The court seems ready to pause Trump's overhaul of the government: NPR

A federal judge in San Francisco seemed ready to temporarily block the comprehensive revision of the federal government by the Trump government.

The US district judge Susan Illston, a Clinton representative, held a hearing in a lawsuit on Friday, which was submitted by a coalition of unions, non -profit organizations and local governments that argue in their complaint that the efforts of President Trump to “rebuild and reduce the Federal Government” without displacing the congress restructure and reduce “.

Illston seemed to agree with the plaintiffs and claimed in the hearing that the precedent of the Supreme Court made it clear that the president had the authority to apply for changes in agencies, but must do so in a legitimate way. She continued that Critical Transformations of the Type Trump tried to “have the cooperation of the congress”.

The plaintiffs tried for a temporary injunction in order to further implement the planned mass increases in the administration. Temporary restrictions cannot be appealed, but the government is expected to be lodged against an injunction that the judge could later issue.

Illston said that a temporary injunction was probably necessary to “protect the authority of the legislative”. She found that Trump had actually submitted the consent of the congress for similar restructuring plans during his first term.

“He could have done this here, but he didn't,” said Illston.

The case is only the youngest in a number of court fights that test the limits of the Trump executive authority.

In court files, his administration argued that he has “inherent authority” to control the control of the nation's laws.

The government argued that a temporary injunction was inappropriate

In court on Friday, the Trump government's lawyer, deputy deputy attorney in general, argued that the plaintiff's request for temporary injunction was inappropriate, since the time has been for the first time since the government was signed.

“The plaintiffs are not entitled to Tro because they have waited far too long to make this application, and an emergency is therefore completely of their own making,” he and other lawyers wrote in an earlier court registration.

The plaintiff's lawyers have argued that they have only now found which agencies carry out the guidelines of Trump, given the confidentiality with which his administration operated on.

“They try to isolate illegal instructions from judicial review by not making them publicly implemented,” the lawyer of the plaintiff Danielle Leonard told the court on Friday.

Hamilton also argued – like the government in numerous other cases in which federal employees are involved – that the Court is not responsible in the event. Instead, matters in which personnel issues within the federal government are involved must be brought into the areas created by the congress in order to hear such symptoms, he said.

Judge Illston did not seem to observe this argument and asked Hamilton as to whether the matter – a radical revision of the entire government – was a congress that should go through these administrative channels.

Search for mass decisions and the switching of programs

The Plaintziffs – which included the American Federation of Government Employees and Several of Its Local Branches, The American Public Health Association and the Cities of Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco – Had Asked the Court to Find Trump's Feb. Prepare for Mass Layoffs and Shutter Programs Unlawful, and to Temporarily Stop Agencies from Implementing Their Restructuring Plans-Including Issuing Reduction-In-Force (Rif) Notices and Closing Offices.

Already in this way, the plaintiffs' lawyers, the authorities, including the departments for health and human services and veteran affairs, argued plans that “not on their own independent analysis or a reasonable decision-making”, but in accordance with the executive contract of the President and the accompanying instructions by Elon Musk Doge team, the office of personnel management and the office of Management and the budget and budget and budget and budget and budget as well as the budget as well as the office of management and budget, and budget and budget as well as the budget as well as the budget as well as the budget and office of management as well as the accompanying.

The Trump administration has defended the executive regulation and argues that it only enables an instruction in very broad conditions, while significant measures must be taken that “have taken” have “taken” with applicable law “.

“This type of directive is an easy way for a president to exercise its undisputed authority, to commit a subordinate authority to determine what the law allows and then take the legal measures in order to promote the president's priorities,” wrote the government's lawyers in court files.

In court, Leonard said that the government's hiring was not a precise description of the Executive Ordinance.

“This is an obligatory order in which agencies are instructed to start RIFS now, and this in the way the president leads,” she said.