Sightful Invest
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stock
Top Posts
Top 5 moments from Charlie Kirk’s memorial service...
Trump set to approve TikTok deal ensuring majority-American...
Harris is speaking. This time, she isn’t bending...
Hamas letter to Trump asks for 60-day ceasefire...
Trump must make UN funding conditional on real...
Democrats skip Charlie Kirk Arizona memorial after 58...
‘Due to overhelming support:’ Turning Point USA says...
Thune slams Democrats’ ‘cold-blooded partisan’ tactics as funding...
Macron stakes anti-Trump global role with Gaza initiative...
Trump assassination attempt suspect Ryan Routh questions first...
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stock

Sightful Invest

Politics

Judge tells government watchdogs fired by Trump there’s not much she can do for them

by admin March 28, 2025
March 28, 2025
Judge tells government watchdogs fired by Trump there’s not much she can do for them

Eight inspectors general abruptly fired by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term appeared in federal court Thursday to challenge their dismissals — a long-shot case that nonetheless sparked fireworks during oral arguments.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes acknowledged on Thursday that it would be difficult for the court to reinstate the eight ousted inspectors generals, who were part of a broader group of 17 government watchdogs abruptly terminated by Trump in January, just four days into his second White House term. 

In a lawsuit last month, the eight inspectors general challenged their firings as both ‘unlawful and unjustified’ and asked to be reinstated — a remedy that Reyes acknowledged Thursday would be exceedingly difficult, even if she were to find that their firings were unconstitutional.

 ‘Unless you convince me otherwise,’ she told the plaintiffs, ‘I don’t see how I could reinstate the inspectors general’ to their roles.

Reyes suggested that the best the court could do would be to order back pay, even as she told both parties, ‘I don’t think anyone can contest that the removal of these people — the way that they were fired — was a violation of the law.’

The preliminary injunction hearing comes more than a month after the eight fired inspectors general filed a lawsuit challenging their termination as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs asked the judge to restore them to their positions, noting in the filing, ‘President Trump’s attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law.’  

Still, the remedies are considered a long shot — and Trump supporters have argued that the president was well within his executive branch powers to make such personnel decisions under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy.

In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any ‘reasons’ for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons’ for terminations.

The 30-day period was a major focus of Thursday’s hearing, as the court weighed whether inspectors general can be considered ‘principal’ or inferior officers. 

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of ‘changing priorities’ from within the administration. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.

Reyes, for her part, previously did not appear to be moved by the plaintiffs’ bid for emergency relief.

She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order — a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove ‘irreparable’ and immediate harm as a result of the actions — and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

previous post
Trump’s newest executive order moves to end collective bargaining at agencies safeguarding national security
next post
HHS axes more than $300M in gender, DEI-related health grants to California alone

You may also like

Senate Republicans eye changes to Trump’s megabill after...

June 1, 2025

Jim Jordan subpoenas company led by daughter of...

August 29, 2024

Vance brands Harris a ‘coward’; Trump dinged for...

August 1, 2024

Trump’s victory could give boost to Brazil’s Bolsonaro’s...

January 10, 2025

Tracking Kamala Harris’ policy reversals: A comprehensive list...

August 15, 2024

After Trump’s tariff threat, Mexico says Canada wishes...

December 3, 2024

iPhone voice recognition controversy: ‘Racist’ converts to ‘Trump’

February 26, 2025

Faith in DOJ plummets as Biden, pardoning Hunter,...

December 4, 2024

Mitt Romney names who he thinks will be...

December 16, 2024

Conservative legal group presses agency to act on...

July 16, 2025

Recent Posts

  • Top 5 moments from Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona
  • Trump set to approve TikTok deal ensuring majority-American investor control: White House
  • Harris is speaking. This time, she isn’t bending to Biden’s bullies
  • Hamas letter to Trump asks for 60-day ceasefire deal to release half of hostages, sources say
  • Trump must make UN funding conditional on real reforms, ex-diplomat urges

    Sign up for our newsletter to receive the latest insights, updates, and exclusive content straight to your inbox! Whether it's industry news, expert advice, or inspiring stories, we bring you valuable information that you won't find anywhere else. Stay connected with us!


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Categories

    • Business (927)
    • Investing (3,032)
    • Politics (3,709)
    • Stock (4)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: sightfulinvest.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 Sightful Invest. All Rights Reserved.