There is one way this pocket rescission is different that folks aren’t talking about yet- OMB officials who prepped it may face personal liability under Sec 739 of Financial Services & General Gov’t Approps Act as @davidasuper.bsky.social and I explained thehill.com/opinion/cong...
Congress rejected some of Trump’s proposed budget cuts. OMB is making them anyway.
President Trump and the Office of Management and Budget are accused of violating the separation of powers by attempting to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress specifically appropriated.
thehill.com
Senator Jeff Merkley@merkley.senate.gov · 4d agoA pocket rescission is an illegal line item veto. It is the president saying that he and he alone will convert a bipartisan spending bill (that has been signed into law) into a partisan spending bill. He is canceling the lines of spending he doesn't like.
![-supremecourt.gov
Cite as: 604 U.S. _ (2025)
GoRSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A790
SCOTT BESSENT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ET AL. v. HAMPTON DELLINGER, SPECIAL COUNSEL OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(February 21, 2025]
This matter concerns the President's action to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger challenged his without-cause removal in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
See 5 U.S. C. §1211(b). On February 12,
2025, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) providing that Dellinger should remain in office until the court ruled on his motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on that motion for February 26, the day that the TRO expires.
See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2).
Pending before this Court is the Government's application to vacate the TRO. Dellinger has filed a Response in Opposition. The Government then filed a reply. The question is thus fully briefed before this Court.
Although it acknowledges that this Court typically does not have appellate jurisdiction over TROs, the Government urges us to construe the TRO as a preliminary injunction or to exercise jurisdiction under the All Writs Act in light of the core executive power assertedly restrained. Application 31-32; see 28 U.S. C. §1292(a)(1). In his opposition, Dellinger repeatedly notes that the TRO will "expire by its terms (in] eight [now five] days," Response in Opposition 1,
2
BESSENT v. DELLINGER
GoRSUCH, J., dissenting
that it "lasts only for a very short duration," id., at 15, and that it "is set to expire on February 26," id., at 39.
In light of the foregoing, the application to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to t…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nvcdncwptloiqkfucqicx2hp/bafkreifzfg7oygtkifrk3pp6guj7oh7hifxs7c7kmpbhxmx2khrk5mn5ea)
