This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

Yesterday, on President's Day, there were a series of protests in major cities and state capitals across the country against the purge of the federal bureaucracy by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. The rallies followed a series of Trump executive orders and came just days after the layoffs of thousands of federal workers inside departments focused on public health, education, veterans affairs, and human services. In some cases, Musk's team is trying to shutter entire agencies, including the Department of Education and the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with Trump's blessing, but without Congressional approval, Thus the chance of where is Congress and do your job? Trump's actions have drawn dozens of lawsuits challenging the moves as unconstitutional and an unlawful executive power grab. Joining me is constitutional law expert Trevor Morrison, a professor at NYU Law School. Trump is issuing executive order after executive order, covering all kinds of areas, from immigration to federal workers. Why does flurry of executive orders?

Yesterday, on President's Day, there were a series of protests in major cities and state capitals across the country against the purge of the federal bureaucracy by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. The rallies followed a series of Trump executive orders and came just days after the layoffs of thousands of federal workers inside departments focused on public health, education, veterans affairs, and human services. In some cases, Musk's team is trying to shutter entire agencies, including the Department of Education and the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with Trump's blessing, but without Congressional approval, Thus the chance of where is Congress and do your job? Trump's actions have drawn dozens of lawsuits challenging the moves as unconstitutional and an unlawful executive power grab. Joining me is constitutional law expert Trevor Morrison, a professor at NYU Law School. Trump is issuing executive order after executive order, covering all kinds of areas, from immigration to federal workers. Why does flurry of executive orders?

Well, I think it's not unusual for there to be a flurry of executive orders signed by a new president. President Obama when he was born in signed just in the first few days of his first term a number of executive orders across a wide range subject areas, including guantanam obey and enemy combatants in all manner of other issues, and so that by itself is not surprising, although even by those historical standards, the total volume of executive way that Trump is signed is very large. But it's not so much that there are all these executive orders. It's the content of them, and it's certain themes that are recurring across these executive orders, really almost without regard to the subject matter, and a key one there. This isn't true for all of the executive orders, but it's true for many of them that they involve assertions of presidential power that cannot possibly be reconciled with binding federal statutory law. So laws that Congress has passed in the area. The president's asserting a kind of constitutional authority to take some action, or just a general prerogative to take some kind of action, and frequently isn't even bothering to acknowledge the statute that his action would violate or conflict with let alone attempt to justify why the president could act in the face of those contrary commands. And that's the assertion of power that I think is so breathtaking, frankly, and is being challenged in multiple different lawsuits right now. Of course. But you can sign executive orders and put them out there a lot more quickly than courts can respond and evaluate their legality, so that response will take time, whatever it is.

Well, I think it's not unusual for there to be a flurry of executive orders signed by a new president. President Obama when he was born in signed just in the first few days of his first term a number of executive orders across a wide range subject areas, including guantanam obey and enemy combatants in all manner of other issues, and so that by itself is not surprising, although even by those historical standards, the total volume of executive way that Trump is signed is very large. But it's not so much that there are all these executive orders. It's the content of them, and it's certain themes that are recurring across these executive orders, really almost without regard to the subject matter, and a key one there. This isn't true for all of the executive orders, but it's true for many of them that they involve assertions of presidential power that cannot possibly be reconciled with binding federal statutory law. So laws that Congress has passed in the area. The president's asserting a kind of constitutional authority to take some action, or just a general prerogative to take some kind of action, and frequently isn't even bothering to acknowledge the statute that his action would violate or conflict with let alone attempt to justify why the president could act in the face of those contrary commands. And that's the assertion of power that I think is so breathtaking, frankly, and is being challenged in multiple different lawsuits right now. Of course. But you can sign executive orders and put them out there a lot more quickly than courts can respond and evaluate their legality, so that response will take time, whatever it is.

On the first day, he decided to ignore the law banning TikTok. That I mean, so that was so clear, But Congress doesn't object.

On the first day, he decided to ignore the law banning TikTok. That I mean, so that was so clear, But Congress doesn't object.

Well, that's part of the problem here. Yes, you're right. A statute that had just been evaluated by the Supreme Court the week before and upheld by a unanimous court, a statute essentially requiring that TikTok cease operations in the United States unless its parent companies sells its interest in TikTok to an entity that's not subject to being controlled by the Chinese government. That's what the law requires. Everyone agrees that the law took effect right before Trump was inaugurated, and then Trump just by executive order, announced that he's going to suspend the effectiveness of the law for I think seventy five days. The President does not have the authority to do that, and there's not even really an attempt in the Executive Order to give a theory for how anyone could think that the president has the authority to do that. All he says is, I'm the president. I'm responsible for national security. There may be other ways to deal with this issue without having to suspend TikTok's operation in the United States. I'd like to pursue those options, including presumably to see if a buyer can be found, and so I'm suspending operation of the law. He doesn't even say that this is a matter of directing the Attorney General to exercise some prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to enforce the law. We do understand that the executive branch, ultimately the President, through the Justice Department, has some inherent discretion when it comes to when and how to enforce the law, but this EO goes way beyond that. He actually directs the Attorney General to issue letters to the various platforms that would platform take talk telling them that to the extent they continue working with TikTok during this period, they are not violating the law, when of course they are violating the law, And so he has literally just suspended the effectiveness of a statute or rewritten it, as you say, that was on day one. There is no legal theory on which that executive order can be viewed to be legitimate. On the other hand, it hasn't yet been challenged in court, and at this point I'm rather doubtful that it will be challenged in court. So on this one, he's liable to get away with it because, as you say, Congress doesn't seem to have the will to stand out for its own prerogatives in this area and to insist that its laws be followed.

