Earlier this week, the Space Exploration Company conducted yet another test-to-failure of its current signature development project, Starship. SpaceX expected to lose both stages of this two-stage rocket ship, but not so fast, and not this way. Specifically, the booster blew up, and the “ship” (second stage) burned up. Does that spell doom for Starship? Sorry to disappoint Elon Musk’s detractors, but no. Tests-to-failure are the only way to find out for certain what can go wrong, especially with a new rocket ship. But had SpaceX run its development project differently, they would be in a much better financial position. They would also be further along in overall development than they are today. They could even be helping the official American space program in ways they never gave themselves a chance to imagine.

What is Starship, and what does SpaceX want to accomplish?

Starship is, or SpaceX wants it to be, the heaviest space liner and space freighter ever built. Indeed it would be the first rocket ship to carry passengers or freight on a scale comparable to commercial aviation. Or military airlift, for that matter – because the U.S. military wants to use it to move troops and equipment halfway around the globe, before an enemy would even know what’s happening.

There’s just one catch: Starship isn’t ready, and won’t be ready for years yet. The reason it’s not ready is that SpaceX, under the obsessive-compulsive leadership of founder Elon Musk, is following a single track. That company wants a fully reusable rocket that its shipyards (now incorporated as an independent city!) can turn out orders of magnitude faster than Boeing or Airbus can turn out airliners and air freighters. But first they must make their rocket reusable. The booster they lost in the last test was on its second flight. But they haven’t achieved that with the second stage.

Why is SpaceX so obsessed and compelled with reuse, mass production, and rapid “cadence” (how often they launch their rockets)? Because Elon Musk has one dream above all, and is impatient to realize it. He wants to build a self-sustaining city on the planet Mars – not as a mining colony but as a second home for humanity. That project will require thousands of Starships carrying crew, equipment – and rocket fuel, for he wants to refuel in space.

The problem with the Starship program

SpaceX has a fundamental problem it didn’t always have. When they developed their current “workhorse” rockets – Falcon Nine and Falcon Heavy – they did offer “intermediate” services as soon as they could. Falcon Nine reuses its booster but not its second stage; Falcon Heavy has three boosters and can reuse at least two, if not all three. Falcon Nine especially has taken “market share” from nearly ever other rocket ship built. Its reusable booster lets it launch payloads at less than half the cost of its competitors.

Falcon Heavy was supposed to be retired by now; Musk hoped that Starship would take its place. But Musk knows he cannot even entrust his own payloads – Starlink® satellites – to Starship. In racing to make Starship re-usable, he has left it un-usable for any useful work! The perfect, in short, has become the enemy of the good.

The YouTube influencer “Everyday Astronaut,” in covering Integrated Flight Test Nine (the latest), pointed this out. Why, he asked, didn’t SpaceX develop an intermediate version of Starship that would reuse the booster but not the ship? They could have been putting his new, heavier Starlink® satellites into orbit by now, on a grand scale. They could also be lifting other, more ambitious payloads – modules for the VAST company’s new Haven space station. (Starship is more than twice as wide as a Haven module, even today.)

But even “Everyday Astronaut” didn’t think of everything.

What SpaceX should have done with the concept

SpaceX is, of course, running its own space program. Advantage: the company has its own goals and can pursue them, independently of often fickle government agencies. (Any organization whose headship changes hands once every eight years – or even four – is necessarily fickle.) Disadvantage: SpaceX takes on the onus of making a long-range plan, and making that plan adaptable. This they haven’t done. A vague vision of a city on Mars is not a long-term plan.

They have the bare outlines of a mission profile: lift a ship into orbit, refuel it, and send it to Mars. But even SpaceX admits that refueling a single ship for a Mars transit and landing will require ten launches of orbital “tankers.” They need “tankers” because they never thought to build a refueling station in orbit.

But consider an intermediate version of Starship with a second stage designed to carry payload but not return to Earth. Why not equip that stage with fuel and thrusters to steer it once it’s in orbit? Then the first such stage enters orbit, drops its payload, and stays in orbit. The next such stage will catch up to it and latch onto it, forming another, larger object. Other second stages do the same – creating a cluster of shells, already in orbit, waiting for the next step.

What next?

If experience with Falcon Nine and Heavy are any guide, SpaceX could launch over 200 of these second stages into orbit within five years. In that time, they would perfect the booster, which is much more valuable, with all its 33 rocket engines. More importantly, among the payloads would be the modules for a first-generation Haven space station. (VAST might even have made it larger, to fit more snugly inside a Starship second stage.)

Now the value of cooperation and collaboration becomes apparent. That new space station – or a second like it – would be the ideal construction shack for turning those 200 second stages into several much larger stations. Shipfitters could unfasten the engines and fit out those massive shells with new, interconnecting interiors. Then, after a few more heavy-lift missions, they could mount a number of ships on a giant wheel, which would spin for gravity. The wheel’s hub would provide docking, loading, and unloading services – or microgravity laboratories or factories.

