I don't mean to oversell it — there are still plenty of judges and courts who can't get past their instinct to resist executive actions taken by the Trump administration, whether there's a solid legal basis for doing so or not. And the final (judicial) word hasn't been had really in any of the cases involving the administration just yet. Still, a win's a win, and Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed another one to the Trump administration with its judgment vacating the district court's preliminary injunction, which blocked the dismantling of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Back in March, D.C. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson (an Obama appointee) issued a preliminary injunction (complete with a 112-page opinion) maintaining "the agency’s existence until this case has been resolved on the merits, reinstating and preserving the agency’s contracts, work force, data, and operational capacity, and protecting and facilitating the employees’ ability to perform statutorily required activities."
READ MORE: District Court Judge Blocks Dismantling of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Mass Firings, Restrains Acting CFPB Director Vought From Doing Job
In a 2-1 decision entered Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the injunction entered by Jackson and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judge Gregory Katsas (a Trump appointee) authored the majority opinion, in which Judge Neomi Rao (also a Trump appointee) joined. Judge Cornelia Pillard (an Obama appointee) authored the dissent.
Katsas sums up the rationale of the decision in the first paragraph:
To promote the deregulatory agenda, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau undertook a series of actions to substantially downsize the agency. These actions included terminating employees, cancelling contracts, declining additional funding, moving to smaller headquarters, and requiring advance approval for agency work. The plaintiffs in this case either represent CFPB employees or use services provided by the agency. They sued to stop what they describe as a decision to “shut down” the Bureau. The district court found that agency leadership had made such a decision and then entered a preliminary injunction severely restricting agency actions regarding employment, contracting, and facilities, among other things. We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims predicated on loss of employment, which must proceed through the specialized-review scheme established in the Civil Service Reform Act. And the other plaintiffs’ claims target neither final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act nor unconstitutional action reviewable in equity. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction.
And Another One: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Injunction on USAID Funding
As with so many decisions, this one comes with the caveat that a motion for rehearing en banc is likely, and this may well be one of those that the full court hears and reverses. (And then on to the Supreme Court it will, no doubt, go.) That said, this marks the third appellate court ruling this week in favor of the administration and serves to highlight that the slow and steady legal strategy being pursued by the administration is likely to pay dividends in the long run.
Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.