Well, that's part of the problem here. Yes, you're right. A statute that had just been evaluated by the Supreme Court the week before and upheld by a unanimous court, a statute essentially requiring that TikTok cease operations in the United States unless its parent companies sells its interest in TikTok to an entity that's not subject to being controlled by the Chinese government. That's what the law requires. Everyone agrees that the law took effect right before Trump was inaugurated, and then Trump just by executive order, announced that he's going to suspend the effectiveness of the law for I think seventy five days. The President does not have the authority to do that, and there's not even really an attempt in the Executive Order to give a theory for how anyone could think that the president has the authority to do that. All he says is, I'm the president. I'm responsible for national security. There may be other ways to deal with this issue without having to suspend TikTok's operation in the United States. I'd like to pursue those options, including presumably to see if a buyer can be found, and so I'm suspending operation of the law. He doesn't even say that this is a matter of directing the Attorney General to exercise some prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to enforce the law. We do understand that the executive branch, ultimately the President, through the Justice Department, has some inherent discretion when it comes to when and how to enforce the law, but this EO goes way beyond that. He actually directs the Attorney General to issue letters to the various platforms that would platform take talk telling them that to the extent they continue working with TikTok during this period, they are not violating the law, when of course they are violating the law, And so he has literally just suspended the effectiveness of a statute or rewritten it, as you say, that was on day one. There is no legal theory on which that executive order can be viewed to be legitimate. On the other hand, it hasn't yet been challenged in court, and at this point I'm rather doubtful that it will be challenged in court. So on this one, he's liable to get away with it because, as you say, Congress doesn't seem to have the will to stand out for its own prerogatives in this area and to insist that its laws be followed.

One executive order that has been challenged, and I believe we're up to four judges who have blocked it, is his order ending birthright citizenship.

One executive order that has been challenged, and I believe we're up to four judges who have blocked it, is his order ending birthright citizenship.

Yeah, narrowing birthright citizenship. That's what he's purporting to do.

Yeah, narrowing birthright citizenship. That's what he's purporting to do.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That one was guaranteed to be challenged in the courts, and as you say, has been challenged in multiple lawsuits already, and no judge who's looked at the issue has been remotely sympathetic to the Trump administration's position, which is that the Fourteenth Amendment in providing that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of the United States. His order to read that constitutional language as excluding people born in the United States to parents who entered the country unlawfully, or even to parents who are in the country lawfully but on a temporary basis, like on a student visa or a work visa. There is no justification in our constitutional history for that interpretation. It's contrary to Supreme Court precedent. It's contrary to decades of government practice, Department of Justice practice, and legal opinions issued by the Department of Justice. Again, it's not just wrong in terms of its interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment, but it conflicts with statutes that Congress has passed recognize an entitlement to birthright citizenship that would cover everyone born in the United States, with only very, very narrow exceptions like children of diplomats where the diplomats are here serving that foreign country in the United States, or children of the members of an occupying army. These are the narrow historical exceptions that are recognized, and Congress has legislators who otherwise provide to confirm that if you're born in the United States, you're entitled the citizenship without regard to the legal status of your parents. Trump in his executive order doesn't even really acknowledge the existence of those statutes, certainly doesn't attempt to justify why he can ignore them. And his constitutional theory of the fourteenth Amendment is just wrong. And here, unlike the TikTok example, as you mentioned, it's already been challenged in courts, and I and many other observers expect him to continue to lose on this issue in the federal courts up to and probably including at the Supreme Court.

That one was guaranteed to be challenged in the courts, and as you say, has been challenged in multiple lawsuits already, and no judge who's looked at the issue has been remotely sympathetic to the Trump administration's position, which is that the Fourteenth Amendment in providing that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall be citizens of the United States. His order to read that constitutional language as excluding people born in the United States to parents who entered the country unlawfully, or even to parents who are in the country lawfully but on a temporary basis, like on a student visa or a work visa. There is no justification in our constitutional history for that interpretation. It's contrary to Supreme Court precedent. It's contrary to decades of government practice, Department of Justice practice, and legal opinions issued by the Department of Justice. Again, it's not just wrong in terms of its interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment, but it conflicts with statutes that Congress has passed recognize an entitlement to birthright citizenship that would cover everyone born in the United States, with only very, very narrow exceptions like children of diplomats where the diplomats are here serving that foreign country in the United States, or children of the members of an occupying army. These are the narrow historical exceptions that are recognized, and Congress has legislators who otherwise provide to confirm that if you're born in the United States, you're entitled the citizenship without regard to the legal status of your parents. Trump in his executive order doesn't even really acknowledge the existence of those statutes, certainly doesn't attempt to justify why he can ignore them. And his constitutional theory of the fourteenth Amendment is just wrong. And here, unlike the TikTok example, as you mentioned, it's already been challenged in courts, and I and many other observers expect him to continue to lose on this issue in the federal courts up to and probably including at the Supreme Court.

As you know, the legislature has the power of the purse. When Trump froze federal funds, they also talked about getting rid of which is something that he has campaigned on, getting rid of the empowerment law. I mean, so this would take it to the point where he's taken away one of the legislature's prime prerogatives.

As you know, the legislature has the power of the purse. When Trump froze federal funds, they also talked about getting rid of which is something that he has campaigned on, getting rid of the empowerment law. I mean, so this would take it to the point where he's taken away one of the legislature's prime prerogatives.

Yes, this is another important area. And you know, I think to members of the public generally, this can just sound like, you know, the Trump administration wanting to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that waste is eliminated within the federal government. And of course those are all good and laudible goals, but in our constitutional system, the president is not allowed to say, well, I'm just going to identify abuse, or identify a part of it, you know, an agency whose operations I don't like, and just free spending for it altogether, as he's done for USAID, or try to sort of dismantle an agency whose existence has been provided for by Congress. On the spending issue in particular, it seems that the Trump administration is trying to assert a kind of general constitutional power of impoundment that the president, as part of his executive power, can just decide not to spend fund that have been appropriated by Congress to be used in a particular area for a particular purpose. And it's been recognized by executive branch officials of both parties over decades that the president does not have that authority. The idea has come up before, and for example, John Roberts, Chief Justice John Roberts, when he was serving in the Reagan White House, wrote a memo confirming the consensus understanding that the president does not have a general impoundment authority. Now whether a president could decline to spend all of the dollars that Congress has earmarked for a particular purpose ultimately comes down to the particular statute where Congress did that ear marketing. Congress can give the executive branch certain discretion, say up to x amounts of dollars may be spent for the following purpose, and that doesn't mean all of that amount must be spent, But it really depends on how Congress has made these appropriations. And again, so the litigation in this space is going to end up looking kind of statute by statute at the way the appropriations are structured. But the general theory that the administration seems to be running on is one that would just steamroll all of those statutory niceties and assert a kind of general presidential prerogative. John Roberts didn't think the president had that kind of prerogative. The chief Justice before him, William Ranquist, when he was serving in the Justice Department before he went to the Supreme Court, wrote an opinion saying, the president doesn't have that kind of prerogative, and I expect that position to be the position of the courts in this area ultimately, which is to say, I expect the Trump administration to lose in its bid to assert a general impoundment authority.

