https://x.com/i/status/1897062106161406379
80% of people caught with Fentanyl at the mexican border are YANKEES!!!
80% of people caught with Fentanyl at the mexican border are YANKEES!!!
update - another huge nut-kicking for Trump by the Federal Court
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
20 states sue Trump over mass firings saying Musk’s DOGE skipped required notices
Nearly half of the country’s attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the Department of Government Efficiency’s mass firings of federal workers.
The AGs accuse the administration of terminating tens of thousands of probationary employees without first following federal regulations, including a 60-day advance notice to affected employees and states. The federal government and many states require companies to notify employees ahead of mass layoffs.
“These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos. They are also against the law,” the suit filed Thursday says. “Where an agency fails to provide such notice, the employees ‘may not be released.’”
The administration “has run roughshod over” these requirements in the past month, “harming” both the individuals and the states they live in, the AGs argued.
“As a result, many affected employees and their families are struggling to make ends meet—to pay rent, buy groceries, and care for their loved ones,” the complaint states, adding that states are also impacted. The lack of notice has “impeded” states’ ability to support the terminated workers with resources; states are now facing “increased administrative demands related to adjudicating unemployment claims, decreased tax revenues, and increased demands for social services.”
The states are asking the court to require the administration to halt the reductions in force of probationary employees that they have conducted “unlawfully and without notice,” to reinstate any probationary employees who were terminated as part of mass terminations on or after January 20 — President Donald Trump’s first day in office — and to conduct any future layoffs in accordance with applicable laws.
New York, Maryland, California and Illinois are among the states suing the administration, including the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Defense, and their secretaries.
All of the states that joined the lawsuit are considered Democrat-leaning.
“The Trump administration’s illegal mass firings of federal workers are a slap in the face to those who have spent their careers serving our country,” New York Attorney General James said in a statement Thursday. “Thousands of workers across New York and the nation are now struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, and care for their loved ones. Today, I am joining my fellow attorneys general in defending the rights of workers who serve our communities and stopping the chaos and confusion this unjust policy is causing.”
The firings across the federal workforce have prompted protests. Even Musk has admitted mistakes were made with some of the firings (Getty Images)
DOGE, led by the world’s richest person Elon Musk, has been abruptly and haphazardly laying off workers. In some circumstances, the administration has walked back on its sweeping moves, trying to re-hire critical workers after firing them, including some working to combat bird flu and some working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, prompting calls across party lines for the cost-cutting arm to “slow down.”
After mistakenly axing a U.S. Agency for International Development program aimed at curbing the spread of Ebola, the tech billionaire told Trump’s cabinet: "We will make mistakes. We won't be perfect, but when we make mistakes we'll fix it very quickly. For example, with USAID one of the things we accidentally canceled, very briefly, was Ebola prevention."
This isn’t the first time Musk has gotten into hot water over mass firings with little notice.
The X owner was sued in a class action lawsuit after he failed to provide a 60-day notice before laying off hundreds of employees in 2022.
Nearly half of the country’s attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the Department of Government Efficiency’s mass firings of federal workers.
The AGs accuse the administration of terminating tens of thousands of probationary employees without first following federal regulations, including a 60-day advance notice to affected employees and states. The federal government and many states require companies to notify employees ahead of mass layoffs.
“These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos. They are also against the law,” the suit filed Thursday says. “Where an agency fails to provide such notice, the employees ‘may not be released.’”
The administration “has run roughshod over” these requirements in the past month, “harming” both the individuals and the states they live in, the AGs argued.
“As a result, many affected employees and their families are struggling to make ends meet—to pay rent, buy groceries, and care for their loved ones,” the complaint states, adding that states are also impacted. The lack of notice has “impeded” states’ ability to support the terminated workers with resources; states are now facing “increased administrative demands related to adjudicating unemployment claims, decreased tax revenues, and increased demands for social services.”
The states are asking the court to require the administration to halt the reductions in force of probationary employees that they have conducted “unlawfully and without notice,” to reinstate any probationary employees who were terminated as part of mass terminations on or after January 20 — President Donald Trump’s first day in office — and to conduct any future layoffs in accordance with applicable laws.
New York, Maryland, California and Illinois are among the states suing the administration, including the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Defense, and their secretaries.
All of the states that joined the lawsuit are considered Democrat-leaning.
“The Trump administration’s illegal mass firings of federal workers are a slap in the face to those who have spent their careers serving our country,” New York Attorney General James said in a statement Thursday. “Thousands of workers across New York and the nation are now struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, and care for their loved ones. Today, I am joining my fellow attorneys general in defending the rights of workers who serve our communities and stopping the chaos and confusion this unjust policy is causing.”
The firings across the federal workforce have prompted protests. Even Musk has admitted mistakes were made with some of the firings (Getty Images)
DOGE, led by the world’s richest person Elon Musk, has been abruptly and haphazardly laying off workers. In some circumstances, the administration has walked back on its sweeping moves, trying to re-hire critical workers after firing them, including some working to combat bird flu and some working at the National Nuclear Security Administration, prompting calls across party lines for the cost-cutting arm to “slow down.”
