The government watchdog, fired by President Donald Trump in January, has submitted a legal summary claiming that 16 other U.S. inspectors were expelled just four days after his second term, claiming that Trump was within his enforceability to fire him.
Eric Soskin, a former U.S. Department of Transportation inspector, was appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. He was later fired just four days after Trump returned to his oval office, and Jeff Beelaert, a lawyer for Givens Pursley and a former Justice Department official, told Fox News in an interview.
“Eric was one of the fired inspectors and opposed his former IG colleague. He wanted to clarify that with a simple submission,” Beelaert said.
Shortly after taking office, Trump cleaned up government watchdogs from 17 government agencies, urging intense backlash, criticism and questions about the legality of personnel decisions.
Litigation Tracker: New Resistance to Fight Trump’s Second Term through the Onslaught of Lawsuits for EOS
E. Barrett Prettyman US Court is seen in Washington, DC (Mandel NGAN/AFP Vía Getty Images)
The move prompted lawsuits from eight banished watchdogs. The exiled Watchdog asked US District Judge Ana Reyes, the judge in the case, to declare their shootings illegal and restore agency positions.
These remedies are considered long shots and are unlikely to succeed when the plaintiff appears in DC Court for the next week for the next hearing. Still, Soskin was so strongly opposed to their rationale that he refused to participate in their case, but also forced his lawyers to submit an Amicus brief on behalf of him in support of the administration’s ability to end his role.
Beelaert helped the author explain to Amicus on behalf of Soskin. This outlined the main reasons why Trump has the power to make these personnel decisions based on Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedents, and updates to federal policy.
This summary invokes IGS’ “false” dependence on Humphrey’s enforcement, a precedent in the 1930s, protects agency shooting in certain cases, and requires a 30-day notice period for personnel decisions. Soskin’s lawyers argue that reliance on the case is false, claiming that the precedent applies only to members of “multi-member, expert, balanced committees” that have largely been reported to Congress and are not in question here.
“The Supreme Court precedent for the past five years has largely rejected that idea that Congress could impose restrictions on the president’s removal authorities,” Beelaert said.
Trump wants a group of “activists” who appeal to governments to make money if they lose
Supreme Court justice posing for official Supreme Court photos. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
Other critics said Trump failed to give Congress a 30-day notice period before ending the government’s watchdog.
In 2022, Congress updated the 1978 General Inspectors Act, previously requiring the President to communicate with Congress the “reason” of the end 30 days before the decision was made. The notice clause was amended in 2022 to require only “substantial grounds including details and case-specific reasons” for termination.
The White House presidential director argued that the shooting was in line with that requirement. This reflects “changes in priorities” from within the administration.
R-Iowa Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley suggested earlier this year that Congress should give more information on the reasons for his firing, but recently he declined to elaborate on the issue.
Trump temporarily blocked it with Doge Mission to end USAID
President Donald Trump speaks to a reporter at the White House’s Oval Office in Washington, D.C. on February 3, 2025. (Anna Money Maker/Getty Images)
Plaintiffs who challenge the shooting are likely to struggle to file their case in federal court next week.
The presiding judge in the case, US District Judge Reyes, did not appear to have been moved by the plaintiff’s bid for emergency relief.
She refused to accept the previous request for temporary restraining orders. This is a rigorous legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove “irreparable” and immediate harm as a result of their actions.
“At the end of the day, this drives the home the idea that elections are important,” Beelaert said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“And in all the times when the president should remove authority, it is the beginning of a government,” he said, noting that this applies to both parties.
“It doesn’t matter who serves in the White House. I don’t think that’s the problem with any president, whether it’s President Biden, who is President Trump,” Bellat said. “The president should be allowed to choose who will serve in his administration, and for me, that’s been lost a bit in this debate.”
Breanne Deppisch is a political reporter for Fox News Digital, covering the Trump administration, focusing on the Department of Justice, the FBI and other national news.
Source link