Yes, this is another important area. And you know, I think to members of the public generally, this can just sound like, you know, the Trump administration wanting to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and that waste is eliminated within the federal government. And of course those are all good and laudible goals, but in our constitutional system, the president is not allowed to say, well, I'm just going to identify abuse, or identify a part of it, you know, an agency whose operations I don't like, and just free spending for it altogether, as he's done for USAID, or try to sort of dismantle an agency whose existence has been provided for by Congress. On the spending issue in particular, it seems that the Trump administration is trying to assert a kind of general constitutional power of impoundment that the president, as part of his executive power, can just decide not to spend fund that have been appropriated by Congress to be used in a particular area for a particular purpose. And it's been recognized by executive branch officials of both parties over decades that the president does not have that authority. The idea has come up before, and for example, John Roberts, Chief Justice John Roberts, when he was serving in the Reagan White House, wrote a memo confirming the consensus understanding that the president does not have a general impoundment authority. Now whether a president could decline to spend all of the dollars that Congress has earmarked for a particular purpose ultimately comes down to the particular statute where Congress did that ear marketing. Congress can give the executive branch certain discretion, say up to x amounts of dollars may be spent for the following purpose, and that doesn't mean all of that amount must be spent, But it really depends on how Congress has made these appropriations. And again, so the litigation in this space is going to end up looking kind of statute by statute at the way the appropriations are structured. But the general theory that the administration seems to be running on is one that would just steamroll all of those statutory niceties and assert a kind of general presidential prerogative. John Roberts didn't think the president had that kind of prerogative. The chief Justice before him, William Ranquist, when he was serving in the Justice Department before he went to the Supreme Court, wrote an opinion saying, the president doesn't have that kind of prerogative, and I expect that position to be the position of the courts in this area ultimately, which is to say, I expect the Trump administration to lose in its bid to assert a general impoundment authority.

Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with NYU Law School professor Trevor Morrison. What's the risk that the administration might simply ignore court orders or go against them? And when was the last time we've seen this kind of a crisis. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, I've been talking to n YU Law School professor Trevor Morrison about President Donald Trump's executive orders that have drawn dozens of lawsuits challenging the moves as unconstitutional and unlawful executive power grabs. Trump is already asking the Supreme Court to intervene to allow him to fire the head of the independent US agency that protects government whistleblowers. This court, you know, you mentioned Roberts, but this court has several conservatives that are to the right of Roberts. And we already saw in July how they expanded the president's immunity from prosecution for acts within his official duties in an opinion that most I mean most people like talk to were shocked by that opinion.

Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with NYU Law School professor Trevor Morrison. What's the risk that the administration might simply ignore court orders or go against them? And when was the last time we've seen this kind of a crisis. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, I've been talking to n YU Law School professor Trevor Morrison about President Donald Trump's executive orders that have drawn dozens of lawsuits challenging the moves as unconstitutional and unlawful executive power grabs. Trump is already asking the Supreme Court to intervene to allow him to fire the head of the independent US agency that protects government whistleblowers. This court, you know, you mentioned Roberts, but this court has several conservatives that are to the right of Roberts. And we already saw in July how they expanded the president's immunity from prosecution for acts within his official duties in an opinion that most I mean most people like talk to were shocked by that opinion.

Yes, I was among those who was quite dismayed by to Justice Roberts's opinion in the immunity case. You know, one can debate whether the outcome was justifiable. I tend to think not. But much worse than that was the particular way that Roberts sort of reasoned his way to that outcome, and it contained in it a kind of theory of exclusive presidential power that is now being in vote by the Trump administration, not in any kind of criminal immunity context, but in all these other areas where executive power is being asserted. I don't think that there's a majority of the Court that actually is prepared to sort of apply the Trump immunity precedent as broadly as the Trump administration is now trying to do. There may be some votes on the Court, but I don't think there's a majority for it. But in many ways, this set of questions is a little bit of a problem of the Court's own making. If the majority opinion in the immunity case, even if it was going to reach roughly the same outcome, had been written more carefully in a way that was more tied to the courts existing jurisprudence on the constitutional separation of powers. Then there would be less mischief that could be made with the opinion compared to what we're seeing what we're seeing now. But you know, across this set of issue areas, many of these issues are liable to end up not just in the federal courts but before the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration may win some, I think they're certainly going to lose some. One of the big challenges here, though, again is that you know, the President in a matter of a couple of days, can sign executive orders and then direct that action be taken consistent with those orders across the executive branch and kind of change the facts on the ground rather quickly. And then you know, it will take time. Even if courts ultimately conclude that some or even all of those actions are unlawful, it will take a while for the courts to respond and to try and rein in the administration. In the meantime, you know, Trump presses forward, helped by figures like Elon Muskin, his army of doge folks, and so that's a big part of the challenge.

Yes, I was among those who was quite dismayed by to Justice Roberts's opinion in the immunity case. You know, one can debate whether the outcome was justifiable. I tend to think not. But much worse than that was the particular way that Roberts sort of reasoned his way to that outcome, and it contained in it a kind of theory of exclusive presidential power that is now being in vote by the Trump administration, not in any kind of criminal immunity context, but in all these other areas where executive power is being asserted. I don't think that there's a majority of the Court that actually is prepared to sort of apply the Trump immunity precedent as broadly as the Trump administration is now trying to do. There may be some votes on the Court, but I don't think there's a majority for it. But in many ways, this set of questions is a little bit of a problem of the Court's own making. If the majority opinion in the immunity case, even if it was going to reach roughly the same outcome, had been written more carefully in a way that was more tied to the courts existing jurisprudence on the constitutional separation of powers. Then there would be less mischief that could be made with the opinion compared to what we're seeing what we're seeing now. But you know, across this set of issue areas, many of these issues are liable to end up not just in the federal courts but before the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration may win some, I think they're certainly going to lose some. One of the big challenges here, though, again is that you know, the President in a matter of a couple of days, can sign executive orders and then direct that action be taken consistent with those orders across the executive branch and kind of change the facts on the ground rather quickly. And then you know, it will take time. Even if courts ultimately conclude that some or even all of those actions are unlawful, it will take a while for the courts to respond and to try and rein in the administration. In the meantime, you know, Trump presses forward, helped by figures like Elon Muskin, his army of doge folks, and so that's a big part of the challenge.

