This appeared a day or so ago….
Judge extends brake on Musk’s Treasury raid, summons
Trump to court
Hurubie
Meko and Qasim Nauman
Feb 9, 2025 –
10.41am
A US federal
judge in New York has temporarily restricted access by Elon Musk’s government
efficiency program to the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems,
saying there was a risk of “irreparable harm”.
The Trump
administration’s new policy of allowing political appointees and “special
government employees” access to these systems, which contain highly sensitive
information such as bank details, heightens the risk of leaks and of the
systems becoming more vulnerable than before to hacking, US District Judge Paul
Engelmayer said in an emergency order late on Saturday (Sunday AEDT).
Judge
Engelmayer ordered any such official who had been granted access to the systems
since January 20 to “destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the
Treasury Department’s records and systems”. He also restricted the Trump
administration from granting access to those categories of officials.
The
defendants – President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the
Treasury Department – must appear in February before Judge Jeannette Vargas,
who is handling the case on a permanent basis, Judge Engelmayer said.
The White
House called the ruling “absurd and judicial overreach” and attacked the judge
as an “activist”.
“Grandstanding
government efficiency speaks volumes about those who’d rather delay much-needed
change with legal shenanigans than work with the Trump administration,”
Harrison Fields, a spokesman, said in a statement.
Fundamental
test
The situation
could pose a fundamental test of America’s rule of law. If the administration
fails to comply with the emergency order, it is unclear how it might be
enforced. The Constitution says that a president “shall take Care that the Laws
be faithfully executed”, but courts have rarely been tested by a chief
executive who has ignored their orders.
Federal
officials have sometimes responded to adverse decisions with dawdling or
grudging compliance. Outright disobedience is exceedingly rare. There has been
no clear example of “open presidential defiance of court orders in the years
since 1865”, according to a Harvard Law Review article published in
2018.
Saturday’s
order came in response to a lawsuit filed on Friday
by New York Attorney-General Letitia James along with 18 other Democratic state
attorneys-general, charging that when Mr Trump had given
Mr Musk the run of government computer systems, he had breached protections
enshrined in the Constitution and “failed to faithfully execute the laws
enacted by Congress”.
The lawsuit
was joined by the attorneys-general of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont
and Wisconsin.
They said the
president had given “virtually unfettered access” to the federal government’s
most sensitive information to young aides who worked for Mr Musk, who runs a
program the administration calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or
DOGE.
While the
group was supposedly assigned to cut costs, members are “attempting to access
government data to support initiatives to block federal funds from reaching
certain disfavoured beneficiaries”, according to the suit. Musk has publicly
stated his intention to “recklessly freeze streams of federal funding without
warning”, the suit said, pointing to his social media posts in recent days.
In her own
social media post on Saturday, Ms James reiterated that members of the
cost-cutting team “must destroy all records they’ve obtained” and added, “I’ve
said before, and I’ll say it again: no one is above the law,” she wrote.
New Jersey’s
attorney-general, Matthew J. Platkin, said in a post on Saturday that the
injunction meant “the world’s richest man has been stopped from stealing your
data”.
Efforts to
reach press officers at the White House were not immediately successful.
In a
statement on Thursday, after the attorneys-general said they would sue, a
spokesperson for the president said that Mr Musk’s team was acting legally.
“Slashing waste, fraud and abuse, and becoming better stewards of the American
taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars might be a crime to Democrats, but it’s not a
crime in a court of law,” said the spokesperson, Harrison Fields.
Although the
court order mandates an immediate halt to Mr Musk’s employees’ access to the
Treasury Department’s payment system, it was not immediately clear when or if
they would fully comply. Nor was it clear how the attorneys-general would
monitor the administration’s actions.
In a previous
action, 23 attorneys-general sued Mr Trump’s freeze of federal grants and won a
temporary pause on January 31, with a judge ordering the administration to stop
withholding funds. However, on Friday, the coalition appealed to the judge
again, saying that the money was still being withheld from states, grantees and
programs.
Musk
unconstrained
Mr Trump has
had scant success in the courts in years past. His first administration
succeeded in only about 23 per cent of the legal challenges against the actions
of his agencies, a review found, while prior administrations won about 70 per
cent of the time.
But Mr
Trump’s new term is already a thing apart.
The
administration’s “shock and awe” approach since he was inaugurated last month
has seen new policies and actions arrive at breakneck speed. On his first day
in office, Mr Trump pardoned members of the mob that attacked the Capitol on
January 6, 2021. He has signed dozens of executive orders, withdrawn the
country from international agreements and even tried to install himself as
chair of the John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts in Washington.
The
aggressive approach is beginning to be tested by scores of lawsuits on a host
of issues, but the legal system’s ability to restrain the administration
remains uncertain.
If federal
officials fail to comply with the Saturday order limiting DOGE, the judge may
hold them in contempt, said Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and
a former federal prosecutor in New York City. Courts have done that in the
past, he said, “albeit rarely.”
“A contempt
citation can come with fines, more likely imposed on the officials rather than
the government itself, and even possible imprisonment,” Mr Richman said.
In 2002,
then-interior secretary Gale Norton was held in contempt for failing to fix the
department’s management of billions of dollars in royalties earned on American
Indian land. The following year, a federal appeals court found that she could
not be held in criminal contempt for problems that existed before her tenure.
Although
contempt findings can be “devoid of sanction, they nonetheless have a shaming
effect”, which is often enough to spur officials to compliance, Nicholas
Parrillo, a professor at Yale Law School, wrote in the 2018 Harvard Law
Review article.
However, he
wrote, the “rise of partisan polarisation could potentially fracture the
pro-compliance community so badly that members of one party would refuse to
acknowledge the shame of a contempt finding against a member of their own
camp”.
Since Mr
Trump entered office last month, Musk has so far been unconstrained. When DOGE
first turned its attention to the Treasury Department, a top official refused
to give members access, leading to a standoff. The official, David Lebryk, was
put on leave before suddenly retiring.
Almost
immediately, Mr Musk’s team was given access to the government’s most
fundamental computer data, including the US Treasury Department’s payment
system, which is used to disburse funds including Social Security benefits,
veterans’ benefits and federal employee wages.
The system –
which channels about 90 per cent of the payments for the US government, which
spent about $US6.75 trillion last fiscal year – pays funds directly to people
in the states as well as to state governments, the suit says.
Before Mr
Trump took office last month, access was granted only to a limited number of
career civil servants with security clearances, the suit said. But Mr Musk’s
efforts had interrupted federal funding for health clinics, preschools and
climate initiatives, according to the filing.
The money had
already been allocated by Congress. The Constitution assigns to legislators the
job of deciding government spending.
“President
Trump does not have the power to give away Americans’ private information to
anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress,” Ms
James said in a statement. “Musk and DOGE have no authority to access
Americans’ private information and some of our country’s most sensitive data.”
Here is the link:
https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/judge-extends-brake-on-elon-musk-s-treasury-raid-summons-trump-to-court-20250209-p5lanh
It will be interesting to see if the
centre holds here and that if Mt Musk is contained in what he can actually do
without due and proper process! The next month or two will be very interesting
I believe!
My view is that Mr Musk should stick
to making cars and rocket-ships which he seems pretty good at and let the
system get on with what is has done for the last few hundred years!
Will be fun to see how it all plays
out!
David.