Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(164,613 posts)
14. There is no "loophole". The judge stated that it was basically nonexistent but suddenly "created" in the idiotic E.O.
Fri Aug 15, 2025, 06:38 AM
Aug 2025

From the Ruling -

(snip)

“(i)f Congress [vests appointment power in a department head], it is ordinarily the department head, rather than the President, who enjoys the power of removal.” 561 U.S. at 493. Whether Congress may codify removal protections for inferior officers—the issue referred to in the Seila Law passage—differs from the question of who possesses default removal authority under the Appointments Clause.

As the Supreme Court has maintained for centuries, “the Constitution authorizes Congress to vest [appointment and
removal power] in the head of [a] department.” In re Hennen, 38 U.S. at 260. In those Case circumstances, “the President has certainly no power to remove” an individual lawfully appointed pursuant to that authority. Id.


Defendants next argue that if Ms. Aviel is the highest-ranking executive left at the Foundation, then she must be answerable to the President. ECF No. 40, at 14. But the same could be said of any inferior officer serving at the pleasure of a principal officer once the principal officer is terminated. Defendants’ position has worrisome implications: the President could easily circumvent the general restriction on firing inferior officers by simply firing the principal officers first.

That makes no sense. The Appointments Clause, Free Enterprise Fund, and established law would mean little if they were susceptible to such a basic loophole. The President may not fire an otherwise-unfireable officer by first terminating her superiors.

(snip)


Basically the judge is saying that 45 is arguing he can "get rid of" someone he doesn't like (someone down lower in the leadership chain) who was actually appointed by someone above them (a "superior officer" ), by simply firing that person above them.

Congress will explicitly "delegate authority" (as it is dubbed) to Senate-confirmed Department/agency heads, to select their own appointees, and 45 is torpedoing that idea.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Republicons obviously hate Christ and his teachings BoRaGard Aug 2025 #1
They hate most of those teachings IbogaProject Aug 2025 #17
The only reason these illegal firings have had the effects they have is because... Hugin Aug 2025 #2
Yes, this needs to change NJCher Aug 2025 #5
Some do, but most reporters just do straight reporting and don't want to make that sort of LymphocyteLover Aug 2025 #13
Yes NJCher Aug 2025 #15
Also Congressional REPUBLICANS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THEIR GUY BREAKING THE LAW LymphocyteLover Aug 2025 #12
THIS is how he's so powerful. bluestarone Aug 2025 #16
Neither do Quanto Magnus Aug 2025 #21
Awesome MaineBlueBear Aug 2025 #3
Always gotta' get that NJCher Aug 2025 #6
Yes, lest we forget MaineBlueBear Aug 2025 #18
if that's the case NJCher Aug 2025 #19
Sounds serious Torchlight Aug 2025 #20
How are there four paragraphs here and we have no idea what the loophole in the headline is? Prairie Gates Aug 2025 #4
From the link UpInArms Aug 2025 #8
Clicking the link went right to the info wolfie001 Aug 2025 #9
Posting just the loophole paragraph would have been fine Prairie Gates Aug 2025 #10
Yes! That was the main point! wolfie001 Aug 2025 #11
There is no "loophole". The judge stated that it was basically nonexistent but suddenly "created" in the idiotic E.O. BumRushDaShow Aug 2025 #14
With 6 christo-fascist pigs sitting on the SC...... wolfie001 Aug 2025 #7
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Federal judge startled by...»Reply #14