Here, and I mentioned this before, but you have Republicans not only not objecting to what he's doing, but generally supporting it. You had the Speaker of the House saying that the courts should take a step back and let things play out. So you're not going to find any kind of resistance there is. The only resistance going to be in lawsuits from outside groups or Democratic ags.

Here, and I mentioned this before, but you have Republicans not only not objecting to what he's doing, but generally supporting it. You had the Speaker of the House saying that the courts should take a step back and let things play out. So you're not going to find any kind of resistance there is. The only resistance going to be in lawsuits from outside groups or Democratic ags.

Well, I think if the Republican leadership in Congress were better students of James Madison, they would understand that they are in danger of abdicating a role that is Congress is to check sort of abuse of executive authority. And so you're right that a checking role that might have been played by a more responsible Congress is not being played. I'm not sure though, that that means that, you know, everyone President Trump's copartisans in Congress will simply abdicate their role or never raise any objection no matter what happens. You know, something that's looming in the background. Here is their reason to worry that the Trump administration might simply ignore court orders on some of these issues if they lose in court and you know, don't want to abide by the court order. My colleague Richard piled Us at NYU and I have published an op ed just a few days ago sort of discussing what would happen in that circumstance. Everyone agrees that that would quickly bring us into a real constitutional crisis. I don't think, at least the Republican leadership in Congress, you know, want the country to be brought to that brank and so I suspect actually that there would be quite a number of voices from across the political spectrum saying that, you know, you can appeal a judgment that you don't like, and maybe the appellate court will reverse what the trial court did, but the court orders ultimately need to be followed. And there were even some Republicans in Congress who were taking that position last week in response to things that were being said by different members of the Trump administration that seemed to be kind of testing the waters for the idea that maybe it would be legitimate to ignore a court order. So on some issues, I think there might be some pushback. And beyond Congress, of course, there's the American people and maybe in particular the business community. So if the Trump administration started ignoring court orders, I think that could quite quickly bring a lot of turmoil in the market and in the economy more generally, because the reliability of an independent judiciary to enforce property and contract rights, for example, it could quickly be thrown into question if the administration started taking a position that they could simply ignore court orders not to their liking. And I don't think ultimately that the Trump administration wants to court that kind of trouble with the public markets.

Well, I think if the Republican leadership in Congress were better students of James Madison, they would understand that they are in danger of abdicating a role that is Congress is to check sort of abuse of executive authority. And so you're right that a checking role that might have been played by a more responsible Congress is not being played. I'm not sure though, that that means that, you know, everyone President Trump's copartisans in Congress will simply abdicate their role or never raise any objection no matter what happens. You know, something that's looming in the background. Here is their reason to worry that the Trump administration might simply ignore court orders on some of these issues if they lose in court and you know, don't want to abide by the court order. My colleague Richard piled Us at NYU and I have published an op ed just a few days ago sort of discussing what would happen in that circumstance. Everyone agrees that that would quickly bring us into a real constitutional crisis. I don't think, at least the Republican leadership in Congress, you know, want the country to be brought to that brank and so I suspect actually that there would be quite a number of voices from across the political spectrum saying that, you know, you can appeal a judgment that you don't like, and maybe the appellate court will reverse what the trial court did, but the court orders ultimately need to be followed. And there were even some Republicans in Congress who were taking that position last week in response to things that were being said by different members of the Trump administration that seemed to be kind of testing the waters for the idea that maybe it would be legitimate to ignore a court order. So on some issues, I think there might be some pushback. And beyond Congress, of course, there's the American people and maybe in particular the business community. So if the Trump administration started ignoring court orders, I think that could quite quickly bring a lot of turmoil in the market and in the economy more generally, because the reliability of an independent judiciary to enforce property and contract rights, for example, it could quickly be thrown into question if the administration started taking a position that they could simply ignore court orders not to their liking. And I don't think ultimately that the Trump administration wants to court that kind of trouble with the public markets.

Trump did say last week and the Oval Office that he always obeys court orders. Of course, in his personal life we've seen that he doesn't always obey court orders. But the Press secretary, you know, they make these statements about Article two of the Constitution, and Trump has said this too, and sort of echoes Richard Nixon that he can do whatever he wants under Article two of the Constitution. And there's this idea among his people that he has, you know, exclusive powers over budget, personnel, whatever in the executive branch.

Trump did say last week and the Oval Office that he always obeys court orders. Of course, in his personal life we've seen that he doesn't always obey court orders. But the Press secretary, you know, they make these statements about Article two of the Constitution, and Trump has said this too, and sort of echoes Richard Nixon that he can do whatever he wants under Article two of the Constitution. And there's this idea among his people that he has, you know, exclusive powers over budget, personnel, whatever in the executive branch.

Right. Yeah, I agree with you. That's and part of that argument is being advanced, in part by relying on that immunity decision from last summer that we were just speaking about and reading certain lines in Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion. Very very expansively right, So on this expansive understanding, you know, if it prevailed, then you know, the courts would be endorsing this broad theory of sweeping executive power that is almost uncheckable by law. I don't think the courts ultimately are going to endorse the broadest version of that theory across all of the subject matter areas that Trump has been acting in anyway. The question then would be, is he going to say that the same kind of theory of broad power gives him a prerogative to go against the courts? You're right. Last week he sort of disclaimed that idea. Then over the weekend on social media he posted something. I think. The line is something like he who saves the country breaks no law. And this is a line that associated I understand with Napoleon. That sounds like, you know, the assertion of a progative to operate above the law. He thinks it's what's necessary to quote unquote save the country. So I think Trump is sort of, you know, at least in his public statements on both sides of the issue at this point. Again, at the end of the day, I don't think there's going to be you know, open defiance of court orders. But I do think that we're in a danger zone along those lines, unlike any we've been in for at least many decades.

