DOGE hits a roadblock in its effort to dismantle the government

 

Friday, March 21 ON THE DOCKET THIS WEEK DOGE hits a key roadblock in its effort to dismantle the federal government North Carolina legal community tells Jefferson Griffin to stop trying to overturn state Supreme Court election The fight for a fair map in Louisiana hits SCOTUS DOGE DOGE hits a key roadblock in its effort to dismantle the federal government The Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) — the faux-agency led by billionaire Elon Musk — ongoing efforts to dismantle the federal workforce hit a roadblock this week as the courts are still trying to figure out what, if any, actual power the department wields. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a scathing rebuke of DOGE’s attempted takeover of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), writing that DOGE’s efforts to shut down the agency “likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways.” Judge Theodore Chuang, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, ordered that DOGE could not take additional steps toward shutting down USAID and must restore USAID employees’ access to electronic systems. Chuang rebuked Musk and DOGE for violating Congress’s constitutional authority to appropriate funds and create or shut down federal agencies — specifically, Chuang said DOGE likely violated the Appointments Clause and the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. “These actions harmed not only Plaintiffs, but also the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress,” Chuang wrote. But this wasn’t the only legal drama DOGE was embroiled in this week. The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) sued the agency Tuesday, after some DOGE employees forced themselves into the institute’s headquarters in an effort to gain control of the nonprofit organization. Back in February, President Donald Trump ordered USIP to be effectively shuttered via executive order, despite protests that the institute is not part of the executive branch. The USIP is an independent nonprofit founded in 1984 under former President Ronald Reagan as a congressionally funded organization led by a bipartisan board of directors. DOGE’s takeover of USIP marks the Trump administration’s latest move in its broad assault on independent agencies and organizations that were created by Congress to function without direct control from the White House. The administration has been particularly aggressive toward independent agencies tied to foreign assistance work. “As these words are written on Tuesday evening, March 18, Defendants are literally in the process of unlawfully destroying property and accessing and taking over the computer systems of the United States Institute of Peace,” the USIP officials said in a request for a temporary retraining order against DOGE. But a federal judge Wednesday denied USIP’s request for a temporary restraining order against DOGE. In a contentious hearing, District Judge Beryl Howell slammed DOGE’s aggressive, physical takeover of USIP: “This conduct of using law enforcement, threatening criminal investigations, using armed law enforcement from three different agencies,” Howell said. “Why? Why those ways here? Just because DOGE is in a rush?” But ultimately she denied USIP’s request because of the institute’s complex position within the government and because the board members may not suffer irreparable harm without the order. Read more about the USIP’s lawsuit to thwart DOGE’s efforts here. A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR Since Inauguration Day, the ACLU has filed over 15 lawsuits (and counting!) against the Trump administration – to protect birthright citizenship, stop the illegal transfer of immigrants to Guantanamo, block Trump's anti-trans Executive Orders, and more. But the ACLU needs your support to continue fighting. Join the ACLU to defend everyone's fundamental rights and freedoms. NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina legal community tells Jefferson Griffin to stop trying to overturn state Supreme Court election Ahead of the latest court hearing in North Carolina state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin’s unending quest to overturn the election he lost, a contingent of the state’s legal community is asking him to stop his efforts. In a letter sent Wednesday, a bipartisan coalition of more than 200 North Carolina jurists, attorneys, state government officials, bar leaders and legal educators urged Griffin to drop his lawsuits. “The arguments you have advanced ask our judicial system to change the rules in place for the 2024 election after it has run its course. Indeed, if you succeed, tens of thousands of voters will lose their voice after they voted,” the letter says. “For the sake of our judicial system, we ask you to terminate your litigation now.” A three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument Friday in Griffin’s ongoing lawsuit to overturn the results of the state’s Supreme Court election and have more than 65,000 legal ballots tossed out. Even after two recounts, Griffin narrowly lost the election to incumbent Justice Allison Riggs (D), but he wouldn’t concede — instead mounting a massive legal effort falsely claiming that the ballots were illegitimate. But it’s clear that