http://twitchy.com/samj/2025/02/09/tom-renz-thread-judge-blocking-doge-treasury-n2408064
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ LAWYER’S PERSPECTIVE on the court issuing a TRO blocking Trump’s DOGE employees access to Treasury Data.
@realDonaldTrump brought @elonmusk in under the reorganized USDS - now the US DOGE Service. As I chronicled elsewhere this was quite clearly legal and that action has not been challenged. What is being challenged is DOGE employees having access to Treasury Department Data Systems.
Yesterday, a comprehensive complaint was filed before an Obama appointed judge in NY. The 60 page - fairly complex - complaint and request for TRO was filed yesterday and somehow U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer was able to fully vet this complaint and grant the TRO the same night. While granting a same day TRO does happen, it is quite impressive that he was able to research and rule on such a complex complaint in such a short period of time.
Let’s talk about that TRO.
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ When a complaint is filed in a court the complaint makes certain allegations, alleges facts to support those allegations, and then requests relief. In the case of this complaint the request for relief included a request for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against the subject of the complaint. In other words they asked that Trump and DOGE be blocked from auditing treasury department data.
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ The complaint can be found at: http://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/state-of-new-york-et-al-v-trump-doge-temporary-restraining-order-memo-2025.pdf
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ The TRO order can be found at: http://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609.6.0.pdf
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ Let’s talk about the TRO. In this instance it appears that the judge issued a ruling without an opportunity for the Defendants to respond. This can happen with a TRO but is a bit unusual for a TRO on an issue like this. If there is a life/safety issue (and abused woman or child) TROs are frequently issues without an opportunity to respond but the allegations in this complaint do not demonstrate that sort of dangerous or inevitable harm so one would think that a judge would give the President an opportunity to respond.
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ Also interesting is that there is a 4 page grant of the TRO on such a complicated complaint. There is literally no analysis and the judge simply adopted all of the Plaintiffs findings and analysis. In light of the fact that this case was so complex, the respect the judiciary owes all co-equal branches of government (including the Executive Branch), the lack of demonstrated harm (only unsupported allegations of potential harm), and the political appearance of this case, one would expect at least some indication that the judge did more research than simply reading and adopting the plaintiff’s position (I’m not saying that’s all he did and he may have had experience/expertise in this but still… this was a pretty fast ruling on a big case).
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ It is also worth noting that nothing in this case alleged that giving Trump time to respond was “likely” to result in “irreparable harm.” That is the standard established by the SCOTUS in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council - the only case cited in this entire order. I’d argue that this TRO was improperly granted - this sort of preliminary injunction requires a high standard and there is no analysis supporting the grant. Frankly this seems a bit political.
The SCOTUS is clear in Winter when they state: “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U. S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam).” The Court did not even attempt to analyze this in the ruling despite no concrete allegations of harm.
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ This leads to a question of standing. Numerous cases have been thrown out over the years based on standing. Here the states allege all sorts of possible injuries but have not alleged and actual injuries. The courts demand injuries be concrete and particularized. For example in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, the Court reiterated that only plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation may sue in federal court. There are allegations of harm that may occur here but nothing that is demonstrable - in my opinion - at this point.
There is a TON to a standing analysis but I would consider bringing it up at this point as part of a response.
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ Next we have the counts themselves. They are:
1. Violation of APA 706(2) - Exceeding Statutory Authority
2. Violation of APA 706(2)(A) - Contrary to Law
3. Violation of APA 706(2)(A) - Arbitrary and Capricious
4. Ultra Vires (this means an action was done without legal authority)
5. Violation of the Separation of Powers - Usurping Legislative Authority
6. Violation of the Take Care Clause
Tom Renz (@RenzTom) ~ Ultimately this case is political. The best argument they have is count 2 but I think that one is debatable as well. The fact that a court issued a TRO without an opportunity to respond on this seems extremely political. Further, I’d love to know how this Judge would justify this if he actually had to write an analysis on his ruling… of course no one wants to talk about holding judges accountable regardless of whether their rulings wreak of political activism.
Oh, we're more than happy to hold judges accountable.
| 
