This obscure law is one reason Trump's agenda keeps losing in court
WASHINGTON — Lawyers challenging President Donald Trump's aggressive use of executive power in the courts are turning to a familiar weapon in their armory: an obscure but routinely invoked federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
While lawsuits challenging such provocative plans as ending birthright citizenship and dismantling federal agencies raise weighty constitutional issues, they also claim Trump failed to follow the correct procedures as required under the wonky 1946 statute.
Trump fell afoul of the law in some high-profile cases that reached the Supreme Court during his first term, raising the possibility he could suffer the same fate this time around.
Known in abbreviated form as the APA, the law allows judges to throw out federal agency actions that are "arbitrary and capricious" on various grounds, including failing to articulate why the agencies are changing policy.
Much to the anger of Trump and his officials, judges have been issuing a series of orders putting administration plans on hold, including freezes on federal funding and drastic reductions in staffing. The rulings are at a preliminary stage and often do not include detailed legal reasoning.
In fact, one of Trump's first losses in court in his second term — over an Office of Management and Budget memo ordering across-the-board funding freezes — was based in part on a claim brought under the APA. The administration quickly rescinded the memo, although litigation continues.
"What we're seeing from the Trump administration is they are moving so fast, and they're trying to do so much with so little reasoning, and they're trying to disrupt as much as possible, as fast as possible, that these actions are inherently arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, a lawyer involved in one of the lawsuits said.
One example of plaintiffs' citing the law is a case about Trump's effort to reduce biomedical research funding, which a coalition of states said "violates the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways." It fails to "articulate the bases" for the change and shows "disregard for the factual findings" that set the current rate, the lawsuit said.
A judge blocked the policy Monday.
On Tuesday, a judge cited the APA in finding that the administration most likely violated the law in removing webpages featuring medical data that health care professionals rely on.
A lawsuit workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development filed last week seeking to prevent hundreds of staff members' being put on leave also raised APA claims.
'The dissolution of USAID is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects,' the unions' lawyers argued.
A judge partially granted the unions' request Friday.
In another USAID-related lawsuit filed Tuesday, contractors whose funding has been cut made similar arguments.
The government did not "explain why a comprehensive, undifferentiated freeze was necessary" or explain why a "more orderly and targeted approach" could not have been taken, the lawsuit said.
The APA haunted Trump during his first term.
In 2019, the Supreme Court found that the administration had not revealed its true reason for wanting to add a citizenship question to the census.
"Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote then.
A year later, the court ruled that the administration had failed to consider various factors when it sought to unwind the Obama administration policy that protects "Dreamers" from deportation. Its actions were "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, Roberts wrote.
On both issues, Trump administration officials "were sloppy, and the court did not like that," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
He noted, however, that at this early stage, the administration could still fix at least some of its errors. In Trump's first term, for example, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version of a travel ban on people entering the country from mostly Muslim-majority countries after a more sweeping policy was pared back.
"The fact they're sloppy out of the gate, I don't think that tells us how the courts will ultimately resolve it," Adler said.
Trump is by no means the only president to have fallen afoul of the APA, which judges routinely cite in striking down federal agency actions on a wide variety of issues, including environmental and consumer regulations that agencies sometimes spend years reviewing.
In a high-profile case during the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas threw out an immigration enforcement policy that would have prioritized deporting violent criminals.
Among other things, District Judge Drew Tipton found that the administration had failed to take into account evidence about the dangers of recidivism and abscondment among immigrants with criminal records that undermined its policy conclusions.
The government, he added, was required "to show its work. It either failed or refused to do so. This was arbitrary and capricious."
(The Supreme Court in 2023 ultimately ruled in favor of President Joe Biden, saying the states that sued did not have legal standing.)
Despite the long history of courts' faulting presidents under the APA, various Trump allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, have harshly criticized judges for ruling against the administration, as Trump himself has in the past, raising concerns in some quarters that officials could defy court orders.
'These unlawful injunctions are a continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday.
But, she added, the White House "will continue to fight those battles in court, and we expect to be vindicated."