After mistakenly axing a U.S. Agency for International Development program aimed at curbing the spread of Ebola, the tech billionaire told Trump’s cabinet: "We will make mistakes. We won't be perfect, but when we make mistakes we'll fix it very quickly. For example, with USAID one of the things we accidentally canceled, very briefly, was Ebola prevention."
This isn’t the first time Musk has gotten into hot water over mass firings with little notice.
The X owner was sued in a class action lawsuit after he failed to provide a 60-day notice before laying off hundreds of employees in 2022.
BREAKING: Federal judge deals Donald Trump a huge black eye by ruling that he illegally fired the head of the National Labor Relations Board, accusing him of "pushing the bounds of his office," and declaring that he is "not a king."
This is a major setback for the fascist MAGA movement... U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the widely criticized firing of NLRB head Gwynne Wilcox was in fact "an illegal act" and "a blatant violation of the law." In her lawsuit, Wilcox pointed out that federal law clearly stats that NLRB board members can only be terminated for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause." Notice must be given and a hearing held.
"The President’s excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained," Judge Howell wrote in a fiery 36-page ruling. "The President seems intent on pushing the bounds of his office and exercising his power in a manner violative of clear statutory law to test how much the courts will accept the notion of a presidency that is supreme," she wrote.
"An American President is not a king – not even an ‘elected’ one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here," she added.
The judge's order reinstates Kaplan as a board member to the NLRB although it does allow Trump's new chairperson Marvin Kaplan to remain in place. The MAGA Justice Department will appeal the ruling to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
A federal judge has ruled that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is wielding so much power that its records will likely have to be opened to the public under federal law.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said the vast and “unprecedented” authority of DOGE, formally known as the U.S. Digital Service, combined with its “unusual secrecy” warrant the urgent release of its internal documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
“The authority exercised by USDS across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented,” Cooper wrote in a 37-page opinion.
It’s the first significant ruling in a growing legal push to pierce DOGE’s secretive veil, a decision that undercuts Musk’s repeated insistence about the operation’s transparency — and the White House’s refrain that Musk is simply a run-of-the-mill presidential adviser with limited decision-making authority. Cooper said this representation is undercut by the weight of evidence that has trickled out in court and in the news.
The judge noted that DOGE’s speed and the fluidity of its leadership appear to be by design. He is ordering “rolling” productions of DOGE records to begin within weeks.
“The rapid pace of [DOGE’s] actions, in turn, requires the quick release of information about its structure and activities,” Cooper wrote. “That is especially so given the secrecy with which DOGE has operated.”
Cooper leaned heavily on news reports suggesting that Musk’s operation had led to the firing of tens of thousands of government employees, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, a government-wide deferred resignation program and widespread access to sensitive government databases for relative outsiders.
However, the judge also noted that the executive order Trump signed creating DOGE, coupled with public statements by the president and Musk, reinforced the notion that the cost-slashing operation was doing much more than simply giving advice.
The Trump administration has housed the DOGE operation within the Executive Office of the President in what appeared to be an attempt to shield it from FOIA. Most divisions within the EOP are exempt from FOIA, but a few deemed to exercise independent authority are subject to the transparency law. The Trump administration has also asserted that Musk himself isn’t part of the DOGE apparatus but is serving as a direct adviser to Trump.
Cooper’s ruling is a win for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued to demand the urgent release of DOGE-related documents. Cooper stopped short of granting the group’s demand that the materials to be made public prior to Congress’ consideration of a spending bill this week that could avoid or precipitate a government shutdown. But he agreed with the need for urgency.
“Congress needs the requested information in a timely fashion to use it effectively. The electorate also requires the expeditious production and publication of this information,” Cooper said. “Voters may seek to influence congressional representatives to take action responsive to USDS at any point along the road. And ‘[t]he dissemination of information’ sought by CREW would contribute ‘to an informed electorate capable of developing knowledgeable opinions and sharing those knowledgeable opinions with their elected leaders.’”
Cooper also offered some criticism of the way the Trump administration litigated the case, noting that its lawyers offered virtually nothing in the way of evidence about DOGE’s operations or management.
“Indeed, the Court wonders whether this decision was strategic,” Cooper said, noting that Trump administration lawyers had taken competing positions — including that DOGE qualifies as an “agency” under some sections of law but not others — “when it suits it.”
“Thus [DOGE] becomes, on defendants’ view, a Goldilocks entity,” Cooper wrote, “not an agency when it is burdensome but an agency when it is convenient.”
