying to illegally overturn well established case laws. Give us our tax money back!
Like “Shall not be infringed??”
Prof.Turley, Please explain why these judges think they have the authority to stop POTUS from his Administration Duties (administration includes managing the employee life cycle – this is Not the domain of Congress)! POTUS is Not remaking entities across the board as these lawsuits claim.. he is exercising RIFs.. exactly as other Presidents have done… I was on the Inside in the Clinton years and the RIF’s (what MSM calls ‘lay-offs) were also massive.. done more over time than all at once, but they were on-going and Huge by the standards of the day. Clinton also brought in NAFTA which sent Millions of jobs overseas, sending whole private sector industries abroad and importing cheaper labour for what was left here, including White Collar jobs– the IT sector was especially decimated.. again I was an INSIDE witness and survivor of the Clinton years. The MSM barely let out a peep about any of this.. I recall Lou Dobbs was the Only TV News anchor reporting on the destruction caused by NAFTA. As for DOGE, it is an authorized Task Force and ALL POTUS have had their own Task Forces helping them make these decisions. Last by not least, No one ever called Bill Clinton a ‘dictator.’
“Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the challengers, told the court that Trump is destroying the government, insisting, “It’s an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail.””
Ms Leonard’s analogy to an ‘ouroboros’ may be more apt than she intended.
Since the Administration resides in Washington D.C. and the D.C. Court of appeals has already stayed the earlier District Court ruling for the exact same issue… wouldn’t the Administration be obligate to follow that Appeals ruling, rather than a district court judge from California?
Otherwise, what good is having Circuits if not for determining jurisdiction?
good point. why didn’t the government’s attorney bring that up, or if they did, why did it get overruled?
Obama knowingly violated constitutional guardrails —most notably the ‘Dreamers’
Biden ?knowingly’? (depends on who was running the White House decisions) violated them as well — for 4 years.
So…if Trump speculates about things like suspending habeas corpus, or threatens to declare a national emergency requiring deporting enemies which will include illegals — he can point to his two Democrat predecessors as having laid the precedents.
Can Stephen Miller and the legal eagles who work with him find a reasonably legal way to have Pres. Trump issue and Executive Order banning, outlawing, dissolving or otherwise doing away with the Democrat Party in this country?
“. . . if the justices will put long-needed limits on district courts issuing national injunctions.” (JT)
If Roberts is true to form, he’ll come up with some mealy-mouthed language that amounts to: A president shall facilitate, but not necessarily effectuate, compliance with a district court injunction.
‘Judge Illston did acknowledge that two courts of appeal recently rendered decisions against jurisdiction in such cases’
‘The court notes that those decisions are not binding on a San Francisco district court and rejects their value as “persuasive authority.’
If her district doesn’t have to observe the appeals court decisions of other jurisdictions, then how are her districts decisions binding nation wide? Her logic makes no sense. She is a judicial tyrant who puts herself about the appeal court and the Executive of the USA.
This anti-Trump lawfare needs to be put down. If the SCOTUS Chief Justice doesn’t do something very soon then Congress needs to step in and put a stop to it.
Steve,
I believe you are right. If this is not addressed, the left is setting the table for how the next Democrat President will be treated.
That’s kinda what judges are saying…put it to congress. So chicken and egg. They are being the rooster. One our problems if it is – is we have laws enforced wanted by and got by people long dead. And the senate is slow. Re
We can’t change on a dime. We…being the matter. But the court forced us into changing on a dime. With the social issues on sex . Our country literraĺy goes bankrupt….and bankrupt our checks authority…
Because someone asks what a woman is. Women founded this country. Happy mothers day to our real founders.
change on a dime? change into a dime?
What drugs are you taking?
‘We can’t change on a dime.”
So how long should change take? A year? A decade? A century? A President has only 4 years to effect change. We are $36 trillion in debit with it increasing rapidly and no one other that President Trump has been willing to address that issue.
Our government is extremely bloated. We spend more than a trillion a year in fraud, corruption and waste. We will soon be unable to pay the interest on the national debt, and when that happens I guarantee change will come not only real quickly, but change will also be brutal. Get real.
Lets do a J6 gain. Tar and feather them.
I don’t believe this Supreme Court Justice will do anything soon, if ever, he has to many skeletons in his closet and is compromised. And these two are the less controversial ones, there are more I won’t list as they are speculative but I am guessing you have heard of them.
.Jane Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, made more than $10 million in commissions over an eight-year stretch where she matched top lawyers with elite law firms—including some that had cases before the Supreme Court—according to documents obtained by Insider, as concerns grow about justices possibly having unreported conflicts of interest. – forbes
Chief Justice John Roberts Sued by Pro-Trump Group
Legal entity America First Legal filed a lawsuit against Chief Justice John Roberts in his capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, alleging he acted outside of his scope. The lawsuit also targets the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Robert Conrad. – americanfaith