Defendants have not provided any explanation for their actions in the form of a plan or any written justification. Defendants’ actions are arbitrary and capricious and violate the agency’s statutory mandate, as well as the constitutional rights of plaintiffs and their members.
The federal judge agreed with the plaintiffs and issued the injunction. The judge also set a hearing date for next Friday, at which the administration will be required to explain its actions.
In a separate case, a federal judge in California allowed a lawsuit to proceed that challenges the administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for over 400,000 people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan. TPS provides humanitarian relief to immigrants fleeing natural disasters, civil wars, and other crises in their home countries. See Democracy Forward, Federal Judge Allows TPS Lawsuit to Proceed.
In the one setback, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., declined to issue an injunction against the administration’s plan to decertify asylum officers who refuse to follow orders to illegally turn away asylum seekers at the border. The judge’s reasoning was not available, but the case will continue. See The Hill, Federal Judge Declines to Block Trump From Reassigning Asylum Officers.
These victories and setbacks are part of the normal ebb and flow of litigation. The overall trend is that Trump and Musk are losing and will continue to lose in the courts until the day that the judiciary decides to enforce its orders with contempt proceedings and jail time for the administration’s foot-dragging and lies.
So, the fight goes on. Keep calling, keep writing, keep showing up at town hall meetings and demonstrations. We are winning and will continue to win until the coup is defeated and democracy is restored. Stay strong!
El cierre de USAID es simplemente inconstitucional. Por todos los efectos, USAID ha cesado su trabajo y ha sido desfinanciado. Cómo sucedió eso no está claro, pero la responsabilidad recae en Trump para “velar por que las leyes se ejecuten fielmente”. En cambio, los demandantes y grupos de defensa legal se ven obligados a jugar al “veinte preguntas” y a “ocultar la pelota” con abogados del DOJ fingiendo ignorancia de los hechos.