Judge slams 'perverse reading' of Constitution by Trump admin fighting lawsuit challenging DOGE

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Law & Crime

May 28th, 2025, 12:18 pm


A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected an attempt from Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to have a lawsuit against them thrown out — ruling they “unsuccessfully” tried to “minimize” the tech billionaire’s role — while also handing a victory to President Donald Trump, granting his request to be dropped from the case.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Tuesday that a multistate lawsuit against the president’s ally may continue, although President Donald Trump himself will no longer be a defendant. As Law&Crime has previously reported, 14 states sued Musk, DOGE, and Trump in February, arguing the defendants violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by putting Musk at the head of the organization, which is not an official government agency.

The state attorneys general contended that Trump, Musk, and DOGE overstepped their authority in shrinking government agencies and firing federal workers, as Musk was never subject to Senate confirmation and Congress never authorized DOGE, which Trump established via executive order to “implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” The defendants sought to have the case thrown out, arguing Musk was merely an adviser without formal authority. Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, was unconvinced.

“The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to Executive Order and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an ‘adviser’ in name only,” the wrote. “This is precisely what Plaintiffs claim the Executive has done.” The judge criticized the defendant’s “circular reading of the Appointments Clause that would allow the President to restructure the entire federal government without legislative authority and to evade judicial review.”

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-slams-perverse-reading-of-constitution-by-trump-admin-fighting-lawsuit-challenging-doge-but-puts-one-less-case-on-the-presidents-docket/

---

Full headline: Judge slams ‘perverse reading’ of Constitution by Trump admin fighting lawsuit challenging DOGE, but puts one less case on the president’s docket

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0429-93

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143395739

(There are so many damn cases going on now but maybe this is why Muskrat was whining yesterday - under-the-bus throw)

[Marthe48]

1. funny how felon gets another pass

skum didn't don a magic cape to get the power to f*** up the government. But the person who allowed it to happen won't even get a slap on the wrist.

[ShazzieB]

2. Judge Chutkan knows her stuff!

I'm curious about her reasonin(s) for letting Schlump off the hook for this, but knowing what I know about her, I'm sure she must have a sound rationale. And yay for not letting Eloon get the suit thrown out!

[aggiesal]

3. I believe she's following DOJ's rule that you can't sue a sitting pResident ...

This is just a rule, not a law or in the Constitution.
Frustrating

[ShazzieB]

6. That makes sense, unfortunately.

I imagine she probably feels like she's bound by that. Even though it's not an actual law, it seems to be a pretty firmly established rule. Oh well.

[EuterpeThelo]

13. That only applies to criminal charges

Paula Jones saw to that when the shoe was on the other foot and the Rs were desperate to get ANYTHING to stick to Bill Clinton.

[chowder66]

4. Here is more about her decision re: Trump

Chutkan decided that Trump could be dismissed as a defendant in the case, writing on Tuesday that the court “may not enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.” The president does have “highly discretionary” power, she wrote, to select and nominate officers under the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/27/musks-role-leading-doge-is-continuing-and-permanent-judge-says.html

[pat_k]

9. Appointments to fictitious agencies included???

I've got to do some reading, but AFAIK the appointments clause specifies appointments that are the subject to advice and consent of the Senate.... Not appointments to fictitious agencies granted unprecedented powers without consent.

[reACTIONary]

10. From the ruling.....

D. President Trump in his Official Capacity
Defendants seek to dismiss President Trump as a defendant because the court may not
enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. MTD at 35–37; id. at 36 & n.7
(collecting cases). The court agrees. See, e.g., Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475,
501 (1866) (holding Court had “no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the
performance of his official duties”). States concede the court may not enjoin President Trump
but argue that a declaratory judgment may issue against the President under National Treasury
Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Opp’n at 37–38. That case
recognized a narrow circumstance in which a court may issue a declaratory judgment
recognizing the President’s constitutional duty to perform a “ministerial duty.” 492 F.2d at 608.
For declaratory judgment to be appropriate, the duty cannot be discretionary and must be
“simple, definite[,] . . . arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by
law.” Id. at 608–09. The President’s power to select and nominate officers under the
Appointments Clause is highly discretionary and assigned squarely to the President. Declaratory
judgment against the President, a “coequal branch of government,” pertaining to the Executive’s
exclusive powers under the Constitution “at best creates an unseemly appearance of
constitutional tension and at worst risks a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”
Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Consequently, the court will dismiss
President Trump as a d

[Shipwack]

5. If Musk loses, what's the penalty?

Who pays it?