Right. Yeah, I agree with you. That's and part of that argument is being advanced, in part by relying on that immunity decision from last summer that we were just speaking about and reading certain lines in Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion. Very very expansively right, So on this expansive understanding, you know, if it prevailed, then you know, the courts would be endorsing this broad theory of sweeping executive power that is almost uncheckable by law. I don't think the courts ultimately are going to endorse the broadest version of that theory across all of the subject matter areas that Trump has been acting in anyway. The question then would be, is he going to say that the same kind of theory of broad power gives him a prerogative to go against the courts? You're right. Last week he sort of disclaimed that idea. Then over the weekend on social media he posted something. I think. The line is something like he who saves the country breaks no law. And this is a line that associated I understand with Napoleon. That sounds like, you know, the assertion of a progative to operate above the law. He thinks it's what's necessary to quote unquote save the country. So I think Trump is sort of, you know, at least in his public statements on both sides of the issue at this point. Again, at the end of the day, I don't think there's going to be you know, open defiance of court orders. But I do think that we're in a danger zone along those lines, unlike any we've been in for at least many decades.

When was the last time we were in a zone like this? Do you think?

When was the last time we were in a zone like this? Do you think?

Well? During the nixt administration, there was of course a question about whether Nixton would obey the court order directing that he turn over the White House tapes. And he knew that in obeying that order that he was almost guaranteeing the end of his presidency. And I think there are questions about whether he would. He ultimately did so. He ultimately complied with the will of the courts. But that showdown, if you want, was the last time we got this close to the precipice.

Well? During the nixt administration, there was of course a question about whether Nixton would obey the court order directing that he turn over the White House tapes. And he knew that in obeying that order that he was almost guaranteeing the end of his presidency. And I think there are questions about whether he would. He ultimately did so. He ultimately complied with the will of the courts. But that showdown, if you want, was the last time we got this close to the precipice.

And so you had Trump talking about Napoleon, you had Elon Musk talking about Genghis Khan. I mean, we don't know how much power is being given to Musk, who's not elected, And now they're saying that he's not even the head of Doze, that he's a special advisor to Trump.

And so you had Trump talking about Napoleon, you had Elon Musk talking about Genghis Khan. I mean, we don't know how much power is being given to Musk, who's not elected, And now they're saying that he's not even the head of Doze, that he's a special advisor to Trump.

Yeah, it's the peculiar arrangement, to put it mildly. On the one hand, you know these reports are to be believed. Bosk and other folks working with him in this doge thing, are being granted access to some of the most sensitive information held within the executive branch, including very sensitive personal information about Americans across the country. Entirely unclear to what use did they might put that information, but it's concerning, to say the least. And on the other hand, the government is sort of disclaiming that Musk has any actual governmental authority whatsoever. I think in filing or hearing yesterday there was a claim that, you know, he's not any kind of officer of the United States, he's just, as you say, a kind of advisor without authority. That is a peculiar arrangement, to put it mildly. If in fact he has no formal authority, he at least has great, great influence and is being granted access to essentially any part of the government that he wants to be given access to. We haven't seen anything like this before. Every White House has, you know, senior advisors whose roles you know, might be described in different ways, and maybe there are people plucked from the business world or from academia or whatever, but that obviously is not what's going on with Musk and his doge minion. One of the challenges here is, like any legal system, our legal system contains laws, principles and rules that in many respects our responses to past problems. Well, we've never had a situation like this before, and so our laws are not well suited to deal with the potential threats of abuse that come from basically just you know, unlocking the doors to any room within the executive branch and letting Elon Musk breeze right in.

Yeah, it's the peculiar arrangement, to put it mildly. On the one hand, you know these reports are to be believed. Bosk and other folks working with him in this doge thing, are being granted access to some of the most sensitive information held within the executive branch, including very sensitive personal information about Americans across the country. Entirely unclear to what use did they might put that information, but it's concerning, to say the least. And on the other hand, the government is sort of disclaiming that Musk has any actual governmental authority whatsoever. I think in filing or hearing yesterday there was a claim that, you know, he's not any kind of officer of the United States, he's just, as you say, a kind of advisor without authority. That is a peculiar arrangement, to put it mildly. If in fact he has no formal authority, he at least has great, great influence and is being granted access to essentially any part of the government that he wants to be given access to. We haven't seen anything like this before. Every White House has, you know, senior advisors whose roles you know, might be described in different ways, and maybe there are people plucked from the business world or from academia or whatever, but that obviously is not what's going on with Musk and his doge minion. One of the challenges here is, like any legal system, our legal system contains laws, principles and rules that in many respects our responses to past problems. Well, we've never had a situation like this before, and so our laws are not well suited to deal with the potential threats of abuse that come from basically just you know, unlocking the doors to any room within the executive branch and letting Elon Musk breeze right in.

And there's this continuing turmoil at the Justice Department over the order to drop the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, where seven prosecutors resigned rather than do that. What does that say about the Justice Department where no disagreement is allowed even if an order seems to fly in the face of the law.

And there's this continuing turmoil at the Justice Department over the order to drop the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, where seven prosecutors resigned rather than do that. What does that say about the Justice Department where no disagreement is allowed even if an order seems to fly in the face of the law.

Yeah, it is very concerning. I agree with you. I mean, I think there is a sense that you know, ultimately within the Justice Department, the Attorney generals at the top of the agency and does have the authority to decide what actions will be taken by the department, and if low or level officials don't like that, they have the option to resign. But it's not like every member of the Justice Department has a sort of unilateral ability to sort of state their disagreement and to change department policy on that basis. But one thing that has made the Department of Justice the great institution that it is is that we expect a very high degree of professionalism on the part of the attorneys serving there, and we expect there to be disagreement and debate and even encourage that to try and make sure that the government arrives at the best position in individual cases and also on larger policy questions. That's the opposite of what's being insisted upon here. There's a demand from the Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bova, seemingly just for blind adherents, no matter the merits or lack of merits of what the government is trying to do. And then if you look at the substance of the matter, although Bouve and his memo to the Acting United States Attorney here in Manhattan sort of claimed to the contrary, it certainly looks like a quid quote. It looks like what he's directing is that the charges against Adams be dismissed in return for Adams's vigorous cooperation with the Trump administration and enforcing federal immigration laws here. And then the fact that the memo says, oh, actually we're dismissing these charges without prejudice, so they could be brought again at a later time. Well, that, as others have observed, is like a sort of damageleaves just hanging above Adams. And if he doesn't comply, what do we think might happen here? Again, Bouvet disclaims there's any quid pro quo like this going on, but it certainly looks like one. And I think that was a big part of what was so concerning to the acting US Attorney, as she explained in her letter of resignation. That plus the fact that on the merits, according to her, the evidence that the government has of Mayor Adams' skills, not only of the statues he's been charged with violating, but apparently other charges that might be brought as well, is a really really strong case. And she said these circumstances, if it doesn't serve justice, it's not right in any way for these charges to be dismissed. It looks like special favors being dispensed as a way of coercing a local government official into cooperating with a policy agenda of the new presidential administration, and that is just an abuse of the criminal justice system and really a flouting of the rule of law that everyone should be very concerned about.

