Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
A panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday vacated a preliminary injunction issued by a district court that significantly restricted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from cancelling contracts and firing employees. The appellate court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs’ claims based on loss of employment must proceed through the review procedures set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act and that the district court erred in finding that the CFPB’s conduct constituted final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Opinion.) (Order.)
The Trump administration on Friday agreed to leave the Washington D.C. police chief in control of the city’s police department after the District of Columbia sued the administration to block President Trump’s takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Following a hearing presided over by Judge Ana C. Reyes (D.D.C.), U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a narrower order that kept the D.C. police chief in charge of the department but ordered the MPD to assist in federal immigration enforcement. (Complaint.) (Lawfare.) (Law Dork.)
Governors of three states announced Saturday they would deploy National Guard troops to Washington D.C. at President Trump’s request. (WSJ.) David French argued Trump endangers the military’s credibility and morale by “deploying it into the American culture war.” (NYT.) See past Roundups for background on the deployment of the National Guard to D.C.
In the months since law firms agreed to provide free legal services to President Trump’s preferred causes as part of deals with the White House, some firms have taken on no additional paid work while others have been more proactive to fulfill their agreements. (WSJ.)
Jack Goldsmith argued that exaggerated and distorted claims in Thomas B. Edsall’s New York Times column criticizing Supreme Court interim orders detracted from fair criticisms of the orders. (Executive Functions.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Noem v. Perdomo: The government filed an application on August 7 to stay a federal district court order preventing federal immigration officials in Los Angeles and six other California counties from conducting detentive stops based on the following factors, according to the application: “[1] apparent race or ethnicity; [2] speaking in Spanish or accented English; [3] presence at a location where illegal aliens are known to gather; and [4] working or appearing to work in a particular type of job.” Pedro Vasquez Perdomo filed a response in opposition to the government’s application for a stay on August 12. The government filed a reply in support of its application for a stay on August 13.
National Institutes of Health, et al. v. American Public Health Association, et al.: The government filed an application on July 24 to stay a federal district court order that prevented the National Institutes of Health from canceling grants that, according to the administration, are related to DEI and “gender ideology.” The American Public Health Association filed a response in opposition to the government's application for a stay on August 1. The government filed a reply in support of the application for a stay on August 4.