DOGE and Musk's USAID shutdown probably violated the U.S. Constitution
A U.S. federal judge has ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the Constitution "in multiple ways." While this doesn't mean USAID is back up and running, the order does put a temporary halt to DOGE head Elon Musk's plans to scrap the agency.
In an 68-page opinion filed in the Maryland District Court on Tuesday, judge Theodore Chuang granted a preliminary injunction preventing DOGE from further dismantling USAID. A vital foreign aid organisation, USAID offered humanitarian assistance to other countries on behalf of the U.S. government, including disaster and poverty relief. Unfortunately, billionaire Musk apparently considered such spending wasteful, shutting down USAID, reportedly reducing a workforce of over 10,000 to 611, and abruptly cutting off billions in foreign aid shortly after President Donald Trump's inauguration.
The temporary injunction doesn't restore USAID to what it was prior to DOGE's intervention. However, it does mean that DOGE cannot fire any more USAID employees, end its contracts or grants, or shut down its offices and IT systems. The court further ordered DOGE to reinstate all current USAID employees' access to their email, payments, security, and other electronic systems, as well as restore deleted emails.
You May Also Like
Why was DOGE shutting down USAID potentially unconstitutional?
The case was brought by 26 USAID employees and contractors, some of whom the court noted had been stranded overseas without vital security software or funds for basic living expenses when DOGE shut down USAID's systems. In his ruling, Chuang agreed with the plaintiffs' assessment that Musk and DOGE violated the U.S. Constitution on more than one occasion, finding that their case was likely to succeed.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the Constitution's Appointments Clause was breached because Musk operated as an Officer of the United States without being appointed as such. The defence refuted this, claiming that Musk was merely acting in an advisory capacity, and wasn't the one actually calling the shots. Chuang found this unconvincing.
"To deny [this claim] solely on the basis that, on paper, Musk has no formal legal authority relating to the decisions at issue, even if he is actually exercising significant authority on governmental matters, would open the door to an end-run about the Appointments Clause," wrote Chuang.
"Musk's public statements and posts on X, in which he has stated on multiple occasions that DOGE will take action, and such action occurred shortly thereafter, demonstrate that he has firm control over DOGE…. [T]he present record supports the conclusion that Musk, without having been duly appointed as an Officer of the United States, exercised significant authority reserved for an Officer…"
The plaintiffs further argued that Musk and DOGE breached the separation of powers because USAID is a federal agency that can only be created or abolished by Congress. As such, DOGE's shutdown of USAID allegedly exceeded the authority of the executive branch to encroach upon the legislative branch. Chuang also considered this argument strong.
"Congress has made clear through statute its express will that USAID be an independent agency, and that it not be abolished or substantially reorganized without congressional approval," said Chuang. "[Musk and DOGE's] present actions to dismantle USAID violate the Separation of Powers because they contravene congressional authority relating to the establishment of an agency."
Predictably, Musk quickly took to X to decry the ruling, questioning Chuang's integrity as well as sharing and agreeing with posts claiming a "judicial coup." He did not specifically address any of the legal and factual issues raised in the case.
The White House has also alleged a political motivation for the judgement, confirming that it will appeal the decision. Appearing to employ a "no you" approach to the situation, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly bizarrely accused Chuang of breaching the separation of powers himself, claiming that "rogue judges are subverting the will of the American people in their attempts to stop President Trump from carrying out his agenda." Under U.S. law, the judiciary has the power to assess the constitutional validity of federal laws as well as the actions of the executive branch.
