Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
9.3K followers
1.3K following
630 posts
How brain neural nets do computations; we aim to understand differences in brain wiring, using lasers and neuro-AI.
Lab head, NIH. Prev: policy for democracypolicy.network. Pers views only.
neuro posts: #neuroscience /🧪
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by Mark Histed
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 11h
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 11h
Clarifying Judicial Aggrandizement - Penn Law Review
Scholars argue that the Roberts Court has been engaged in a judicial “power grab.” Some scholars describe the Court as “juristocratic,” others “aggrandizing.” The Court’s supporters argue that these c...
pennlawreview.com
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 12h
Reposted by Mark Histed
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 15h
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 16h
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 16h
![Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025) 1
JACKSON, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1174
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[July 8, 2025]
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of application for stay.
Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions.
Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first
obtained authorization from Congress to do so. The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this power
to himself. With no mention of congressional buy-in, the
President’s Executive Order No. 14210 mandates a “critical
transformation” of the Federal Government, to be accomplished by “eliminat[ing] or consolidat[ing]” existing agencies and ordering agency heads to “promptly undertake
preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force.” 90
Fed. Reg. 9669, 9670.
This unilateral decision to “transfor[m]” the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court. As relevant here, the District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned
determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring until this legal challenge to the President’s authority to undertake such action could be litigated. But that temporary,
practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:p66b7zkep57fp4rhrtktsdni/bafkreido6lry455kmckuumn334iinykkp5mjyt2fycypjnnwjngikjoo2u@jpeg)
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 16h
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 16h
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 16h
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1174
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[July 8, 2025]
The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and
by her referred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025
preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No.
3:25–cv–3698, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari,
if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied,
this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending
down of the judgment of this Court.
The District Court’s injunction was based on its view that
Executive Order No. 14210, 90 Fed. Reg. 9669 (2025), and
a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and
Budget and Office of Personnel Management implementing
that Executive Order are unlawful. Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive
Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other
factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—
we grant the application. We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or
approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation
or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on an](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:p66b7zkep57fp4rhrtktsdni/bafkreib4x2rh3zf22nphgfrdbzjuj62mkpr5n4mie54v47kd3aijmetk6y@jpeg)
Mark Histed
@markhisted.org
· 16h
'RIFs have begun.' Vought announces start of mass firings during government shutdown
The White House budget office said Friday that mass firings of federal workers have started in an attempt to exert more pressure on Democratic lawmakers as the government shutdown continues.
www.pbs.org
Reposted by Mark Histed