The bell can’t be unrung. Agencies can’t be undeleted like a computer file. There’s even a good chance they can’t contact the people fired even if they decided to follow any rulings.

I’m sorry I can’t answer any of these questions. I also acknowledge that there is probably no way things could have been settled faster by the courts.

[ShazzieB]

7. And what about all the personal data they basically stole off of various agencies' computers?

The bell definitely can't be unrung on that. This is just another one of those situations where the legal system can't keep pace with what's happening in real time. Argh.

[pat_k]

8. WTF. How can 47, signer of order empowering DOGE not be a party????

This strikes me as truly bizarre. The violator of the appointments clause isn't the appointee. It's the appointer. And the appointments clause specifies a President's appointment powers and procedures.

I must be missing something here.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. I zoomed through the ruling and this is what she wrote (pg 41) -

D. President Trump in his Official Capacity

Defendants seek to dismiss President Trump as a defendant because the court may not
enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. MTD at 35–37; id. at 36 & n.7
(collecting cases). The court agrees. See, e.g., Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475,
501 (1866) (holding Court had “no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the
performance of his official duties”). States concede the court may not enjoin President Trump
but argue that a declaratory judgment may issue against the President under National Treasury
Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Opp’n at 37–38. That case
recognized a narrow circumstance in which a court may issue a declaratory judgment
recognizing the President’s constitutional duty to perform a “ministerial duty.” 492 F.2d at 608.
For declaratory judgment to be appropriate, the duty cannot be discretionary and must be
“simple, definite[,] . . . arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by
law.” Id. at 608–09. The President’s power to select and nominate officers under the
Appointments Clause is highly discretionary and assigned squarely to the President. Declaratory
judgment against the President, a “coequal branch of government,” pertaining to the Executive’s
exclusive powers under the Constitution “at best creates an unseemly appearance of
constitutional tension and at worst risks a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”
Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Consequently, the court will dismiss
President Trump as a defendant.

[pat_k]

12. Thanks!

I've been poking around -- and need to do more looking, but as far as I can tell, there has been no decision that affirms that the creation of DOGE and appointment of Musk (or whoever they claim is running it) is, or is not, a legitimate exercise of the powers granted under the appointments clause. It seems to me that question is very much an open controversy as far as several cases making their way through the courts are concerned. Given the powers DOGE exercised, I don't see how a claim it was an "inferior appointment" that didn't require consent could ultimately fly -- but who the F knows in these up is down and down is up days. In any case, I don't think this decision can be cited as deciding the controversy (although I'm sure 47 shills will try). It strikes me as another "non-decision decision" that gives 47 what he wants.

I have no actual basis for the speculation, but I suspect she jettisoned 47 in anticipation of an emergency motion to SCOTUS where they would they issue another unjustified, wrong-headed and effectively traitorous "for now" decision that somehow takes 47 out of the mix and gives him a "win" on the "emergency/shadow docket," where they can avoid actually putting their blatantly absurd "findings" into an actual opinion.

We should expect it by now, but I'm still flabbergasted at their 5/22 order ignoring 90 years of precedent set by Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. to allow the firings and the irreparable harm to the plaintiffs -- and the people of the United States -- "for now." (And to justify it by asserting the greater harm is to the renegade executive. Double-think in action.)

Supreme Court allows Trump to remove agency heads without cause for now

[BumRushDaShow]

15. When Turtle sat on Obama's SCOTUS nomination (to replace Scalia) for a year

and 45 was eventually able to put 3 on that court, THAT was the period when the U.S. died.

[TheGreatConspiracy]

14. Perverse, indeed

https://youtube.com/shorts/q0cG10IFMxc?si=9MUw8fOrbUs5Vvel

[Grins]

16. Judge Chutkan should not have dismissed Trump.

Without Trump's encouragement and AUTHORITY as POTUS - DOGE was dead meat. None of this would have happened.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. I posted upthread what she wrote in her decision about why she did it

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3467690

She was unfortunately, the "beneficiary" of the "official duties homework assignment" from the "benevolent John Roberts", the one who gave 45 "unlimited power" to do anything he wants (despite him not saying that but how 45 has interpreted it and has acted).