US judge temporarily halts Trump plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration's plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training, finding that cuts are already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun sided with the eight states that had requested a temporary restraining order. The states argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from President Donald Trump's administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Trump, a Republican, has said he wants to dismantle the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The plaintiffs argued the federal Education Department abruptly ended two programs — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — without notice in February. They said the two programs provided upwards of $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas, such as math, science and special education. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
President Donald Trump waves to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
Joun, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, found that the cancelations violated administrative law by failing to give a clear explanation and that the states are at risk of lasting harm because they're already having to cancel teacher training programs and lay people off.
“The record shows that if I were to deny the TRO, dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted,” he wrote, using the acronym for temporary restraining order.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell called the order “a victory for our students, teachers and school districts, restoring funds to programs designed to address the ongoing teacher shortage in the Commonwealth, including those serving vulnerable students with special needs.”
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)© The Associated Press
On Monday, Laura Faer, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for California, told Joun that a temporary restraining order was urgently needed because the freeze on grants was already leading to staff being laid off and program being halted.
“The situation is dire right now,” she told the court. “As we speak, our programs across the state are facing the possibility of closure, termination.”
California is joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Adelaide Pagano, representing Massachusetts, argued the Education Department lacked the authority to cancel the grants and its move was not in accordance with the law. The form letters to grantees, she said, failed to provide a clear and reasonable explanation for the cancellations and wrongly changed the criteria in the middle of the grant process, something they could consider for future funding but not money already allocated.
Michael Fitzgerald, representing the government, insisted the Education Department was well within its authority to cancel the grants over the programs suspected of violating federal anti-discrimination laws and no longer aligning with the department's priorities. He also argued there was no need for immediate relief, since grantees could recoup their frozen funds if they prevail in their lawsuit.
Late Tuesday, the Trump administration appealed the order to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed.
Michael Casey, The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration's plan to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training, finding that cuts are already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun sided with the eight states that had requested a temporary restraining order. The states argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from President Donald Trump's administration to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Trump, a Republican, has said he wants to dismantle the Education Department, and his administration has already started overhauling much of its work, including cutting dozens of contracts it dismissed as “woke” and wasteful.
The plaintiffs argued the federal Education Department abruptly ended two programs — the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development — without notice in February. They said the two programs provided upwards of $600 million in grants for teacher preparation programs, often in subject areas, such as math, science and special education. They said data has shown the programs had led to increased teacher retention rates and ensured that educators remain in the profession beyond five years.
President Donald Trump waves to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
Joun, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, found that the cancelations violated administrative law by failing to give a clear explanation and that the states are at risk of lasting harm because they're already having to cancel teacher training programs and lay people off.
“The record shows that if I were to deny the TRO, dozens of programs upon which public schools, public universities, students, teachers, and faculty rely will be gutted,” he wrote, using the acronym for temporary restraining order.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell called the order “a victory for our students, teachers and school districts, restoring funds to programs designed to address the ongoing teacher shortage in the Commonwealth, including those serving vulnerable students with special needs.”
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)© The Associated Press
On Monday, Laura Faer, arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs for California, told Joun that a temporary restraining order was urgently needed because the freeze on grants was already leading to staff being laid off and program being halted.
“The situation is dire right now,” she told the court. “As we speak, our programs across the state are facing the possibility of closure, termination.”
California is joined by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin.
Adelaide Pagano, representing Massachusetts, argued the Education Department lacked the authority to cancel the grants and its move was not in accordance with the law. The form letters to grantees, she said, failed to provide a clear and reasonable explanation for the cancellations and wrongly changed the criteria in the middle of the grant process, something they could consider for future funding but not money already allocated.
Michael Fitzgerald, representing the government, insisted the Education Department was well within its authority to cancel the grants over the programs suspected of violating federal anti-discrimination laws and no longer aligning with the department's priorities. He also argued there was no need for immediate relief, since grantees could recoup their frozen funds if they prevail in their lawsuit.
Late Tuesday, the Trump administration appealed the order to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed.
Michael Casey, The Associated Press
Federal judge appears skeptical probationary firings were for performance
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs after a luncheon with the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and Ireland's Prime Minister Micheal Martin at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge repeatedly sounded skeptical on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s mass firings of probationary federal workers were made by the government because the employees couldn’t do their jobs, saying the terminations appeared to be part of a larger goal.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar made the comments at a hearing where nearly 20 states are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop any more firings of federal probationary employees and to reinstate those who have already been dismissed. If the dismissals were part of a large-scale reduction in force, there are certain laws guiding the process.
“This case isn’t about whether or not the government can terminate people. It’s about if they decide to terminate people how they must do it,” Bredar said. “Move fast and break things. Move fast, fine. Break things, if that involves breaking the law then that becomes problematic.”
The states argue that the Trump administration blindsided them by ignoring laws set out for large-scale layoffs, which could have devastating consequences for their state finances. At least 24,000 probationary employees have been terminated since Trump took office, the lawsuit alleges.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, argues that the states have no right to try and influence the federal government’s relationship with its own workers. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has said he’s targeting fraud, waste and abuse in a bloated federal government.