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Gabbard was in Situation Room on Iran, still key player despite Trump saying she was 'wrong' on intel
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was inside the Situation Room Saturday when the U.S. military launched successful strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital Sunday morning. A White House official confirmed Gabbard was in the room Saturday and that she is a "key player" on President Donald Trump's national security team. Speculation had mounted there was a rift between Gabbard and Trump after the president told the media Gabbard was "wrong" about intelligence on Iran back in March when she testified before the Senate that the nation was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Photos of the Situation Room released Saturday evening did not show Gabbard present alongside Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other administration officials. The photos, however, did not include wide shots showing the entire room or each individual present, with the White House confirming the intelligence chief was present. Trump and Gabbard appeared at odds earlier in June, when the president was asked about Gabbard's testimony before the Senate in March, when she reported intelligence showed Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Trump told the media June 16 he did not "care" what Gabbard had to say in previous testimony, arguing he believed Iran was close to building a nuke. "You've always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon," a reporter asked Trump while aboard Air Force One on June 16. "But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one?" "Very close," Trump responded. Then again Friday, Trump said Gabbard was "wrong" after she reported that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "My intelligence community is wrong," Trump said when asked about the intelligence community previously reporting that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. When Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March, she delivered a statement on behalf of the intelligence community that included testimony that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data," Gabbard told the committee March 26. The intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003," she said. She did add that "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." "Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance," she warned. However, as critics picked apart Gabbard's past comments, the White House stressed to Fox Digital that Gabbard and Trump were closely aligned on Iran. A White House official told Fox News Digital on Tuesday afternoon that Trump and Gabbard are closely aligned and that the distinction being raised between Gabbard's March testimony and Trump's remarks that Iran is "very close" to getting a nuclear weapon is one without a difference. The official noted that Gabbard had underscored in her March testimony that Iran had the resources to potentially build a nuclear weapon. Her March testimony reflected intelligence she had received that Iran was not building a weapon at the time but that the country could do so based on the resources it amassed for such an endeavor. Gabbard took to social media and blasted the media for "intentionally" taking her March testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee "out of context." "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said in a Friday post on X, accompanied by a video clip of her March testimony to Congress. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly," she wrote. "President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Trump announced in a Saturday evening Truth Social post that the U.S. military had carried out strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, obliterating them. Trump held an address to the nation later Saturday night, describing the strikes as wildly successful and backing Iran into a corner to make a peace deal. "A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," Trump said from the White House on Saturday evening. "Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number-one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success." "For 40 years, Iran has been saying, 'Death to America. Death to Israel.' They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs," Trump continued. "That was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular." Fox News Digital reached out to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for any additional comment on the Sunday strikes, but did not immediately receive a reply.
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. has "no interest" in putting troops on the ground in Iran, Vance says
Vice President Vance said Sunday that the United States doesn't plan to send ground troops into Iran and there is "no interest" in engaging in a "protracted conflict" with the nation. The big picture: Vance and other Trump administration officials appeared on Sunday shows to praise President Trump 's decision to carry out a series of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, while reassuring Americans that the mission — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — isn't the launching point for a wider conflict. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance called the mission a "precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest" — preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — and that he had "no fear" of a drawn-out conflict. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment on CBS' "Face the Nation," saying that there are no plans from the U.S. to engage in further attacks on Iran unless they "mess around" and attack Americans or U.S. military sites. What they're saying: Rubio said Sunday that the U.S. carried out the attack after efforts to negotiate with Iran stalled, but that Trump administration officials are "prepared to talk to them tomorrow." Both men also dismissed the notion that the U.S. is at war with Iran, with Vance stating that the war is with Iran's nuclear program. "We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially," Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker. Zoom out: Vance and Rubio were unable to confirm the extent of the damage done to the nuclear sites, but Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that the strike was a "betrayal of diplomacy." "No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel," he said. Bagahei refused to say how Iran might respond to the U.S. strike, but said the nation is entitled to "exercise its right of self-defense."
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem. Senator Adam Schiff says 'we simply don't know' if US is safer after Iran strikes
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff speaks to Kasie Hunt about the congressional response to President Trump's order to strike Iran.
