[U X2: Appeal Filed -- 5th Cir.; 8th to Supremes] Tonight, Word Of Another Texas Tangerine Appointee Who Cannot Find A Case To Support His "Unusual" Reading Of Congressional Appropriations Authority.

Second Update -- 11.14.2022 @ 2 PM CST: With ten of the eleven Eighth Circuit panel members GOP appointed, and six of those being Trump appointees (which was news to me)... the latest ruling (striking the initial three person ruling not to grant an injunction, and reinstating the trial level enjoining of the program). . . is not surprising. So it is now on to the Supremes. End updates.

It is just a minor glitch. This idiot will be overruled very shortly, perhaps even before the Eighth Circuit case is finally decided.

Yes, that's right -- the Supremes have already passed once on his sort of a. . . truly goofy notion (the Executive cannot do "big things", even if authorized by Congress?!). . . C'mon, man!

But Pittman, a Team Tangeriner to the core, decided to dump a post mid-terms mess into the laps of his upper chamber, the Fifth Circuit. He knows full well (like Drew Bruce Tipton in Dallas before him) that he will get handed his head upstairs. . . but he can say to his political handlers "I did my part".

I link his 26 pages of nonsense here -- but I will only quote the government's argument -- as it is clearly correct on the law, thus:

. . .In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Secretaries from two Administrations invoked that authority to suspend interest accrual and payments on federally held student loans. As those protections wind down, the Secretary reasonably determined it necessary to provide targeted debt relief to federal student-loan borrowers affected by the pandemic. Six States seek to enjoin the Secretary’s action, but the district court correctly held they lack standing.

Plaintiffs cannot establish the need for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing, and even if they did, they are unlikely to succeed on their claims given Congress’s authorization for the Secretary’s action and the Secretary’s explicit consideration of the relevant factors. . . .

The statutory phrase “deems necessary” (which plainly appears in the HEROES Act). . . ”exudes deference” to the Secretary; see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600 (1988) -- that precluded judicial review altogether. . . .

Now you know. We should expect decades of wasted time -- in the upper chambers -- correcting these young ideologues' trial-level (ill-informed) rulings. Thanks, Il Trumpimisimo. . . . but it ultimately won't matter. The real law will prevail. Out.

नमस्ते