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they’re usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection. Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the mass firings. One judge refused to block the firings in a lawsuit filed by unions, finding that the workers needed to go through the employment law system. Another found a memo underlying the layoffs was unlawful, but did not immediately block the firings or reinstate workers.
Elon Musk flashes his t-shirt that reads "DOGE" to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
This is the first lawsuit led by states and is being considered by Bredar, a judge appointed by President Barack Obama and based in Baltimore.
The Trump administration has brought a new perspective in terms of how the federal government should operate, how many people should work for the government and the work that the government should do across the board, Bredar said.
As a result, the judge said, the administration has decided to shift thousands of people out of federal employment, “which may well be their prerogative.” However, Bredar noted that this case centers on how they did it.
Bredar said the dismissals appeared to be more characteristic of a large-scale reduction in force, rather than simply ousting probationary workers because they could not do their jobs. Bredar said the employees appear to have been “terminated as a group in order to achieve a broader objective.”
While federal agencies claimed the employees were fired for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, the lawsuit led by the state of Maryland said the firings were part of the administration’s attempt to restructure and downsize the entire government.
That means the administration was required to follow federal laws and regulations that govern large-scale federal reductions in force, the lawsuit said. For example, regulations require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions, the attorneys said. Regulations also typically require 60 days’ advance notice of termination in a reduction in force.
Virginia Williamson, a Maryland assistant attorney general, argued at a hearing Wednesday that states are suffering “real and irreparable harm as a result of the failure to provide notice.” That’s because states use the information to help the unemployed find work.
“State rapid response agencies across the country need information about the number of employees who are going to be laid off in a mass layoff like the ones that the defendants did in order to provide information about resources for job hiring, information about unemployment benefits, to essentially forestall harms that could befall the state, that will befall the state, absent of any sort of intervention,” Williamson said.
The states also will suffer financially because they will need to support unemployed workers while contending with a sudden loss in state income tax revenue, she said.
U.S. deputy assistant attorney general Eric Hamilton contended that the probationary worker dismissals did not amount to a reduction in force.
“The documents that are in the record for actual federal government employees who were terminated show that there wasn’t a (reduction in force) and that these agencies made judgments that the probationers were not fit for federal government service,” Hamilton said.
The other states that have joined the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia also is a plaintiff.
The judge said he planned to issue a written decision “promptly.
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs after a luncheon with the Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and Ireland's Prime Minister Micheal Martin at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge repeatedly sounded skeptical on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s mass firings of probationary federal workers were made by the government because the employees couldn’t do their jobs, saying the terminations appeared to be part of a larger goal.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar made the comments at a hearing where nearly 20 states are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop any more firings of federal probationary employees and to reinstate those who have already been dismissed. If the dismissals were part of a large-scale reduction in force, there are certain laws guiding the process.
“This case isn’t about whether or not the government can terminate people. It’s about if they decide to terminate people how they must do it,” Bredar said. “Move fast and break things. Move fast, fine. Break things, if that involves breaking the law then that becomes problematic.”
The states argue that the Trump administration blindsided them by ignoring laws set out for large-scale layoffs, which could have devastating consequences for their state finances. At least 24,000 probationary employees have been terminated since Trump took office, the lawsuit alleges.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, argues that the states have no right to try and influence the federal government’s relationship with its own workers. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has said he’s targeting fraud, waste and abuse in a bloated federal government.
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they’re usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection. Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the mass firings. One judge refused to block the firings in a lawsuit filed by unions, finding that the workers needed to go through the employment law system. Another found a memo underlying the layoffs was unlawful, but did not immediately block the firings or reinstate workers.
Elon Musk flashes his t-shirt that reads "DOGE" to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)© The Associated Press
This is the first lawsuit led by states and is being considered by Bredar, a judge appointed by President Barack Obama and based in Baltimore.
The Trump administration has brought a new perspective in terms of how the federal government should operate, how many people should work for the government and the work that the government should do across the board, Bredar said.
As a result, the judge said, the administration has decided to shift thousands of people out of federal employment, “which may well be their prerogative.” However, Bredar noted that this case centers on how they did it.
Bredar said the dismissals appeared to be more characteristic of a large-scale reduction in force, rather than simply ousting probationary workers because they could not do their jobs. Bredar said the employees appear to have been “terminated as a group in order to achieve a broader objective.”
While federal agencies claimed the employees were fired for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, the lawsuit led by the state of Maryland said the firings were part of the administration’s attempt to restructure and downsize the entire government.
That means the administration was required to follow federal laws and regulations that govern large-scale federal reductions in force, the lawsuit said. For example, regulations require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions, the attorneys said. Regulations also typically require 60 days’ advance notice of termination in a reduction in force.
Virginia Williamson, a Maryland assistant attorney general, argued at a hearing Wednesday that states are suffering “real and irreparable harm as a result of the failure to provide notice.” That’s because states use the information to help the unemployed find work.
