Judge Blocks Trump Administration Mass Layoffs at U.S. Agencies

Friday, May 23, 2025

A federal judge further blocked the Trump administration from sharply cutting jobs and reorganizing the structure of many major federal agencies as part of its so-called DOGE effort under billionaire Elon Musk. ... "Agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress's mandates, and a President may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress."

Posted by retort at 03:07 PM | 17 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

And that's why you lay off the judges first.

#1 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-23 04:07 PM

Trump has all three branches of Gov under his thumb, and had he really wanted to make legitimate changes in a legal fashion, he could have done so.

But that's obviously not what he wants; he wants 'shock and awe' to see how much illegitimate and illegal things he can get away with before he's stopped.

Presidential Historians rated him dead last of all Presidents for a reason, and here it is.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-05-23 04:08 PM

Liberal dem judges are leftist activists; in no way are they impartial.

#3 | Posted by MSgt at 2025-05-23 04:23 PM

Federal workers are tasked with working on missions designed by acts of Congress.

It took Acts of Congress to create these positions, and it will take an Acts of Congress to terminate them.

The Executive, nor Squeelon Musk, are capable of Acts of Congress.

But you know who is? The current Republican led Congress.

Liberal activist judges? Perhaps. But MasterScourgeTard and his fellow Trumper lunatics simply don't understand how the Constitution dictates our form of government.

If they did, they would have demanded Congress do their jobs instead of blaming the Judicial and supporting illegal administrative actions. They do not support the Constitution and how it operates.

#4 | Posted by horstngraben at 2025-05-23 08:15 PM

www.scotusblog.com
supreme-court-allows-trump-to-remove-agency-heads-without-cause-for-now/

the dispute implicates an important constitutional question: the president's ability to supervise the agency heads who exercise power on his behalf.

"Finish your appeals then come back and we'll do it for real"

I would expect similar results for this latest district level liberal activist judge's ruling.

#5 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 12:09 AM

#5 No, this dispute implicates the power of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the political whims of the Executive.

Since the '30's the answer has been the Executive has limited power, firing only "for cause." www.oyez.org Not until the Buffoon's band of "unitary executive" freaks has a President asserted otherwise. Though the conservative wing of the SC has been musing about it for a while.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2025-05-24 12:51 AM

Liberal dem judges are leftist activists; in no way are they impartial.

#3 | POSTED BY MSGTM

And I am not sure what's taking so long.

Why haven't they all been arrested and shipped to El Salvador?

And why hasn't the Purge been officially started yet?

I was really hoping for some new stuff. Maybe your stuff.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-24 07:26 AM

#5 No, this dispute implicates the power of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the political whims of the Executive.
#6 | Posted by et_al

-OK, et al says this^, but the actual argument in front of the Supreme Court says that-

the dispute implicates an important constitutional question: the president's ability to supervise the agency heads who exercise power on his behalf.

#8 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 08:09 AM

#5 No, this dispute implicates the political whims of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the power of the Executive.

Fixed

#9 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 08:11 AM

No, this dispute implicates the political whims of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the power of the Executive.

Fixed
#9 | POSTED BY ITCHYP

No not "fixed". Definitely an F word tho.

Congress creates laws. Not the President. The President faithfully enforces them. He cannot cancel them. He CAN ignore them. And not enforce them. Apparently. But he cannot change them.

Every agency that Congress creates is actually a Law. Every individual that is hired is hired by that law. And they are there because of the law Congress passed.

The President does not get to cancel laws that Congress has passed and a President has signed. The President does not get to fire civil servants. He hires executive employees and directs THEM on how to manage their organizations in accordance with his goals and policies. But those executives still have to follow whatever law Congress has passed.

Welcome to America Comrade. You are obviously new here.

Maybe you should watch that cute YouTube video on how laws are made here.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-24 08:23 AM

#5 No, this dispute implicates the political whims of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the power of the Executive.

Fixed

Not familiar with veto power, huh? That's not surprising.

#11 | Posted by horstngraben at 2025-05-24 12:02 PM

They got away with it to make the Fed, so now imagine that they can create unlimited "fourth branch" agencies that are immune to constitutional oversight and function as immortal slush funds used to redirect public funds to their cronies via a network of unaccountable agencies feeding a complex structure of NGOs.

#12 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 03:40 PM

Maybe you should watch that cute YouTube video on how laws are made here.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy YouTube video on how laws are made here.

-I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, sitting here on capitol hill...

-Maybe you should watch that cute Supreme Court case and learn more about executive oversight.

#13 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 03:44 PM

No, this dispute implicates the political whims of Congress to create agencies and departments independent of the power of the Executive.

thx et_al for the setup. This post (#9 ) has legs.
Fire all your FLAC but you can't change the FACT, that our leaders are and have been creating a fourth branch outside constitutional authority, and they only now are finally being challenged. They're self-dealing, almost ALL of them, they have been doing so for a LONG time!

#14 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-24 03:57 PM

Re 14

"executive oversight".

lol

Executive oversight refers to the process by which a higher authority, like Congress in the legislative branch, reviews and supervises the actions of the executive branch. This includes monitoring how the executive branch implements laws, conducts investigations, and ensures accountability.

Also.. Repeating a lie over and over ad nauseam does not make it true.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-24 04:13 PM

#15 | Posted by donnerboy
Gee...I was mis-terming this whole time!
I honestly thought it meant more like:

Who oversees executive agencies?
The President of the United States
The President of the United States, after signing Congressional acts into law, oversees most executive agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing legislative requirements. Although so called "independent regulatory agencies" operate outside of the president's purview, their rules still equally apply to the public.

Who runs executive agencies?
The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.

I am SO guilty of using 'oversight' to mean 'oversee'
How funny. The principle- that the EXECUTIVE oversees agencies created by congress- is still valid.
Without this Executive Overview, congress would be free to create agencies with the main function of redirecting public funds to uncontrolled (oops, controlled only the fox in the henhouse) agencies feeding a shady network of NGOs... Oh wait, that's already happened...

"oversight", "oversee" OK got me. That was a real oversight on my part! I lacked the overview of the whole oversee oversight issue!
I honestly thought that the Executive was the constitutional check of the congress, and the Judicial (via the SC) the check of the Executive.
My face is red, but I'm laughing.

#16 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-25 01:02 AM

Also.. Repeating a lie over and over ad nauseam does not make it true.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy

Hol on, it was a honest mistake, not a lie.

#17 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-05-25 01:04 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

'You've Got No Rights' (148 comments)

Supreme Court Owes Country Explanations (54 comments)

Inflation Outpacing Wage Growth for over 40% of Americans (49 comments)

US 'strongly Rejects' French Plan to Recognize Palestine (48 comments)

Amish Kids Almost Never Get Allergies (31 comments)

US and EU Reach Trade Deal to Avoid Tariffs (27 comments)

Everyone Had Same Reaction To Video Of President Trump 'Cheating' (22 comments)

Some Republicans Aren't Backing Down from Epstein Transparency Push (22 comments)

GOP Sen. Refuses to Admit Bush, Not Obama, Was President During Epstein's Plea Deal (18 comments)

Mass Stabbing at Michigan Walmart (17 comments)