Today, I shopped at Costco. Like many of us, I am new to the club; I joined when the Progressive stars aligned: Target showed its cowardice, pulling back on important DEI initiatives, and workers at King Soopers (my local grocery store) went on strike, alleging unfair labor practices.
Employment lawyer moms don’t put up with that type of crap.
As I waited to turn into the parking lot, a group of protesters caught my eye. There they were, 20 or so sign-holding citizens, freezing as the snow pelleted them. As I wondered, “What are they doing in this suburban intersection?” I saw the store behind their group. Tesla.
My son and I promptly bought them those delicious Costco Madeleine cakes and drove them over after our shopping adventure. The signs read, “FIRE PRESIDENT MUSK.” They cheered, we thanked them, and a large SUV honked at me for having my hazards on.
Fascist.
The protestors are doing great work; after all, our current administration only cares about the mighty dollar. After what seems like a lifetime of marching, I am rethinking their efficacy with this Administration. I’ll still go, of course, but I am convinced that you can’t march away psychopathy. Might as well help drain some bank accounts.
While the good citizens of Superior, Colorado, inspired me to fight harder, I continue to view the courts to be our last line of defense.
Another Frenetic Week
Earlier this week, I wrote about the Trump administration trying and failing to make an argument that a Judicial Order is overreach because they lost. This attack on the Constitution (call it what it is, folks!) continues.
On Thursday, a federal judge in Washington D.C. reviewed Trump’s freeze after two health organizations, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coaliition and Global health Council, brought suit. Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the administration to restore the funds. In response to the Administration’s justification for the freeze, the Court wrote:
Here, the stated purpose in implementing the suspension of all foreign aid is to provide the opportunity to review programs for their efficiency and consistency with priorities. However, at least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.
When considering a TRO, the Court must address the potential for “irreparable harm.” The Court pointed to the Plaintiffs’ evidence of harm to both vulnerable populations around the world (including children who receive Malaria vaccines) and American businesses.
In the end, the Court granted the TRO, but made a point to explain that it would be narrower in scope than the Plaintiffs requested. The Court explained that the TRO does not “enjoin the President’s or Secretary of State’s of purpose or policy, nor does the Court enjoin any aspect of the Government’s ability to conduct a comprehensive internal review of government programs.” Specifically addressing the Plaintiffs’ request that the Court order the Trump administration not to fire, furlough, etc. personnel administering the programs and funds at issue, the Court provided Trump with the smallest amount of comfort: the Plaintiffs cannot control the method by which the Administration complies with the TRO.
Plaintiffs appear to be including such language to ensure meaningful compliance with the Court’s order; however, directives as to such specific operational details are overbroad in the absence of evidence of non-compliance. As specified below, it is sufficient to order Defendants to take all necessary steps to carry out the Court’s order.
To some, this might feel like a win for Trump. To me, it feels like a warning. If you read closely, the Court is merely letting the Plaintiffs and the rest of America know that the judiciary expects compliance.
And what if they don’t comply? Well, we’ll see them back in court after February 18, 2025, when Judge Ali ordered them to file a status report “apprising the Court of the status of their compliance with this order[.]”