“State rapid response agencies across the country need information about the number of employees who are going to be laid off in a mass layoff like the ones that the defendants did in order to provide information about resources for job hiring, information about unemployment benefits, to essentially forestall harms that could befall the state, that will befall the state, absent of any sort of intervention,” Williamson said.
The states also will suffer financially because they will need to support unemployed workers while contending with a sudden loss in state income tax revenue, she said.
U.S. deputy assistant attorney general Eric Hamilton contended that the probationary worker dismissals did not amount to a reduction in force.
“The documents that are in the record for actual federal government employees who were terminated show that there wasn’t a (reduction in force) and that these agencies made judgments that the probationers were not fit for federal government service,” Hamilton said.
The other states that have joined the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia also is a plaintiff.
The judge said he planned to issue a written decision “promptly.
Find Trump in contempt of court and issue a ruling preventing the administration from launching prosecuting or defending any case until the contempt is purged.
For instance, a contractor takes an advance of $10B and then stiffs the Federal government and the Feds try and sue....... "Oh no, you can't file those papers. You're in contempt of this court and the Chief Judge has issues an order blocking any fed govt court filings without special leave."
Judge orders DOGE to turn over secret records and justify mass layoffs
Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has been given three weeks to answer questions in writing about how it decided to downsize federal agencies, suspend contracts and carry out mass firings.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan turned the tables on DOGE on Wednesday, three weeks after Musk's 'what did you do last week' email to staffers sparked mass protests.
The cost-cutting endeavor has prompted several lawsuits as DOGE seeks to slash bloated bureaucracies and eliminate wasteful government spending.
Chutkan gave Musk three weeks to comply with a discovery order that requires his team to answer questions about the inner workings of the department and turn over relevant documents.
The decision came after 14 Democratic state attorneys general teamed up to jointly sue Musk and DOGE, expressing concerns that he is wielding an unconstitutional amount of power.
It is the second blow DOGE has suffered this week after a separate judge ruled that the department was not immune to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, Musk's decisions and execution will be placed under the spotlight for the first time as he hands over departmental records and documents.
It is also a similar request to one Musk himself made of all federal employees when he ordered they send him five bullet points explaining what tasks they completed at work.
Elon Musk 's Department of Government Efficiency has been given three weeks to answer questions in writing about how it decided to downsize federal agencies, suspend contracts and carry out mass firings
Among the questions asked of Musk and DOGE in discovery are complete copies of 'DOGE’s Playbook for Eliminating DEI' and 'any other planning and implementation documents similar in form or function'
Failure to reply to the email was grounds for termination.
Among the questions asked of Musk and DOGE in discovery are complete copies of 'DOGE’s Playbook for Eliminating DEI' and 'any other planning and implementation documents similar in form or function.'
The discovery order asks DOGE to 'produce all documents containing lists, charts, or summaries that DOGE personnel or Musk have created, compiled, or edited reflecting the planned or completed cancellation of federal contracts, grants, or other legal agreements.'
'Produce all interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of action, or other similar documents,' the discovery order states.
The attorneys general are also seeking information for 'all individuals with authority to hire or terminate employment of DOGE personnel since January 20, 2025.'
Chutkan, an Obama appointed judge, specified that her order does not apply to Trump, who will not have to respond to any written questions or demands.
Some estimates say DOGE has had a hand in tens of thousands of job losses across the bloated federal bureaucracy.
The information Musk has been ordered to hand over will help Chutkan as she seeks to determine whether to block DOGE's activities altogether.
On Wednesday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan turned the tables on DOGE three weeks after Musk's 'what did you do last week' email to staffers sparked mass protests
The cost-cutting endeavour has prompted several lawsuits as DOGE seeks to slash bloated bureaucracies and eliminate wasteful government spending
It's understood the defendants are hoping to learn new details about 'the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority.'
Discovery will also likely help to identify DOGE officials which Musk has embedded across the nation.
The Trump administration have made efforts to shield DOGE from public scrutiny, both through the discovery process and the recent FOIA court battle.
DOGE has been operating under the wider umbrella of the Executive Office of the President, which is primarily exempt from the FOIA. But there are some exceptions in which it can become subject to transparency laws.
But Chutkan argued that the requests about Musk's involvement in high-level decisions is narrow enough to not be a burden to the executive branch.
And on Monday, District Judge Christopher Cooper determined DOGE's 'operations thus far have been marked by unusual secrecy' and remarked about the 'outsized influence on federal government' Musk's team wields.
It is a similar request to one Musk himself made of all federal employees when he ordered they send him five bullet points explaining what tasks they completed at work
Trump lists 'appalling waste' he says DOGE has identified
While the government maintains Musk is merely an adviser to the president, Monday's ruling noted: 'Mr. Musk claimed credit for placing large numbers of USAID employees on administrative leave in February, revelling that ''We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper''' in a post on X on February 3.
