The opening paragraph of Article II of , the U. S. Constitution , is simple and grants one man, the president, large powers:” The professional Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”.
Ninety rebel states are now attempting to overthrow that executive authority, which the Constitution essentially veils from the leader. The Democrats ‘ ongoing legal battle aims to overthrow the will of the majority of voters and state, resulting in the upholding of the presidential election results in this case, which aims to take control of the Department of Treasury from President Trump and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. A elastic, low-level federal prosecutor in New York has thus far assisted and assisted them. The event is currently moving forward with a new prosecutor. We may discover.
Background and Updates
The Constitution grants the president only professional authority, as I detailed in two previous papers about the New York situation. But, New York’s anti-Trump Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other rogue state AGs have attempted to oust this professional energy by preventing Trump and Bessent from conducting thorough Treasury documents checks to stop waste and forgery in federal funds in concert with low-level New York federal judge Paul Engelmayer. As I wrote:
The judge has taken it upon himself to be the first judge to impose a temporary restraining order ( “TRO” ) on the president of the United States, which also forbids a cabinet secretary from obtaining his own records without giving them an opportunity to respond. He also has no idea why he is enabling fraud and grift by blocking access to records that show who received government money and for what.
After those two articles were published, the defendants filed an , emergency action to break, understand, or change the TRO , that Judge Engelmayer — the judge on duty to control “emergency” after-hour matters on Feb. 7, the night it was filed — had entered. Judge Jeannette Varga, the assess the situation was really assigned to,  , next made a , changes to the TRO. After that, the state filed a , document of law opposing the defendants ‘ requested order. A hearing on the demand for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Friday afternoon and the plaintiffs ‘ reply was filed on Thursday.
A Guide to Injunctions and TROs
First, one point not mentioned in my prior articles is the difference between a temporary restraining order ( TRO ), which has now been issued, and a preliminary injunction, which will be decided after Friday’s hearing.
An order is a type of “extraordinary relief” that the laws refers to as. An injunction, in contrast to a judgment that awards a successful plaintiff a cash sum, forbids the defendant from carrying out or maintaining a dangerous or illegal act ( such as a homeowners ‘ association’s attempt to enforce racial discrimination ). A “mandatory order” may require the defendant to carry out a specific action ( such as delivering real estate that is subject to a legally binding contract ).
Getting an order generally is a two-stage process. A plaintiff does get a preliminary injunction on an extended basis, which usually lasts for a short period of time before a full trial on the merits may be held. A successful plaintiff may receive a permanent injunction after a thorough trial. Consolidation of a preliminary injunction and a full trial of the merits is occasionally possible, but this case did not.
In cases of extreme emergency, where “irreparable harm” will occur immediately if the court does not act swiftly, a judge may enter a TRO granting the requested relief. However, unless the court extends a TRO for compelling reasons, it can last for no more than 14 days.
Defenses to a TRO that the defendants did not raise
The defendants have not yet raised or, ostensibly, do not intend to raise a TRO and an injunction. One of those defenses is the lack of a TRO application’s meaningful notice.
It suffices to say that New York’s” Special Trial Counsel” Colleen Faherty attempted to omit the fact that she had given the impression that the defendants were asking for a TRO, but the false notice was given in vain, giving the defendants no meaningful chance to respond. The defendants did not raise this issue in either their , emergency motion to dissolve, clarify, or modify the TRO , or their , memorandum of law , opposing an injunction. I won’t put any more stock in my opinion about this decision to conserve their resources by not fighting this conflict because it may have been based on Clausewitz’s theory of the “economy of force.”
A second defense that the defendant avoided is perhaps even more concerning, if only because it demonstrates a certain lack of aggressive defense. As I , previously pointed out, a TRO is not effective until a bond or other security is posted.  , Judge Engelmayer ordered a nominal$ 10, 000 to be posted as security before the beginning of the hearing at 2: 00 p. m. on Feb. 14. A TRO is not in effect until that security is posted, according to Rule 65 ( a ).
