Tangerine 2.0's "Freeze" Argument... "Strains Credulity..." "The Court Can Think of Few Things More Disingenuous..." Ouch.

The roundly-expected 30 page TRO, and reasoned opinion -- of the able USDC Judge AliKhan is now published -- minutes ago to the public docket, in full. Do read it all.

But let's quote the nearly unprecedented take-down -- of a sitting POTUS's lack of candor, and thus -- loss of credibility, with the courts. He's lost the "presumption of good faith" most governmental actors are accorded in federal court. Ouch:

. . .Defendants are correct that courts of this circuit generally hesitate “to impute such manipulative conduct to a coordinate branch of government.” Pub. Citizen, Inc., 92 F.4th at 1128-29 (quoting Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 705 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc)). But this reluctance does not apply when the government defendant deliberately acts “in order to avoid litigation.” Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 17 F.4th 1224, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Am. Bar Ass’n v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 636 F.3d 641, 648 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). Here, Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations. . . .

Within hours of OMB’s rescission, White House Press Secretary Leavitt announced that the rescission was to have no tangible effect on “the federal funding freeze.” Leavitt, X (formerly Twitter) (Jan. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/99C4-5V6G. Moreover, she explained that the primary purpose of the rescission was “[t]o end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.” Id. That statement unambiguously reflects that the rescission was in direct response to this court’s issuance of an administrative stay on January 28.5 For Defendants to innocently claim that OMB’s post stay actions were merely a noble attempt to “end[] confusion,” ECF No. 26, at 8, strains credulity. . . .

By rescinding the memorandum that announced the freeze, but “NOT. . . the federal funding freeze” itself, id., it appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous. Preventing a defendant from evading judicial review under such false pretenses is precisely why the voluntary cessation doctrine exists. The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief. . . .

Yep. That's. . . a banger! You'll need to get some ice on that Mr. Trump. Your back porch? It's. . . it's very bright. . . red, from the whuppin' -- one you richly earned, and deserved. Out -- heh.

नमस्ते