A federal appeals court on Monday temporarily blocked President Trump’s mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The court battle over Trump’s move to dismantle the agency began in March when Judge Amy Berman Jackson barred the Trump Administration from firing CFPB workers without cause.’
“Defendants shall not terminate any CFPB employee, except for cause related to the individual employee’s performance or conduct; and defendants shall not issue any notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee,” Judge Jackson wrote.
Shortly after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals greenlighted the layoffs earlier this month, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, overstepped the appeals court’s stay and blocked the Trump Administration from laying off 90% of the CFPB. She said the layoffs violate her order.
The case bounced back to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and on Monday, a three-judge panel temporarily barred Trump from the mass firings.
The three-judge panel voted 2-1 to partially lift a previous order that greenlighted Trump’s mass firings.
The majority: Pillard (Obama), Katsas (Trump), and Rao (Trump) dissented.
Judge Rao, the Trump appointee, issued a scathing dissent.
Rao blasted Judge Amy Berman Jackson and said her approach “turns the separation of powers on its head.”
“The district court overstepped our stay. Rather than remedy the judicial error, today’s order hamstrings the Executive and prevents the CFPB from downsizing until the merits of the appeal are resolved. The lack of judicially manageable standards in this posture is a reason to leave execution of the laws to the Executive, not the courts. I respectfully dissent,” Judge Rao wrote.
Judge Rao went off on Amy Berman Jackson and said the execution of laws including the management of administrative agencies is committed to Executive Branch officials under the direction of the President.
“The district court’s approach turns the separation of powers on its head. The execution of the laws, including the management of administrative agencies, is committed to Executive Branch officials under the direction of the President. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3 (requiring the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”). When agency action is challenged, courts have an essential obligation to say what the law is. But whatever the merits of this underlying lawsuit, the district court cannot erase the boundaries between the courts and the Executive by setting up a temporary judicial receivership of the CFPB. As the Supreme Court has admonished, “it is not the role of courts, but that of the political branches, to shape the institutions of government in such fashion as to comply with the laws and the Constitution.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996); see also Dan Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 2.9(5) (2d ed. 1993) (“[J]udicial control of legislative or executive branch decisions interferes substantially with the separation of powers system of government. If the judicial interference is substantial, judges themselves may lose their distinctive judicial character if they become managers of executive departments by way of injunction.”).” Judge Rao wrote.
