Well, that was a rather startling decision, albeit one that will surely be cheered by the Trump administration.
According to a report from Fox News, an especially contentious Supreme Court case – which pertained to the 16,000 or so probationary federal workers that were dismissed within a DOGE frenzy – has gone in favor of the Trump administration, much to the outrage of the Democrats.
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with the Trump administration and upheld the mass firing of tens of thousands of probationary federal employees, granting a request for an emergency administrative stay on a lower court order blocking the firings.
The majority of the high court ruled that the plaintiffs, nine non-profit organizations who had sued to reinstate the employees, lacked standing to sue,” Fox News noted.
Once again, it would appear that dotting all “i’s” and crossing all “t’s” is crucial in virtually any circumstance.
Especially circumstances that involve the court.
“The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing,” the court order noted.
In other words, sufficient evidence is necessary for supporting any court case, which should be known to any attorney worth his or her salt.
Naturally, the media spun the Supreme Court victory has negatively as possible, strongly implying that the Trump administration is ultimately in the wrong.
“Supreme Court lets Trump move forward with firing thousands of federal workers,” NPR gloomily announcedin its headline.
“Lets.” One of the many ways in which word choices can shift the entire story.
“Without addressing the question of whether the terminations themselves were lawful, the court in an unsigned order said the nonprofits that brought the case did not have legal standing to sue over federal employees’ firings,” NPR declared.
Odd that no attorney thought through every last aspect of the legal process, especially as virtually any case can be dismissed on a technicality.
“Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have kept the firings paused while the case plays out in the lower courts,” NPR noted.
Well, no surprise there. The only surprise is that those justices didn’t have more support.
“Judge William Haskell Alsup, a District Court judge in San Francisco appointed by then-President Bill Clinton, initially ruled that while the unions had no legal standing to bring the case, the nonprofits did have standing because they depend on government services and say they’re negatively affected by the government’s reduced capacity,” NPR continued.
So, the Trump administration knocked out the influence of a Clinton-appointed judge?
Apparently, the Supreme Court victory was great in more ways than one for the current leadership.
“That being said, the Supreme Court’s stay, which allows the administration to execute the firings for now, while it litigates in federal court, does not mean the terminations were lawful. The high court did not address those questions Tuesday, and it left the door open for other parties, with better standing arguments, to bring a case in the future,” NPR added.
In other words, NPR is salivating at the opportunity for another case to be brought against Trump over federal workers.
In the meantime, it is clear that the Supreme Court has certainly acquiesced to numerous Trump-originated decisions.
Author: Jane Jones
