President Trump has filed an emergency appeal after an activist judge ignored the Constitution and forbade him to access Treasury records. He claims, rightly so that no judge can usurp the authority of the president to deny him Presidential supervision that is mandated under Article 2 of the Constitution. This order egregiously interferes with the executive branch’s operations by limiting access to crucial Treasury Department systems. Naturally, the judge is an Obama appointment.
These radical judges who make these radical rulings should be charged with obstruction. Or, better yet, they should be charged with the same phony crime Merrick Garland threw at the J6 protesters: Obstructing an official proceeding, which was a part of the Enron case where they were shredding documents.
On Saturday, Obama appointee, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, issued an ex parte temporary restraining order. Ex parte means the “Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome.” Could the reason for the judge’s actions be that he wanted the Deep State to have enough time to shred and delete documents from records and systems before DOGE could get in and find all the fraud and abuse?
The judge’s order bans Elon Musk, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, and President Trump from looking at payments made by the Treasury Dept., including Americans’ tax returns, Social Security benefits, disability payments, and federal employee salaries. The judge also ordered all records already pulled to be destroyed. This is a blatant violation of the separation of powers and the judge needs to pay a price for it.
According to the motion:
“At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 8, 2025, this Court issued an exparteTemporary Restraining Order that purported to limit access to a vast swath of Treasury systems to only “civil servants,” while prohibiting “all political appointees” from doing the same.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELOn its face, the Order could be read to cover all political leadership within Treasury—including even Secretary Bessent.
This is a remarkable intrusion on the Executive Branch that is in direct conflict with Article II of the Constitution, and the unitary structure it provides.
There is not and cannot be a basis for distinguishing between “civil servants” and “political appointees.”Basic democratic accountability requires that every executive agency’s work be supervised by politically accountable leadership, who ultimately answer to the President.
A federal court, consistent with the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of that work from the specter of political accountability.
No court can issue an injunction that directly severs the clear line of supervision Article II requires. Because the Order on its face draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction, it should be dissolved immediately.
At minimum, the Court should either clarify or modify its Order, so as to avoid its most direct constitutional and practical hazards.As written, the injunction is markedly overbroad.
There is no sound reason that it should extend to Treasury’s leadership, who are charged with overseeing and administering the Department without interruption.
To the extent the Order applies to senior political appointees at Treasury, it is an extraordinary and unprecedented judicial interference with a Cabinet Secretary’s ability to oversee the Department he was constitutionally appointed to lead. Interfering with those basic functions, even for a day, will cause irreparable harm to the government.
By contrast, Plaintiffs have not even attempted to show how they would suffer any irreparable harm as a result of Treasury’s political leadership being excluded from the temporary injunction.
If the Court is unwilling to grant relief from its Order, the United States respectfully requests that the Order be stayed pending the disposition of any appeal that is authorized, or at a minimum that such relief be administratively stayed for a period of seven days to allow the United States to seek an emergency, expedited stay from the Court of Appeals.
To be clear, notwithstanding the Order’s defects, Defendants are in compliance with it. As described below, Defendants have taken what they believe to be all necessary steps to comply with the Court’s Order. But this is not a durable status quo.
To remedy the serious problems beget by the Order’s breadth, the Court should immediately dissolve, clarify, or modify the Order while this matter is being briefed, argued, and decided on the merits.
#trumpappeal #judicialoverreach #deepstatecoverup