Now SpaceX would have a complex, or a fleet, of stations providing Earth-normal gravity and workspace. At least one would become a scrapyard to turn millions of “space junk” objects into ballast, counterweights, or reusable metal. The rest would become a shipyard in space, to offer repair of existing satellites, or support further development of a reusable second stage.

Looking further ahead

The best immediate use of Starship with a reusable second stage would be as a suborbital space liner or freighter. Almost as important would be ferrying of passengers and freight – including fuels – into low Earth orbit. A proper space program needs permanent stations in low (or medium) Earth orbit and geostationary or geosynchronous orbit (GEO). Dedicated ships, deriving their design from the Starship second stage, would ferry passengers and freight to and from GEO, and deploy satellites at various orbital levels. Equally dedicated ships would clean up the “space junk” in a big operation to remove an ever-present hazard. An LEO or MEO station would be the perfect base for “orbital traffic control.” This function would protect cargo – and lives – in addition to keeping “space junk” to a minimum.

The next important program would be one for asteroid deflection and capture. Already NASA is tracking an asteroid longer than the Eiffel Tower is tall – Apophis. This rock will pass very close to Earth in 2029. Worse, Apophis will disappear in the Sun’s glare – and might come out of it to hit New York, or London! Had SpaceX followed this proposed program, President Trump’s vaunted Space Force would already have a base ready to divert Apophis.

Obviously the first reusable second stages could bring back those spare engines, removed from the original second stages, for refurbishment and reuse in new “ships.” Thus, out of sheer practicality, almost nothing need be lost.

The real Mars colony wagon

If SpaceX, or NASA, or a NASA/ESA/JAXA coalition, still wants to build a city on Mars, then it needs a better plan than anything anyone has suggested thus far. Sending thousands of Starships on Hohmann minimum-energy orbital transits to Mars will not accomplish the goal. Even as large a heavy lifter as Starship is not and can never be a space-borne Conestoga wagon. True, the late Wernher von Braun proposed a “wagon train to Mars” (and famously couched his proposal as a novel). But the correct metaphor for colonizing Mars is not the settlement of the American West, but the first Voyages of Discovery by Erik the Red, his son Leif, Cristoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus), Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot), Amerigo Vespucci, and the incomparable Fernão de Magalhães (Ferdinand Magellan).

So SpaceX should be collaborating with NASA to design a space-to-space colony wagon with nuclear thermal engines. Then they should build not only one, but a fleet of three, or preferably five. (Magellan started with five ships, of which one survived to return to Spain.) These ships would carry nuclear power plants, to power not only the new engines but also electromagnetic radiation shields. A space-to-space ship never lands, so those ships would carry Starships to serve as landing craft.

That Martian city would serve the new asteroid mining industry, plus a metallurgy industry to rival Pittsburgh. So Elon Musk’s dream would take shape – but the colonists would be there to work.

What can SpaceX do now?

SpaceX might seem to have wasted a prodigious amount of time, by not developing a heavy-lift capability along these lines. But if it starts now, then better late than never. Apophis is still on its way, and even if it doesn’t hit Earth in 2029, it could set up a collision for 2068. Nor is Apophis the only “near Earth asteroid” on record, by any means.

The Starship second stage is already at a point where it can achieve orbit and stay in orbit. Even if it can’t return to Earth, it could start carrying true payloads any time SpaceX wishes. The development program outlined here probably can’t divert Apophis by 2029 but could almost certainly divert it by 2032. Beyond that, it could lead to replacement space stations far sooner than currently envisioned – and cleaning up the “space junk” before it brings down every satellite in a cascade of collisions called the Kessler Syndrome. Along the way, the project could yield enough revenue to make it self-financing.

But without this kind of project, the perfect remains the enemy of the good. Now that Elon Musk has left his “Department of Government Efficiency” in other hands, and resumed full-time leadership of his companies, he has time to think about improving the image of SpaceX, while enabling it to do many more useful things.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/06/01/editorial/talk/spacex-starship-what-might/

Video:

VAST Company Home:

https://www.vastspace.com/

Article on Apophis by NASA:

https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/apophis/

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Last week, a libertarian, constitutionalist, and apparent Christian preterist submitted to CNAV one of the more thoughtful objections to President Donald Trump’s policies on tariffs and trade. Objections from Democrats and their allies don’t count. After all, Democrats favored tariffs back when the Bush Dynasty controlled the Republican Party. That in itself is ironic, because Woodrow Wilson, who began decades of Democratic rule over America, eliminated all tariffs. (His replacement: the graduated income tax.) So anything Democrats have to say on trade policy is self-serving and hypocritical. But libertarians offer consistent and sincere arguments – which does not make them correct. Herewith the rebuttal to that submitted argument, which CNAV promised.