Yeah, it is very concerning. I agree with you. I mean, I think there is a sense that you know, ultimately within the Justice Department, the Attorney generals at the top of the agency and does have the authority to decide what actions will be taken by the department, and if low or level officials don't like that, they have the option to resign. But it's not like every member of the Justice Department has a sort of unilateral ability to sort of state their disagreement and to change department policy on that basis. But one thing that has made the Department of Justice the great institution that it is is that we expect a very high degree of professionalism on the part of the attorneys serving there, and we expect there to be disagreement and debate and even encourage that to try and make sure that the government arrives at the best position in individual cases and also on larger policy questions. That's the opposite of what's being insisted upon here. There's a demand from the Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bova, seemingly just for blind adherents, no matter the merits or lack of merits of what the government is trying to do. And then if you look at the substance of the matter, although Bouve and his memo to the Acting United States Attorney here in Manhattan sort of claimed to the contrary, it certainly looks like a quid quote. It looks like what he's directing is that the charges against Adams be dismissed in return for Adams's vigorous cooperation with the Trump administration and enforcing federal immigration laws here. And then the fact that the memo says, oh, actually we're dismissing these charges without prejudice, so they could be brought again at a later time. Well, that, as others have observed, is like a sort of damageleaves just hanging above Adams. And if he doesn't comply, what do we think might happen here? Again, Bouvet disclaims there's any quid pro quo like this going on, but it certainly looks like one. And I think that was a big part of what was so concerning to the acting US Attorney, as she explained in her letter of resignation. That plus the fact that on the merits, according to her, the evidence that the government has of Mayor Adams' skills, not only of the statues he's been charged with violating, but apparently other charges that might be brought as well, is a really really strong case. And she said these circumstances, if it doesn't serve justice, it's not right in any way for these charges to be dismissed. It looks like special favors being dispensed as a way of coercing a local government official into cooperating with a policy agenda of the new presidential administration, and that is just an abuse of the criminal justice system and really a flouting of the rule of law that everyone should be very concerned about.

Thanks so much for joining me on the show. I really appreciate your analysis. That's Professor Trevor Morrison of NYU Law School coming up next. Fired inspectors general sue this is Bloomberg. In an unprecedented move, four days after Donald Trump returned to office last month, the White House notified as many as seventeen inspectors general in similarly terse emails that they were being terminated because of quote changing priorities. Last Wednesday, eight of those ousted inspectors general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, saying the terminations were unlawful and unjustified. My guest is Diana Shaw, a partner at Wilie Rhyan. She was the acting Inspector General at the State Department from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four. Diana, a lot of people are not familiar with what an inspector general does, so tell us sure so.

Thanks so much for joining me on the show. I really appreciate your analysis. That's Professor Trevor Morrison of NYU Law School coming up next. Fired inspectors general sue this is Bloomberg. In an unprecedented move, four days after Donald Trump returned to office last month, the White House notified as many as seventeen inspectors general in similarly terse emails that they were being terminated because of quote changing priorities. Last Wednesday, eight of those ousted inspectors general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, saying the terminations were unlawful and unjustified. My guest is Diana Shaw, a partner at Wilie Rhyan. She was the acting Inspector General at the State Department from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four. Diana, a lot of people are not familiar with what an inspector general does, so tell us sure so.

An inspector general is the statutorily created position within the federal government. It sits within a federal agency, and it is the independent watchdog for that agency, passed with conducting oversight audits investigations to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of that agency.

An inspector general is the statutorily created position within the federal government. It sits within a federal agency, and it is the independent watchdog for that agency, passed with conducting oversight audits investigations to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of that agency.

Who appoints inspector generals.

Who appoints inspector generals.

It can happen in two ways. That half of the inspectors general and the federal government are presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, and the other half are appointed by their agency. This is for designated federal agencies or entities, and so it's either by a board or a commission that they would be appointed.

It can happen in two ways. That half of the inspectors general and the federal government are presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, and the other half are appointed by their agency. This is for designated federal agencies or entities, and so it's either by a board or a commission that they would be appointed.

And they don't report to the president, do they They don't.

And they don't report to the president, do they They don't.

They serve at the pleasure of the president, but they don't report to the president. They have a dual reporting relationship, so they are operating under the general supervision of usually the department head of whatever their parent agency is, but they also have a reporting obligation to Congress as well. At the same time, no individual can direct their work, so nobody can tell them what work to do, what work not to do, and they really can't be fired or disciplined, although they can be let go by the president, but with some limitations under the law.

They serve at the pleasure of the president, but they don't report to the president. They have a dual reporting relationship, so they are operating under the general supervision of usually the department head of whatever their parent agency is, but they also have a reporting obligation to Congress as well. At the same time, no individual can direct their work, so nobody can tell them what work to do, what work not to do, and they really can't be fired or disciplined, although they can be let go by the president, but with some limitations under the law.

President Trump fired as many as seventeen inspectors General four days after returning to the White House, and the email said they were being terminated because of changing priory. How unusual is that?

President Trump fired as many as seventeen inspectors General four days after returning to the White House, and the email said they were being terminated because of changing priory. How unusual is that?

So this has never happened before. This is unprecedented. I believe the only other historical reference point we have is during the Reagan administration. This was the first administration after the founding of the Inspector General Act, and President Raygan did fire the Inspectors general at that time, although he did, I think, on the basis of some very strong advice, end up hiring many of them back. But this is really unprecedented, and.

