I am going to state that in the earlier decision where Roberts and Coney Dog sided with the court progressives I was perturbed so the edition of coffee and covid from Jeff Childers this morning was a pleasant read and reminder of our tendency to extrapolate doom whenever a decision does fit our desires. I suspect many regulars may have read already but if you haven't here's the link:
Mark's next post addresses the next decision and this helps see where this all might be going. As always, Mark you are doing yeoman's work keep us informed and grounded to reality. Thanks!
Thanks for that link. It's very good. He's saying things that I was thinking last night but, quite frankly, am not learned enough in the law to express easily or at all. Let me add a few thoughts that he left out, because no one can sit down and fully analyze what's going on overnight.
First, re the whole TRO thing. By extending it the whole question of whether a TRO is at all appropriate is raised front and center. TRO's are supposed to be for emergency type situations. With all this back and forth there is now direct pressure on Ali to switch to temporary injunction mode. And to do that he'll have to get into substance--why the plaintiffs are likely to win. But ...
Second, that gets Ali into the jurisdiction issue. The dissent brought that up and underlined it--as did I. Ali will need to state how he comes to have jurisdiction in this case in the first place. Which he doesn't. Because ...
Third, this is a contract dispute for payment between contractors and the US government. Those disputes are handled by the US Court of Claims, NOT a US District Court. Which is why the dissent points to that jurisdiction thing out. The demand for "clarification" also points directly at jurisdiction, demanding that Ali get into substantive issues--which will require a jurisdiction statement.
Childers does briefly allude to the business about "feasibility" and timelines. Since Trump was fully within his rights to stop funding for USAID going forward, the case or controversy here can only be about whether contractors who have performed work should get paid--but that will depend on circumstances (how much work was performed, was the work performed up to what was specified in the contract, etc. etc. etc.). That's what the US Court of Claims is all about. And those considerations don't sorted out in a day. Outside of the business of US sovereign immunity--the USG could actually refuse to allow itself to be sued (and, again, I'm not learned enough in the law to go into that).
Hi Mark, Thanks for your reply and the color commentary (so to speak), the added context is helpful and one can relax (well sort of) and watch this play out.
Cosmo is right on, and Childers does provide very useful information and advice: wait for calmer waters before letting emotions take you/me in a direction we might regret.
And Mr. Wauck, you deserve credit for openness to hear Childers [and others]. There is lots for us non-legal types to try and digest or understand; and where we benefit from people like Jeff Childers (Coffee & Covid) and Robert Barnes (VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com). Thanks for ALL your work and effort on our side of the 'barracade'.
I am going to state that in the earlier decision where Roberts and Coney Dog sided with the court progressives I was perturbed so the edition of coffee and covid from Jeff Childers this morning was a pleasant read and reminder of our tendency to extrapolate doom whenever a decision does fit our desires. I suspect many regulars may have read already but if you haven't here's the link:
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/little-red-hens-thursday-march-6?publication_id=463409&post_id=158516513&isFreemail=true&r=8t0x5&triedRedirect=true
Mark's next post addresses the next decision and this helps see where this all might be going. As always, Mark you are doing yeoman's work keep us informed and grounded to reality. Thanks!
Thanks for that link. It's very good. He's saying things that I was thinking last night but, quite frankly, am not learned enough in the law to express easily or at all. Let me add a few thoughts that he left out, because no one can sit down and fully analyze what's going on overnight.
First, re the whole TRO thing. By extending it the whole question of whether a TRO is at all appropriate is raised front and center. TRO's are supposed to be for emergency type situations. With all this back and forth there is now direct pressure on Ali to switch to temporary injunction mode. And to do that he'll have to get into substance--why the plaintiffs are likely to win. But ...
Second, that gets Ali into the jurisdiction issue. The dissent brought that up and underlined it--as did I. Ali will need to state how he comes to have jurisdiction in this case in the first place. Which he doesn't. Because ...
Third, this is a contract dispute for payment between contractors and the US government. Those disputes are handled by the US Court of Claims, NOT a US District Court. Which is why the dissent points to that jurisdiction thing out. The demand for "clarification" also points directly at jurisdiction, demanding that Ali get into substantive issues--which will require a jurisdiction statement.
Childers does briefly allude to the business about "feasibility" and timelines. Since Trump was fully within his rights to stop funding for USAID going forward, the case or controversy here can only be about whether contractors who have performed work should get paid--but that will depend on circumstances (how much work was performed, was the work performed up to what was specified in the contract, etc. etc. etc.). That's what the US Court of Claims is all about. And those considerations don't sorted out in a day. Outside of the business of US sovereign immunity--the USG could actually refuse to allow itself to be sued (and, again, I'm not learned enough in the law to go into that).
Hi Mark, Thanks for your reply and the color commentary (so to speak), the added context is helpful and one can relax (well sort of) and watch this play out.
Cosmo is right on, and Childers does provide very useful information and advice: wait for calmer waters before letting emotions take you/me in a direction we might regret.
And Mr. Wauck, you deserve credit for openness to hear Childers [and others]. There is lots for us non-legal types to try and digest or understand; and where we benefit from people like Jeff Childers (Coffee & Covid) and Robert Barnes (VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com). Thanks for ALL your work and effort on our side of the 'barracade'.
Thanks for you comments!
Tx for Whelan’s very clear commentary. Ali may have bit off more than he can chew! As you remark, this affair isn’t over.
I smell Norm Eisen in Judge Ali's chambers.
I think it’s stuff like this that Shakespeare was thinking about when he mentioned lawyers.
Thanks Mark. I'll leave the legal issues to you.
Agreed. This is real smoke and mirrors stuff. Let's hope it works out correctly, because lawfare has been one of the Dems' major weapons.