Friday seems to be lining up solidly in the win column for the Trump administration, particularly in the courts. (Yes, you read that right.) The Supreme Court handed the administration not one, but two favorable rulings late Friday.
First, in the case styled American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. SSA, challenging DOGE access to personal financial records, the court granted the administration’s application to stay the case pending appeal.
In March, Maryland District Court Judge Ellen Hollander granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), and then in April, granted their motion for a preliminary injunction. The administration appealed the case to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the administration’s motion for a stay. In early May, the administration filed its application for stay with the Supreme Court.
READ MORE: Trump Administration Files Emergency Appeal With SCOTUS After Fed Judge Blocks DOGE From SSA Access
In granting the stay application, the court stated:
When considering whether to grant a stay, this Court looks to four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U. S. 770, 776 (1987)). After review, we determine that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay. We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.
The practical effect here is, as noted above, that the SSA DOGE team may proceed with its work accessing necessary agency records while the case remains pending on appeal before the 4th Circuit.
The court’s three liberal members disagreed with granting the stay, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issuing a written dissent, in which Justice Sonya Sotomayor joined.
The second win for the administration comes in the case of CREW v. DOGE, involving the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and efforts by the plaintiff (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — one of Norm Eisen’s babies, by the way) to have DOGE declared an agency subject to FOIA requests and requiring the preservation of records under the Federal Records Act.
In March, Judge Christopher Cooper of the D.C. District Court granted, in part, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In April, he ordered expedited discovery. The administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, seeking a writ of mandamus quashing Cooper’s order based on the separation of powers and asserting that DOGE is an advisory body, not an agency subject to such requests.
The D.C. Circuit initially issued an administrative stay, but subsequently dissolved that and denied the administration’s petition for writ of mandamus. The administration then filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court. In May (also on a Friday), Chief Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay.
READ MORE: Chief Justice Roberts Hands Trump Administration Another Win, This One Regarding DOGE
Earlier on Friday, Roberts referred the application to the full court, and the court subsequently entered an order granting the stay pending appeal and treating it like a petition for certiorari, vacating the D.C. Circuit’s denial of the writ of mandamus and sending it back to them “for further consideration in light of this order.”
Further, the Supreme Court ruled:
The portions of the District Court’s April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored. Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications. Cf. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 385 (2004) (“[S]pecial considerations control when the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated.”). On remand of the case, the Court of Appeals should take appropriate action to narrow the April 15 discovery order consistent with this order.
The order also stays the district court’s orders while the court of appeals gets its stuff together. And, again, of course, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson disagreed with the decision and would have denied the application.
If reading all of the above made your head spin, here it is in a nutshell: The Supreme Court pressed pause in favor of the Trump administration on two different cases involving DOGE.
Editor’s Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people
Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