So this has never happened before. This is unprecedented. I believe the only other historical reference point we have is during the Reagan administration. This was the first administration after the founding of the Inspector General Act, and President Raygan did fire the Inspectors general at that time, although he did, I think, on the basis of some very strong advice, end up hiring many of them back. But this is really unprecedented, and.

Two of the plaintiffs had been nominated to Inspector General roles by Trump in his first term. Is there any speculation about why they were fired?

Two of the plaintiffs had been nominated to Inspector General roles by Trump in his first term. Is there any speculation about why they were fired?

Well, as noted, several of the IG's were Trump appointees, Some had been in position for a long time, some were brand news, some were known as you know, sort of aggressive, some not so. Really, it was perplexing for those looking across that list to try to understand whether there was some kind of a cohesive theme there. I think what I saw analyzing that list is it does look like, with the exception of two, he really did sort of sweep the cabinet level agencies. The two exceptions were Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, and then there were smattering of others as well.

Well, as noted, several of the IG's were Trump appointees, Some had been in position for a long time, some were brand news, some were known as you know, sort of aggressive, some not so. Really, it was perplexing for those looking across that list to try to understand whether there was some kind of a cohesive theme there. I think what I saw analyzing that list is it does look like, with the exception of two, he really did sort of sweep the cabinet level agencies. The two exceptions were Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, and then there were smattering of others as well.

As you mentioned, presidents can fire inspectors general, but there are certain rules tell us about them.

As you mentioned, presidents can fire inspectors general, but there are certain rules tell us about them.

So there were prior to the first administration relatively few parameters set on what the president could and couldn't do. But following the terminations of igs under the first Trump administration, the law was actually amended. The IGC was amended after the first administration to put some additional guardrails in place, and so under these new amendments, the president is required to provide thirty day notice to Congress of his intention to remove an IG, and that notice has to include case specific, substantive, case specific reasons for the firing of each of those IGS. And if the president wants to immediately put an IG on administrative leave while that thirty day clock is running, he's supposed to articulate that that IG is actually a workplace threat. In this case, none of those provisions were complied with, and so it's really a question whether those amendments have any teeth or not. That's really what's at stake here, and this is the first time those amendments are being tested.

So there were prior to the first administration relatively few parameters set on what the president could and couldn't do. But following the terminations of igs under the first Trump administration, the law was actually amended. The IGC was amended after the first administration to put some additional guardrails in place, and so under these new amendments, the president is required to provide thirty day notice to Congress of his intention to remove an IG, and that notice has to include case specific, substantive, case specific reasons for the firing of each of those IGS. And if the president wants to immediately put an IG on administrative leave while that thirty day clock is running, he's supposed to articulate that that IG is actually a workplace threat. In this case, none of those provisions were complied with, and so it's really a question whether those amendments have any teeth or not. That's really what's at stake here, and this is the first time those amendments are being tested.

So in his first administration, Trump replaced multiple inspectors general. What happened with those firings in twenty twenty.

So in his first administration, Trump replaced multiple inspectors general. What happened with those firings in twenty twenty.

So those removals, actually I lived through one of them. That's how I became an acting inspector general. He removed my inspector General, Steve Lennock at the Department of State. In that case, he put them immediately on administrative leave. If they were inspectors general, they were on administrative leave for thirty days and then terminated after that point. In the instance of the Department of Defense, individual he was the acting inspector General, and so in that case, the President simply appointed another person in that person's stead, and so he no longer served in that capacity. Similarly, that's what happened at HHS.

So those removals, actually I lived through one of them. That's how I became an acting inspector general. He removed my inspector General, Steve Lennock at the Department of State. In that case, he put them immediately on administrative leave. If they were inspectors general, they were on administrative leave for thirty days and then terminated after that point. In the instance of the Department of Defense, individual he was the acting inspector General, and so in that case, the President simply appointed another person in that person's stead, and so he no longer served in that capacity. Similarly, that's what happened at HHS.

So eight of the inspectors general who were fired recently have filed a lawsuit saying the terminations were unlawful and unjustified. Tell us more about their lawsuits.

So eight of the inspectors general who were fired recently have filed a lawsuit saying the terminations were unlawful and unjustified. Tell us more about their lawsuits.

Sure, So they're essentially looking to uphold the new amendments of the ig Act and stating that the process by which the President exercised his authority to remove them was inconsistent with the law, and that the law requires thirty day notice to Congress, and it requires him to articulate case specific substance of rationale for the removal of each and every one of them. And so they are claiming that he has exceeded his authority in the manner in which he's removed them, and they're seeking basically injunctive relief to allow them to basically return to their positions as the court adjudicates the merits of their claim, and ultimately I think they would be looking to return to their jobs, and I guess have the president follow the course of action, I mean, it sort of begs the question what is the ultimate outcome here? I mean, even if they get everything they want, the President could then still just provide the thirty day notice. But I think, you know, there's arguably two benefits even if the outcome in the end is nevertheless the same. And that's one. It really you know, tests whether the amendments to the law have teeth, and if they're victorious and show that in fact these amendments do matter and they are the law, there's you know, arguably value in that. But also I would expect that if the President has to actually articulate a basis for each of their firings, that gives them something to argue against, right, that gives them potentially some spodder to use to challenge their firings.

Sure, So they're essentially looking to uphold the new amendments of the ig Act and stating that the process by which the President exercised his authority to remove them was inconsistent with the law, and that the law requires thirty day notice to Congress, and it requires him to articulate case specific substance of rationale for the removal of each and every one of them. And so they are claiming that he has exceeded his authority in the manner in which he's removed them, and they're seeking basically injunctive relief to allow them to basically return to their positions as the court adjudicates the merits of their claim, and ultimately I think they would be looking to return to their jobs, and I guess have the president follow the course of action, I mean, it sort of begs the question what is the ultimate outcome here? I mean, even if they get everything they want, the President could then still just provide the thirty day notice. But I think, you know, there's arguably two benefits even if the outcome in the end is nevertheless the same. And that's one. It really you know, tests whether the amendments to the law have teeth, and if they're victorious and show that in fact these amendments do matter and they are the law, there's you know, arguably value in that. But also I would expect that if the President has to actually articulate a basis for each of their firings, that gives them something to argue against, right, that gives them potentially some spodder to use to challenge their firings.