people are tired of Griffin’s ongoing effort to steal an election. The signers to the letter — all members of North Carolina’s legal community — vary across the political spectrum and include former state Supreme Court Justices Jim Exum and Henry Frye, along with former Associate Justices J. Phil Carlton and Willis Whichard. A number of former North Carolina Court of Appeals, superior court and district court judges also signed on to the letter. The signers also include a general counsel to former Governor Pat McCrory (R) and a former general counsel to the state GOP. The letter was organized by Common Cause North Carolina, a good-government group. “Our state has extensive experience with close elections and we have procedures to ensure that the count is accurate,” the letter reads. “Those processes played out here, at your request, including two recounts.” Read more about Griffin’s legal attempt to overturn the North Carolina State Supreme Court election here. SCOTUS The fight for a fair map in Louisiana hits SCOTUS When the Louisiana legislature finally passed its new court-ordered congressional map in January 2024, giving the Pelican State a second majority-Black district, voting rights advocates lauded the map as a step forward for fair representation. But almost immediately after Louisiana’s new map passed, a group identifying themselves as “non-African American voters” sued to stop it, arguing the new majority-Black district created a racial gerrymander, in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. A federal district court agreed and it struck down the new map last April, ordering the legislature to draw a new one. With the 2024 election fast approaching, the state asked SCOTUS to pause the district court’s ruling and allow Louisiana to keep its new map with two majority-Black districts in place —  at least until after the election, when SCOTUS could hear the case and make a decision on the maps. With the election in the rearview mirror, SCOTUS is set to hear oral argument Monday in two cases — Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais — consolidated into one. The outcome of the case could have major implications — not just for the future of fair maps in Louisiana but for the future of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Should the non-Black voters who originally sued over Louisiana’s maps prevail, it would severely curtail the power of Section 2 of the VRA, which essentially allows people to sue over any discriminatory voting law or map. “It could limit the discretion that states have when complying with the Voting Rights Act,” Michael Li, Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center, told Democracy Docket. “It would sort of assume that every district that’s drawn to be majority Black or majority Latino or whatever should be automatically presumed to be a racial gerrymander unless the state can prove otherwise.” As dangerous as the outcome of this SCOTUS case could be for the VRA, Li said he doesn’t think this is the case that’s going to completely tank Section 2  — especially given how SCOTUS ruled in the pivotal Allen v. Milligan case in 2023. “I just don’t think this is the case that does that,” he said. Learn more about the Louisiana redistricting case in SCOTUS here. OPINION The Sharks Circling the Boat Since his return to the White House, Trump’s employed a “flood the zone” strategy to overwhelm the country with his drastic, nefarious and legally questionable executive orders and actions. That’s by design: He wants us to be paralyzed by fear and hopelessness. He wants us to feel abandoned — like we are alone in a small boat, surrounded by sharks. “Our only real defense against the circling sharks — however imperfect — has been the courts. And in recent weeks, Trump has begun targeting them with precision,” Marc writes in his latest piece. With Trump’s recent attacks on lawyers, law firms and the courts, it’s clear that the sharks are circling closer than ever. “Trump is the greatest threat to our democracy,” Marc writes. “His attacks on lawyers and law firms are damaging our boat. If he can simply defy court orders, the boat will sink entirely.” Read it here. A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR The ACLU has filed over 15 lawsuits against the Trump administration to protect civil liberties, but they need your support. Join the ACLU today to help defend everyone's fundamental freedoms. NEW VIDEO We're in a Constitutional Crisis | Rep. Robert Garcia California Congressman Robert Garcia joins Marc to discuss what it's like to be targeted by the DOJ and Trump officials, whether the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis and more. Watch it on YouTube here. What We’re Doing At the heart of many of the lawsuits against DOGE and its effort to dismantle the federal government is a simple question: Who’s in charge? It’s always been presumed that Musk is leading the charge since he was the one Trump named to lead the agency. But as Musk — and DOGE’s — actual authority comes into question, the faux-agency is playing coy on Musk’s actual role, instead naming people like former health care executive Amy Gleason as its leader. But a new investigation from the New York Times asserts that Steve Davis, a longtime Musk loyalist, is the day-to-day leader of DOGE’s activities. Read it here.