The Rhode Island TRO Has Been Appealed To The First Cir. -- There, The Panel Just Issued An Extraordinary Order, DENYING Tangerine 2.0 A Stay Of Any Kind.

Honestly, this must be at least a bit like what it felt like, when William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace by President John Adams, but didn't receive his commission before Adams left office. [Marbury sued James Madison, the Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the commission.]

That all led to the Marbury v. Madison decision, from the Supremes. That one played out in long-hand, quill penned letters and filings, over the course of months in the courts, while this one is evolving at electron speed, overnight.

Even so, the sound principles of Marbury here apply. This is a bedrock of our checks and balances system: it is for the Congress to do the things Tangerine 2.0 seeks -- not his own modern quill-pen. He lacks the power of the purse, utterly. [See Articles I, II and III.] And so -- here is an amazingly terse and speedy two page First Circuit (appeal) order -- just popped out of the oven. It slaps Tangerine into the dust:

. . .[Overnight, Team Trump] filed with this Court two motions (contained within a single document) for, respectively, (1) a stay pending appeal, which they ask us to resolve by February 14, 2025, and (2) an administrative stay pending resolution of their motion for a stay pending appeal. The sole motion we address in this order is the motion for an administrative stay.

This Circuit has not addressed whether or when an administrative stay of the sort being requested here may be issued, and there is well-recognized uncertainty as to what standards guide the decision to issue one or not. See United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). Here, the [Tangerine 2.0] defendants have requested a stay pending appeal from the District Court, which has not yet ruled on their motion. . . .

[The Team Tangerine 2.0] defendants do not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they will face without their requested administrative stay. . . .

We are confident the District Court will act with dispatch to provide any clarification needed with respect to, among other things, the defendants' contention that the February 10 Order "bars both the President and much of the Federal Government from exercising their own lawful authorities to withhold funding without the prior approval of the district court." We note in this regard the plaintiffs' statement in their Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Administrative Stay Pending Appeal that, consistent with the TRO, the February 10 Order "does not stop defendants from limiting access to funds without any 'preclearance' from the district court 'on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.'" The parties may file any further memoranda in support of their positions on the motion for a stay pending appeal in this court by 5:00 PM on Thursday, February 13, 2025. [DENIED, without prejudice to renew -- when properly before the First Circuit]. . . .

The "sturm and drang show" is here in full effect. [And "just like that", the Chief Judge in the Rhode Island federal district court just clarified at lunch-time that no, Trump cannot violate the existing TRO, whilst the appeal is pending.] Wow -- take a seat, Musk & Trump.

नमस्ते