Even first there, so a DC federal judge refused to grant the emergency request for their immediate reinstatement, so they lost the first round there. But let's say the President provides the notice and the explanation. Is it then up to Congress to say, no, we don't think that's true, or is it just sort of a notice provision that has no teeth to it.

Even first there, so a DC federal judge refused to grant the emergency request for their immediate reinstatement, so they lost the first round there. But let's say the President provides the notice and the explanation. Is it then up to Congress to say, no, we don't think that's true, or is it just sort of a notice provision that has no teeth to it.

Well, it's a good question, I think based on the legislative history and the hearings around this, I think the hope was that this thirty day period would give Congress the opportunity to sort of parse through the rationale and if it didn't pass the smell test, it would give them time to exercise influence and pressure. But ultimately, there's nothing that I see in the law that actually gives them the authority to veto the president's authority to remove an IG. So I think it's sort of a soft power play, but would give them the opportunity to at least voice their concern and potentially mount kind of an influence campaign to potentially try to cause a course correction if they felt very strongly that it wasn't a justified firing.

Well, it's a good question, I think based on the legislative history and the hearings around this, I think the hope was that this thirty day period would give Congress the opportunity to sort of parse through the rationale and if it didn't pass the smell test, it would give them time to exercise influence and pressure. But ultimately, there's nothing that I see in the law that actually gives them the authority to veto the president's authority to remove an IG. So I think it's sort of a soft power play, but would give them the opportunity to at least voice their concern and potentially mount kind of an influence campaign to potentially try to cause a course correction if they felt very strongly that it wasn't a justified firing.

The former Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs Toll CBS. My only guess could be there trying to impact the independence that IGS have because it makes no sense. Can you make sense of it from you know, which departments were actually targeted?

The former Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs Toll CBS. My only guess could be there trying to impact the independence that IGS have because it makes no sense. Can you make sense of it from you know, which departments were actually targeted?

Well, you know, again looking at who was removed, and that it seems to have been a wiping of the slate queen of the cabinet level agencies. It does appear as though the president wants the opportunity to nominate his own nominees for those cabinet level positions, although there are some others, as I said, not within that group. But honestly, I think it's you know, potentially too soon to reach a conclusion about what the president's intentions are. I think what it really comes down to is who is nominated in those positions, right, the individuals that hold those positions are supposed to be nominated, not on the basis of any kind of political affiliation. Solely on the basis of the criteria of their qualifications for their role, their audit experience or investigative experience. And so you know, in theory, if people with those qualifications are nominated into those positions and are filling those positions and performing those duties in a nonpartisan a political way, then you know that mission can be carried forward appropriately. And until we see that, we won't really know what's to come next. But what I can say on behalf of my former colleagues is I've not ever worked with a better group of people who were more committed to the mission. So it really is a loss for the community that such incredible people are no longer in those roles, and that so much talent and commitment has been lost.

Well, you know, again looking at who was removed, and that it seems to have been a wiping of the slate queen of the cabinet level agencies. It does appear as though the president wants the opportunity to nominate his own nominees for those cabinet level positions, although there are some others, as I said, not within that group. But honestly, I think it's you know, potentially too soon to reach a conclusion about what the president's intentions are. I think what it really comes down to is who is nominated in those positions, right, the individuals that hold those positions are supposed to be nominated, not on the basis of any kind of political affiliation. Solely on the basis of the criteria of their qualifications for their role, their audit experience or investigative experience. And so you know, in theory, if people with those qualifications are nominated into those positions and are filling those positions and performing those duties in a nonpartisan a political way, then you know that mission can be carried forward appropriately. And until we see that, we won't really know what's to come next. But what I can say on behalf of my former colleagues is I've not ever worked with a better group of people who were more committed to the mission. So it really is a loss for the community that such incredible people are no longer in those roles, and that so much talent and commitment has been lost.

Trump is asking the Supreme Court to intervene because he wants to fire the head of the independent agency that protects whistleblowers. When the lower court judge Amy Burman Jackson issued a restraining order on the firing, she said that it plainly went against US law because the administration didn't provide any reason, even though federal law says the person in that position could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Could a decision here have an impact or reverberations for the Inspector General firings?

Trump is asking the Supreme Court to intervene because he wants to fire the head of the independent agency that protects whistleblowers. When the lower court judge Amy Burman Jackson issued a restraining order on the firing, she said that it plainly went against US law because the administration didn't provide any reason, even though federal law says the person in that position could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Could a decision here have an impact or reverberations for the Inspector General firings?

I think potentially, I mean from a morale perspective, it certainly could you know, bolster the will to keep pushing in the courts. I mean, I do think there are some important distinguishing factors here. Partly the language that you just cited the Special Council can only be removed under those specific circum stances, which are much stronger than the language in the Inspector General Act for the removal of IG's. Also, I think, you know, the way the case law has developed around the Special Council and the removal of agency heads. The Special Council has argued that it has a much narrower role in terms of government, whereas Inspectors General are operating within cabinet agencies. And so you know, that could end up being an important distinguishing factor. But nevertheless, sort of very similar missions and so there's definitely, you know, some ground there to draw comparisons. And I would think if Hampton Dellager is successful that that would be something that they would be looking to to add some heft to their motions and their efforts to challenge their own firings.

I think potentially, I mean from a morale perspective, it certainly could you know, bolster the will to keep pushing in the courts. I mean, I do think there are some important distinguishing factors here. Partly the language that you just cited the Special Council can only be removed under those specific circum stances, which are much stronger than the language in the Inspector General Act for the removal of IG's. Also, I think, you know, the way the case law has developed around the Special Council and the removal of agency heads. The Special Council has argued that it has a much narrower role in terms of government, whereas Inspectors General are operating within cabinet agencies. And so you know, that could end up being an important distinguishing factor. But nevertheless, sort of very similar missions and so there's definitely, you know, some ground there to draw comparisons. And I would think if Hampton Dellager is successful that that would be something that they would be looking to to add some heft to their motions and their efforts to challenge their own firings.

Thanks so much for joining me today. That's Diana Shaw of Wilie Rhine and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg

Thanks so much for joining me today. That's Diana Shaw of Wilie Rhine and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg