Obama judge refuses to block DOGE from firing deep-staters, disappointing blue-state AGs

Democratic attorneys general from 14 states
filed a lawsuit last week seeking to immediately bar the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency from firing or furloughing deep-staters, canceling government contracts, accessing sensitive agency data, and “taking steps to dismantle agencies.”

The blue-state AGs, who accused President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, made their bid in a sympathetic court to a sympathetic judge —
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, a leftist Obama appointee who presided over Trump’s election obstruction case, handed down sentences to Jan. 6 protesters far in excess of prosecutors’ requests, and vigorously fought the first Trump administration.

Chutkan surprised the Democratic AGs Tuesday by denying their motion for a temporary restraining order against the DOGE. Chutkan did, however, concern-monger about Elon Musk’s supposed “unchecked authority.”

“Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight,”
wrote Chutkan.

The complaint noted that the DOGE “has inserted itself into at least 17 federal agencies.”

When highlighting instances where the DOGE has worked to maximize government efficiency and remedy bureaucratic bloat, the Democratic AGs appeared especially bitter about the Trump administration’s efforts to clean up the
U.S. Agency for International Development.

‘Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.’

The Democratic AGs further claimed in their lawsuit that Musk “has unprecedented and seemingly limitless access across the federal government,” “has and continues to assert the powers of an ‘Officer of the United States’ under the Appointments Clause,” and is therefore “far more than an adviser to the White House.”

Joshua Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, countered the claims about the nature of Musk’s role in a court filing Monday,
indicating that Musk is both a senior adviser to the president and a non-career special government employee — like Anita Dunn, who operated in a similar capacity in the Biden White House.

“In his role as a Senior Advisor to the President, Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors,” wrote Fisher. “Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.”

While Chutkan echoed the Democrats’ misgivings about Musk, she noted that since “it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority … it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs.”

“The current record does not meet that standard,” added Chutkan.

Justice Department attorneys similarly suggested that plaintiffs in the case failed to show that their states had been directly harmed by any of the actions taken by the DOGE thus far,
reported the New York Times.

“An appointment clause claim is entirely about somebody occupying an office and using the trappings of that office to wield sovereign power,” said Harry Graver, a DOJ attorney. “Nowhere have my friends offered a shred of anything, nor could they, to show that Elon Musk has any formal or actual authority to make any government decision himself.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!