In all, around 4,154 USAID staff were placed on leave in the days prior to and following that X post.
Musk has also been linked to the voluntary redundancy package the Trump administration offered federal staff, which a reported 75,000 have accepted.
In January, almost the entire workforce of federal employees received a deferred resignation offer that came with eight months of pay in an initial DOGE effort to reduce spending.
Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has been given three weeks to answer questions in writing about how it decided to downsize federal agencies, suspend contracts and carry out mass firings.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan turned the tables on DOGE on Wednesday, three weeks after Musk's 'what did you do last week' email to staffers sparked mass protests.
The cost-cutting endeavor has prompted several lawsuits as DOGE seeks to slash bloated bureaucracies and eliminate wasteful government spending.
Chutkan gave Musk three weeks to comply with a discovery order that requires his team to answer questions about the inner workings of the department and turn over relevant documents.
The decision came after 14 Democratic state attorneys general teamed up to jointly sue Musk and DOGE, expressing concerns that he is wielding an unconstitutional amount of power.
It is the second blow DOGE has suffered this week after a separate judge ruled that the department was not immune to scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, Musk's decisions and execution will be placed under the spotlight for the first time as he hands over departmental records and documents.
It is also a similar request to one Musk himself made of all federal employees when he ordered they send him five bullet points explaining what tasks they completed at work.
Elon Musk 's Department of Government Efficiency has been given three weeks to answer questions in writing about how it decided to downsize federal agencies, suspend contracts and carry out mass firings
Among the questions asked of Musk and DOGE in discovery are complete copies of 'DOGE’s Playbook for Eliminating DEI' and 'any other planning and implementation documents similar in form or function'
Failure to reply to the email was grounds for termination.
Among the questions asked of Musk and DOGE in discovery are complete copies of 'DOGE’s Playbook for Eliminating DEI' and 'any other planning and implementation documents similar in form or function.'
The discovery order asks DOGE to 'produce all documents containing lists, charts, or summaries that DOGE personnel or Musk have created, compiled, or edited reflecting the planned or completed cancellation of federal contracts, grants, or other legal agreements.'
'Produce all interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of action, or other similar documents,' the discovery order states.
The attorneys general are also seeking information for 'all individuals with authority to hire or terminate employment of DOGE personnel since January 20, 2025.'
Chutkan, an Obama appointed judge, specified that her order does not apply to Trump, who will not have to respond to any written questions or demands.
Some estimates say DOGE has had a hand in tens of thousands of job losses across the bloated federal bureaucracy.
The information Musk has been ordered to hand over will help Chutkan as she seeks to determine whether to block DOGE's activities altogether.
On Wednesday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan turned the tables on DOGE three weeks after Musk's 'what did you do last week' email to staffers sparked mass protests
The cost-cutting endeavour has prompted several lawsuits as DOGE seeks to slash bloated bureaucracies and eliminate wasteful government spending
It's understood the defendants are hoping to learn new details about 'the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority.'
Discovery will also likely help to identify DOGE officials which Musk has embedded across the nation.
The Trump administration have made efforts to shield DOGE from public scrutiny, both through the discovery process and the recent FOIA court battle.
DOGE has been operating under the wider umbrella of the Executive Office of the President, which is primarily exempt from the FOIA. But there are some exceptions in which it can become subject to transparency laws.
But Chutkan argued that the requests about Musk's involvement in high-level decisions is narrow enough to not be a burden to the executive branch.
And on Monday, District Judge Christopher Cooper determined DOGE's 'operations thus far have been marked by unusual secrecy' and remarked about the 'outsized influence on federal government' Musk's team wields.
It is a similar request to one Musk himself made of all federal employees when he ordered they send him five bullet points explaining what tasks they completed at work
Trump lists 'appalling waste' he says DOGE has identified
While the government maintains Musk is merely an adviser to the president, Monday's ruling noted: 'Mr. Musk claimed credit for placing large numbers of USAID employees on administrative leave in February, revelling that ''We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper''' in a post on X on February 3.
In all, around 4,154 USAID staff were placed on leave in the days prior to and following that X post.
Musk has also been linked to the voluntary redundancy package the Trump administration offered federal staff, which a reported 75,000 have accepted.
In January, almost the entire workforce of federal employees received a deferred resignation offer that came with eight months of pay in an initial DOGE effort to reduce spending.
Ruling from the bench, Judge William J. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California went further than he had previously, finding that the Trump administration’s firing of probationary workers had essentially been done unlawfully and by fiat through the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm.
He directed the Treasury and the Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy and Interior Departments to comply with his order and offer to reinstate any employees who were improperly terminated. His order stemmed from a lawsuit brought by employee unions who challenged the legality of the mass firings.
Judge Alsup concluded that the government’s actions were a “gimmick” designed to expeditiously carry out mass firings.
He said it was clear that federal agencies had followed directives from the Office of Personnel Management to use a loophole allowing them to fire probationary workers en masse based on poor performance, regardless of their actual conduct on the job.
