Sightful Invest
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Stock
Top Posts
Kevin Hassett ‘very, very confident’ courts will back...
Rand Paul says he would support ‘big, beautiful...
Trump’s 20th week in office to include White...
Polish conservative Karol Nawrocki wins presidential election to...
Will the Trump Cabinet undo Musk’s DOGE legacy...
Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating...
Fetterman, McCormick react to ‘astonishing’ Boulder attack on...
As Musk exits DOGE, a look back at...
‘Red tape’: Trump admin unleashes DOGE-aligned process to...
Lithium Universe LtdSpodumene Offtake Update
  • 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

Democrat Bob Casey concedes Pennsylvania Senate race to...

November 22, 2024

Trump pledges to release files on JFK, MLK...

January 20, 2025

JD Vance takes shot at Harris as he...

March 21, 2025

Trump foe Mitt Romney resists endorsing Harris

October 10, 2024

War torn regions have keen interest in US...

October 30, 2024

Fox News Poll: Obama, RFK Jr., and Taylor...

October 18, 2024

Trump dispels rumors he will seek to ban...

December 17, 2024

Trump fills latest Cabinet spots as Jan. 20...

January 11, 2025

Trump-district Democrat warns party ‘in trouble’ ahead of...

March 25, 2025

Oprah town hall cost Harris campaign far more...

November 18, 2024

Recent Posts

  • Kevin Hassett ‘very, very confident’ courts will back Trump’s tariffs amid legal setback
  • Rand Paul says he would support ‘big, beautiful bill’ if debt ceiling hike removed
  • Trump’s 20th week in office to include White House meeting with European leader, expected call with Xi
  • Polish conservative Karol Nawrocki wins presidential election to succeed Duda
  • Will the Trump Cabinet undo Musk’s DOGE legacy now that he’s gone?

    Become a VIP member by signing up for our newsletter. Enjoy exclusive content, early access to sales, and special offers just for you! As a VIP, you'll receive personalized updates, loyalty rewards, and invitations to private events. Elevate your experience and join our exclusive community today!


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

    Categories

    • Business (752)
    • Investing (2,227)
    • Politics (2,757)
    • Stock (4)
    • About 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 © 2024 Sightful Invest. All Rights Reserved.