The defendants affirmatively stated in their emergency motion and in their memorandum of law that they were taking” all necessary steps to comply with the Court’s Order,” even though the TRO is not effective until security is posted. Therefore, the president and other defendants are acting in accordance with a law that they are not required to do. As , Alfred, Lord Tennyson said,” All the world wondered”. Perhaps the defense lawyers made another tactical decision not to raise that issue, but it , is , something to wonder about.
Finally, Engelmayer must address the insufficiency of the security required. A bond that fully protects the government from a wrongful injunction could cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars given the potential damage the country could suffer if DOGE is denied access to the Treasury Department records even temporarily. This is a challenging question that could turn out to be a trial in itself.
Again, defense counsel may have intentionally chosen to ignore this for tactical reasons, or they may raise it at the injunction hearing on Friday, but it does give the plaintiffs considerable latitude to try to shut down DOGE’s operations at the least amount of money possible.
Must Trump Support a Court Order-Casel Opposed Coup?
The short answer is no.
People have been taught that a president must follow the orders of a third-tier federal judge because they are required to be regarded as the “law of the land” and be held to be supreme.
When judges adhere to established constitutional standards, such deference should typically be accorded as a matter of commons. However, a president is not required to follow when a judge veers far from the constitutional path and makes an evidently mistaken or unconstitutional ruling.
First, we start with the proposition that the judiciary is , not , the supreme branch of the government. It is one of the three co-equal branches. When you consider that there are more than 1, 000 active district judges, you can see how weak the supremacy of the entire judicial system is. When the president is given the executive power of the United States by the Constitution, it defies common sense to assume that he is required to follow every rule issued by each of those numerous judges who might attempt to undermine his exercise of that power.
Next, when you consider a couple of examples, the fallacy of that broad reasoning becomes even more apparent. What if one of the 1, 000-plus district judges issued a decree forbidding the president from accessing highly classified military records, including nuclear attack plans, because the president had not received the necessary training? ( That alleged lack of training was one of the bases for Judge Engelmayer ‘s , order , prohibiting certain officers and employees from accessing documents. ) Would the president be required to follow such a directive? I think not.
He would not be required to go through the court system for months or even years before receiving a response from the Supreme Court. No, the president should continue to have control over the military and declare, as President Jackson did,” John Marshall has made his ruling now let him enforce it.”
Or what if a low-level judge forbade the secretary of transportation from accessing sensitive documents held by government entities because he had previously been only a small-town mayor and had not “passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information security training required by federal statutes” ( as Engelmayer also required )? Even the majority of Democrats might shy away from such a rule, in my opinion.
Everyone can come up with their own examples. However, the initial question above is answered with a resounding “no.” The president, as the chief executive officer of the country, is not obligated to heel every time an out-of-control federal judge jerks his leash.
And in addition to Andrew Jackson, there is powerful precedent for a president’s refusal to acquiesce in a court order. Supreme Court Justice Taney’s ruling was defamated by President Lincoln. Lincoln had suspended the writ of , habeas corpus , in certain sensitive military areas. Federal troops had arrested and imprisoned a Confederate sympathizer who had been “recruiting, training, and leading a drill company for Confederate service“.
When the prisoner sought release pursuant to a writ of , habeas corpus, Justice Taney, sitting as a trial judge, entered an order and opinion that Lincoln’s suspension of the writ was outside his powers. Lincoln did not take the order’s appeal to settle the dispute. President Lincoln just ignored Taney’s order.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack,” Bravo Blue”, and has been lightly edited.
John A. Lucas, a retired attorney, has tried and argued a variety of cases, including before the US Supreme Court. He served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted man before going to law school at the University of Texas. He later received his degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1969. He served as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam as an Army Ranger. He is married with five children. He and his wife now live in Virginia. John also is published at johnalucas6. substack .com.
