A federal judge found the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law.” Image: Tupungato/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffA federal district court has granted summary judgment that a March executive order that “had the effect of dismantling” four small agencies exceeded presidential powers by “withholding already appropriated federal funding” from them and preventing them from carrying out the missions set out for them by Congress.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island earlier had issued a permanent injunction in favor of nearly two dozen state governments in a case involving the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. They were among seven agencies the executive order told to reduce their operations and personnel “to the minimum presence and function required by law.”
In response to the executive order, the court wrote, the agencies “fired, placed on administrative leave, or reassigned all or almost all employees” and canceled grants and programs for the public, leaving them “unable to carry out their statutorily mandated functions and unable to spend their congressionally appropriated funds.”
An appeals court had refused to block the earlier injunction, sending the case back to the trial court for a ruling on the merits—which that court has now granted in favor of the states.
“By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: may the Executive Branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the Legislative Branch? In recent months, this Court—along with other courts across the country—has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here,” Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. wrote.
The “decision to eliminate programs, terminate grants, and implement large-scale employee RIFs undermined their ability to perform functions mandated by statute. This is clearly not an action committed to agency discretion by law, and many courts have reached the same conclusion in similar cases,” he wrote. He similarly ruled that the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law.”
The Trump administration regularly has appealed adverse court rulings in federal workplace disputes, an appeal that in this case would go to the same circuit court that earlier had allowed the first injunction to remain in effect.
Conversions to Schedule P/C Pending; Acknowledgement Form Draws Attention
Federal Employee Survey Shows Plummeting Views on Engagement, Leadership, Performance
OPM Takeovers of RIF, Suitability Appeals Diminish Legal Rights, Unions Say
Judge Orders VA to Reinstate Union Contract for 320,000 Workers
Retirement Application Processing Backlog Nearly Doubles in Four Months
See also,
Calculating Service Credit for Sick Leave At Retirement
FERS Supplement vs The 10% Pension Bonus
How Your FERS, Social Security and TSP Payments Get Taxed
Where Should I Put My TSP in Retirement
