Vince O’Brien
LightNews LightNews
banner
clefireguy.bsky.social
Vince O’Brien
@clefireguy.bsky.social
99 followers 220 following 18 posts
Long time Minnesotan living in Central New Hampshire. Working in Professional Education and Adjunct Professor. Former FF/EMT, Lawyer. Supports Public Schools as our greatest hope.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Vince O’Brien
annabower.bsky.social
The government argued that an Appointments Clause violation turns exclusively on the de jure, not de facto, authority a person wields as a matter of law.

But Judge Chutkan rejects that idea, saying that it would "sanction unlimited executive power, free from checks and balances"
According to Defendants, the Appointments Clause "turns exclusively on the de jure- not de facto authority that a person wields as a matter of law." MTD at 18. Under this theory, for a violation to occur, there must first be an office lawfully established and imbued with formal authority. Id. at 18-20. But if the President creates a position without Congressional authority, there is no violation. Essentially, Defendants argue, so long as the Executive acts without Congressional authority, the court cannot review its conduct. Under this reasoning, the President could authorize an individual to act as a Prime Minister who vetoes, amends, or adopts legislation enacted by Congress, as an Ultimate Justice who unilaterally overrules any decision by the Supreme Court, as a King who exercises preeminent authority over the entire nation, or allow a foreign leader to direct American armed forces without violating the Appointments Clause. See MTD at 15. Defendants appear to sanction unlimited Executive power, free from checks and
May 27, 2025 at 10:45 PM