“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said.
“It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements,” he added.
Before handing down the ruling, Judge Alsup was careful to clarify with lawyers representing the unions that “reduction in force” orders now being issued at several agencies were still legal and could go forward.
He said his finding that the earlier wave, recommended by the Office of Personnel and Management, was an overreach of executive authority, but that his order did not stand in the way of the government executing layoffs in accordance with the rules.
“If it’s done right, there can be a reduction in force within an agency, that has to be true,” Judge Alsup said.
“Congress itself has said you can have an agency can do a reduction in force, if it’s done correctly under the law,” he added, drawing an acknowledgment by a lawyer representing the unions.
Judge Alsup had originally planned to have Trump administration officials appear to testify about the process through which the layoffs were planned, but the government made clear Wednesday that Charles Ezell, the acting head of Office of Personnel Management, would not appear.
The judge's decision on Thursday, which also extends a restraining order last month blocking the Office of Personnel Management from orchestrating further mass firings, offered a temporary reprieve for federal workers unions who have resisted the Trump administration’s initiatives.
Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the unions, noted again during the hearing that the directives had had a devastating effect on agencies, by culling not only younger workers and recent graduates, but even career civil servants who had recently been promoted and were in a probationary period in their more senior positions.
“This action by O.P.M. made Swiss cheese of the federal agencies at every level,” she said.
He directed the Treasury and the Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy and Interior Departments to comply with his order and offer to reinstate any employees who were improperly terminated. His order stemmed from a lawsuit brought by employee unions who challenged the legality of the mass firings.
Judge Alsup concluded that the government’s actions were a “gimmick” designed to expeditiously carry out mass firings.
He said it was clear that federal agencies had followed directives from the Office of Personnel Management to use a loophole allowing them to fire probationary workers en masse based on poor performance, regardless of their actual conduct on the job.
“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said.
“It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements,” he added.
Before handing down the ruling, Judge Alsup was careful to clarify with lawyers representing the unions that “reduction in force” orders now being issued at several agencies were still legal and could go forward.
He said his finding that the earlier wave, recommended by the Office of Personnel and Management, was an overreach of executive authority, but that his order did not stand in the way of the government executing layoffs in accordance with the rules.
“If it’s done right, there can be a reduction in force within an agency, that has to be true,” Judge Alsup said.
“Congress itself has said you can have an agency can do a reduction in force, if it’s done correctly under the law,” he added, drawing an acknowledgment by a lawyer representing the unions.
Judge Alsup had originally planned to have Trump administration officials appear to testify about the process through which the layoffs were planned, but the government made clear Wednesday that Charles Ezell, the acting head of Office of Personnel Management, would not appear.
The judge's decision on Thursday, which also extends a restraining order last month blocking the Office of Personnel Management from orchestrating further mass firings, offered a temporary reprieve for federal workers unions who have resisted the Trump administration’s initiatives.
Danielle Leonard, a lawyer representing the unions, noted again during the hearing that the directives had had a devastating effect on agencies, by culling not only younger workers and recent graduates, but even career civil servants who had recently been promoted and were in a probationary period in their more senior positions.
“This action by O.P.M. made Swiss cheese of the federal agencies at every level,” she said.
'I'm getting mad': Judge reams Trump lawyers and threatens mass rehiring over 'sham' docs
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup blasted attorneys for the Trump administration after he said he suspected they were lying and giving him "sham" documents.
At a hearing on Thursday, Alsup became angry after acting Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Charles Ezell refused an order to testify on the Trump administration's mass firings. The case was brought in February by the American Federation of Government Employees.
"You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You're afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth," the judge told government lawyers, according to Slate's Mark Joseph Stern.
"I tend to doubt that you're telling me the truth whenever we hear all the evidence eventually. Why can't you bring your people in to be cross-examined or deposed at their convenience?" he continued. "I said two hours for Mr. Ezell. A deposition at his convenience. And you withdrew his declaration rather than do that? Come on. That's a sham. It upsets me, I want you to know that."
"I've been practicing in this court for over 50 years and I know how we get at the truth. And you're not helping me get at the truth. You're giving me press releases, sham documents. I'm getting mad."
According to Politico's Kyle Cheney, the judge suggested that he could order "mass rehiring."
“It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie," the judge reportedly said Thursday.
Update: Alsup ordered probationary employees from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury to be reinstated.
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup blasted attorneys for the Trump administration after he said he suspected they were lying and giving him "sham" documents.
At a hearing on Thursday, Alsup became angry after acting Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Charles Ezell refused an order to testify on the Trump administration's mass firings. The case was brought in February by the American Federation of Government Employees.
"You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You're afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth," the judge told government lawyers, according to Slate's Mark Joseph Stern.
