On the heels of a solid majority of the Supremes saying that Tangerine 2.0 is acting well beyond his ken here, in lawlessly trying to stop or impound funds the Congress has ordered be spent. . . I suspect he is going to abandon this effort, and hope to pass real legislation. But we will see.
My assessment is that Congress has no appetite to try this gambit. It may well be a loser, on Constitutional grounds as well. Musk is simply a baby wandering around with a shotgun, on a trip wire. He doesn't know -- or doesn't care -- whose lives he indiscriminately and wantonly wrecks -- in the process. But the folks in the districts whose programs he is effectively wiping out. . . do. And these people will yell, at town halls -- at their Congress-critters. Game over. But here is a 12-page motion overnight, in DC that will likely be granted by the able USDC Judge AliKhan:
. . .This Court has preliminarily enjoined [Tangerine 2.0's team] Defendants from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13 with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards. Defendants have narrowly construed the last clause of that order -- “under all open awards” -- in a manner that is inconsistent with the Court’s preliminary injunction decision and order.
Specifically, Defendants have indicated in their notice and memorandum filed with the Court on Friday, February 28, that they interpret the Court’s references to “all open awards” in the preliminary injunction order to mean not “all” open awards but instead only those open awards that have been “partially disbursed.” Plaintiffs respectfully submit that Defendants’ approach does not accord with either the letter or the reasoning of the Court’s preliminary injunction order and decision.
Defendants’ cramped interpretation appears to have led to $3.6 billion in HUD Continuum of Care funding that was awarded to various grant recipients (including members of Plaintiff National Council of Nonprofits) remaining on hold. Thus, pursuant to Rule 7(b), Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court clarify that the preliminary injunction’s directives regarding “all open awards” applies to all awards that have been awarded -- i.e., that the recipient has been notified of the decision to award the grant, loan, or other financial assistance or the award has otherwise been made public. . . .
Now you know. Onward -- smiling at my boy. Onward, resolutely.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment