Federal judge: NM suit against Musk & DOGE can proceed
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office announced on Tuesday that District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, from the District of Columbia, had denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss a lawsuit by more than a dozen states, and co-led by New Mexico, against Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
The lawsuit, filed in February, alleges President Trump 'delegated virtually unchecked authority to [Musk] without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities.' A federal judge that same month rejected the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order against DOGE and President Donald Trump.
New Mexico sues Elon Musk
In her ruling, Chutkan writes that two states, New Mexico and Washington, 'allege sufficient injuries' to satisfy standing under Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal judicial power. In the case of New Mexico, Chutkan notes that New Mexico's Mining and Minerals Division has been unable to access federal funding via Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants, which it relies on to 'safeguard…thousands of abandoned mines and associated hazards' across the state.
She wrote that the court also found 'New Mexico's allegations that Defendants gained unauthorized access to its private and proprietary information sufficient to allege an injury.'
In describing the suit in February, Torrez said it posed a 'novel' question for the courts to consider, which is that Musk's actions constitute 'a fundamental restructuring of constitutional order and a violation of the rule of law.'
Specifically, the suit argues that DOGE's actions violate the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and the Appointments Clause, specifically the portion that requires executive appointments to have congressional oversight.
In her analysis, Chutkan notes that the U.S. Constitution does not allow 'the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to Executive Order and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an 'advisor' in name only. This is precisely what Plaintiffs claim the Executive has done.'
While Chutkan allowed the suit to proceed, she did agree to dismiss President Trump as a defendant.
Following Chutkan's ruling on Tuesday, Torrez released a statement calling the decision 'an important milestone for preserving America's system of checks and balances.' The AGs filed the case, he said, 'to defend the Constitution and stop the dangerous precedent of allowing billionaire donors to dismantle federal agencies, cut vital public programs, and access sensitive state data without lawful authority. We are proud to move this case forward and help bring Elon Musk's reign of terror to an end.'
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement noted that, 'The Constitution, and the Appointments Clause, are not mere roadblocks for this administration to ignore. I look forward to continuing this case in court.'
Torrez noted that the case will continue even if Musk is gone. 'No one should be allowed to outsource the presidency to one of their billionaire friends or exercise executive authority without the advice and consent of the Senate,' he said in a statement. 'This is about the rule of law, plain and simple.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
3 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California Supreme Court clears way for Newsom's redistricting plan
The state Supreme Court opened the door Wednesday to plans by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to redraw California's congressional districts in a gerrymander designed to pick up five seats, rejecting a Republican legal challenge. A lawsuit Monday by legislative Republicans contended the hastily drafted ballot measure, scheduled for votes in both houses on Thursday, has not been published long enough to meet the public-notice requirements in the state Constitution. But the court dismissed the suit Wednesday in a brief order with little explanation. The Republican lawmakers 'have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time under (the) California Constitution,' the court said. Six justices, all appointed by Democratic governors, endorsed the order, while Justice Carol Corrigan, the only Republican appointee, was absent and did not participate, the court said. Newsom proposed the ballot measure, titled the Election Rigging Response Act, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced legislation to redraw the state's House districts and enable Republicans to pick up five seats in next year's elections. Democrats currently hold 43 of California's 52 House seats. The governor's measure, if approved by two-thirds majorities in both the Assembly and state Senate — where Democrats hold more than two-thirds of the seats — would redesign California's House seats for the rest of this decade in response to changes in Texas or any other state. Ballot measures approved by the voters in 2008 and 2010 established a bipartisan, independent commission to draft congressional and legislative districts in California, a task previously left up to state legislators, who design districts in most states. Newsom's proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, would temporarily suspend that commission if approved by a majority of the voters in November. While California law does not allow legislative action on a proposed measure until 30 days after it has been introduced, Democrats apparently sidestepped that deadline with a longstanding practice known as 'gut and amend' — using other legislation that had been pending for more than 30 days, erasing the contents and replacing them with the redistricting language. That was apparently enough to defeat the Republicans' lawsuit. Other Republican lawmakers, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, have promised additional challenges under the California Constitution and federal election laws.
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance scoffs at ‘idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic' Trump's social media style
Vice President JD Vance criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Wednesday for trying to 'mimic' President Trump's style on social media. In an interview on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle,' the vice president said Newsom's revamped approach to online messaging misses the 'fundamental genius' that has fueled Trump's appeal. 'This idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic Donald Trump's style — I think that ignores the fundamental genius of President Trump's political success,' Vance said, 'which is that he's authentic.' 'He just is who he is,' Vance added. The comments came after Fox News host Laura Ingraham noted Democrats 'are still doing their 2024 autopsy' and seem to have concluded that they need to be tougher and 'be more like Trump in tone' to win future elections. Vance said that lesson is misguided. 'Look, the autopsy for the Democrats — some free political advice from the president of the United States — is stop sounding like crazy people,' Vance said. 'That really is all it is.' 'You've got to be yourself,' Vance added after criticizing Newsom's approach. 'You've actually got to talk to people honestly about the issues. I don't think it's that complicated: Don't be a crazy person. Be authentic.' Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, in recent days has rolled out a revamped messaging strategy that mirrors Trump's signature social media style. The California governor has posted rants in all-caps letters, he's assigned nicknames to his political opponents, and he's referred to his legislative proposals and political rallies as 'beautiful.' While Newsom's approach has been embraced by many Democrats, who have struggled to find their footing since losing the 2024 election, the governor has faced criticism from some Republicans and Fox News hosts. 'FOX HATES THAT I AM AMERICA'S MOST FAVORITE GOVERNOR ('RATINGS KING') SAVING AMERICA,' Newsom's office posted earlier this week, responding to that criticism.
Axios
3 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump administration imposes fresh sanctions on ICC officials
The Trump administration announced fresh sanctions on International Criminal Court officials on Wednesday and accused the ICC of being a "national security threat" and "instrument for lawfare" against the U.S. and Israel. The big picture: The intergovernmental organization and international tribunal in a statement called the latest U.S. sanctions that affect two judges and two prosecutors "a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution." Driving the news: Rubio said in a statement posted to the State Department's website that the sanctions were in response to the "ICC's Ongoing Threat to Americans and Israelis." The sanctioned officials "directly engaged" in ICC efforts "to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation." The latest penalties that effective freeze assets and bar officials from entering the U.S. affect ICC judges Kimberly Prost, of Canada, and Nicolas Guillou, of France, and prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan, of Fiji, and Mame Mandiaye Niang, of Senegal, according to the statement. State of play: President Trump first imposed sanctions on ICC officials in a February executive order, some three months after the court that neither the U.S. nor Israel recognizes issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the war in Gaza. In June, Rubio announced sanctions on four ICC judges over the arrest warrants and also due to the court's investigation into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. Zoom in: "Prost is being designated for ruling to authorize the ICC's investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan," per a State Department statement. Guillou was targeted for ruling to authorize the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, while the statement said Shameem Khan and Niang were being designated "for continuing to support illegitimate ICC actions against Israel." This included the upholding of the arrest warrants.