"I tend to doubt that you're telling me the truth whenever we hear all the evidence eventually. Why can't you bring your people in to be cross-examined or deposed at their convenience?" he continued. "I said two hours for Mr. Ezell. A deposition at his convenience. And you withdrew his declaration rather than do that? Come on. That's a sham. It upsets me, I want you to know that."
"I've been practicing in this court for over 50 years and I know how we get at the truth. And you're not helping me get at the truth. You're giving me press releases, sham documents. I'm getting mad."
According to Politico's Kyle Cheney, the judge suggested that he could order "mass rehiring."
“It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie," the judge reportedly said Thursday.
Update: Alsup ordered probationary employees from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury to be reinstated.
Doug Mills/The New York Times
A federal judge in Washington has ordered Elon Musk and operatives involved with his Department of Government Efficiency to hand over documents and answer questions about its role in directing mass firings and dismantling government programs.
The judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said on Wednesday that the plaintiffs in the case — a coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general challenging Mr. Musk’s authority — had demonstrated a clear need to shed light on the inner workings of Mr. Musk’s team. It was the first time a judge has ordered Mr. Musk’s division be subject to discovery.
In the weeks after Mr. Musk’s team fanned out across federal agencies demanding access to federal offices and databases, lawyers seeking to stop the group’s advances have been forced to rely on news reports and anecdotal evidence about what, exactly, Mr. Musk’s team has been doing.
In many cases, federal judges have grown frustrated by the inability of the government’s own lawyers to answer straightforward questions about what data Mr. Musk’s associates have viewed, or to what extent the group had directly spearheaded recent downsizing efforts. In filings in another case, the government has also downplayed Mr. Musk’s role, claiming he was not officially the group’s leader.
The group of states had asked Judge Chutkan to grant the request to let them probe Mr.
Musk’s team for information in order to confirm details about its operations and its future plans, and to “illustrate the nature and scope of the unconstitutional and unlawful authority” they said Mr. Musk has so far exercised.
Judge Chutkan agreed, writing in an opinion that “the requests seek to identify DOGE personnel and the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority — a question central to Plaintiffs’ claims.”
The order on Wednesday was more limited than the states’ slightly more ambitious request, which included a demand for two members of Mr. Musk’s team to sit for depositions — an ask Judge Chutkan denied. But the order still requires Mr. Musk and his office to provide a broad array of information about its engagement with federal agencies, employees, contracts, grants and databases within three weeks.
Judges in other cases have responded similarly to demands for more clarity about Mr. Musk’s team, which has largely been shrouded in secrecy.
On Thursday, a judge in California required an associate of Mr. Musk’s who was detailed to the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm, to be deposed about any role he had in helping steer the mass firings of federal workers.
And on Monday, a judge in Washington ruled that Mr. Musk’s office was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and ordered it to rapidly produce records that a public ethics group had sued to obtain.
Zach MontagueReporting from Washington
A federal judge in Washington has ordered Elon Musk and operatives involved with his Department of Government Efficiency to hand over documents and answer questions about its role in directing mass firings and dismantling government programs.
The judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said on Wednesday that the plaintiffs in the case — a coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general challenging Mr. Musk’s authority — had demonstrated a clear need to shed light on the inner workings of Mr. Musk’s team. It was the first time a judge has ordered Mr. Musk’s division be subject to discovery.
In the weeks after Mr. Musk’s team fanned out across federal agencies demanding access to federal offices and databases, lawyers seeking to stop the group’s advances have been forced to rely on news reports and anecdotal evidence about what, exactly, Mr. Musk’s team has been doing.
In many cases, federal judges have grown frustrated by the inability of the government’s own lawyers to answer straightforward questions about what data Mr. Musk’s associates have viewed, or to what extent the group had directly spearheaded recent downsizing efforts. In filings in another case, the government has also downplayed Mr. Musk’s role, claiming he was not officially the group’s leader.
The group of states had asked Judge Chutkan to grant the request to let them probe Mr.
Musk’s team for information in order to confirm details about its operations and its future plans, and to “illustrate the nature and scope of the unconstitutional and unlawful authority” they said Mr. Musk has so far exercised.
Judge Chutkan agreed, writing in an opinion that “the requests seek to identify DOGE personnel and the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority — a question central to Plaintiffs’ claims.”
The order on Wednesday was more limited than the states’ slightly more ambitious request, which included a demand for two members of Mr. Musk’s team to sit for depositions — an ask Judge Chutkan denied. But the order still requires Mr. Musk and his office to provide a broad array of information about its engagement with federal agencies, employees, contracts, grants and databases within three weeks.
Judges in other cases have responded similarly to demands for more clarity about Mr. Musk’s team, which has largely been shrouded in secrecy.
On Thursday, a judge in California required an associate of Mr. Musk’s who was detailed to the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm, to be deposed about any role he had in helping steer the mass firings of federal workers.
And on Monday, a judge in Washington ruled that Mr. Musk’s office was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and ordered it to rapidly produce records that a public ethics group had sued to obtain.
Zach MontagueReporting from Washington