Who is Robert W. Peck?

Robert W. Peck is the chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington State and a member of the Constitution Party National Committee. He also keeps his own web site, Perspectives, and occasionally submits articles to CNAV.

He professes to be a Christian, and in his writings has left no doubt on that score. But the only thing Christians reliably agree upon is the need for, and assurance of, spiritual salvation. On how to interpret the Revelation to St. John of Jerusalem, Christians of good heart have their sharpest divide. Mr. Peck believes that John of Jerusalem was foretelling the Sack of Jerusalem and Destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 A.D. by Titus, son of, and successor to, Emperor Vespasian. Never mind that John wrote his Revelation on the Island of Patmos in 96 A.D., twenty-six years after the Second Roman-Jerusalem War started. (Pompey the Great fought the First one as part of his campaign against Mithridates of Pontus and Tigranes of Armenia.)

Or perhaps John was prophesying the Third Roman-Jerusalem War of 135 A.D., by order of Emperor Hadrian. That War resulted in the Great Scattering (Diaspora) of the Jews.

All of which to say that Peck is a preterist, who does not accept a time of worsening moral decay. John of Jerusalem predicted this, as did Paul of Tarsus. Peck denies this, and this explains his adherence to the central flawed tenet of libertarianism: universal goodwill.

What is universal goodwill?

Universal goodwill tells us that human beings have no good reason to fight. An individual especially has no enemies but what he makes. People make enemies, says Peck, because they engage (he would say indulge) in zero-sum thinking. A zero-sum game has a winner and a loser. Or in a multi-player game, net victories exactly balance net defeats.

To which he raises two objections. First, men of goodwill should be able to arrive at an equitable distribution of scarce resources between them. Second, no such things as limited or scarce resources need exist. His idealized story of economics (literally, Laws of the Household) features infinite increase. Are we running out of land? Venture off-world and find or create more! Columbus did it, and John Cabot; why can’t we? Is someone foolish (by his lights) to reach out for land to conquer, plunder and pillage? Pull up stakes and get out of his reach! (And never, never, never lend credence to the notion of literal, geographical Promised Land! That explains why he and his friend Darrell L. Castle consistently discount the Biblical territorial claims of something called Israel.)

Libertarian foreign and trade policy assumes universal goodwill, and either infinite resources or ever more dense resource utilization. Sadly, the real world does not conform to these comfortable nostrums. That is why his recommendations on tariffs and trade must necessarily fail.

Primer on tariffs

Peck begins with some definitions, and shows a competent – but incomplete – understanding of the issues behind them. Tariffs, he says, are taxes on imports. Specifically, governments lay and collect tariffs from the importer, who must recoup them, and the costs of goods he imports. But Peck understands only one purpose of tariffs:

The idea is to tax imported goods at a rate calculated to make them as expensive to consumers, or more so, than their domestically produced counterparts. When that happens, American-made products can “compete” with imports. Consumers will then purchase U.S. products, creating a demand for production and thus preserving, or even creating, jobs.

True, but incomplete. Tariffs also are a source of revenue. Before Wilson, tariffs were the source of revenue for the federal government. Every country imposed them; that is how their governments ran. But tariffs never amounted to more than perhaps ten percent of the importer’s purchase prices. The U.S. government understood the Laffer Rule long before Arthur Laffer was born. When tariffs are too high, imports, and the revenue from tariffs, will cease.

Woodrow Wilson destroyed that understanding completely. Ostensibly he said he would build upon universal goodwill of all nations. In fact he laid the trap for the graduated income tax, and gained the confidence of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the State legislaturres to amend the Constitution to permit this kind of tax. (The confidence trick might have been more profound if someone can invalidate Ohio’s ratification of Amendment XVI.) By no accident, President Trump has proposed to replace income-tax revenues by tariff revenues. Let no one imagine that this would be unprecedented. It has more than a century of precedent behind it, that century being the pre-Wilson century.

Trade barriers other than tariffs

Peck goes on to detail other barriers to international market entry. Subsidies are direct cash payments to domestic manufacturers, or guaranteed purchase agreements. Farm Bills always feature subsidies: the government buys food in quantity, and ostensibly hands this out to needy citizens. These are the food stamps of popular political lore.

Regulation works the opposite way. Peck regards most regulations as facilitating entry of foreign goods into the U.S. market. Farmers or manufacturers in other countries don’t need to comply with American environmental, labor, or other regulations. Their goods, therefore, cost less. Correct as far as it goes – but surprisingly, Peck doesn’t carry his research any further. Robert C. O’Brien of American Global Strategies recommends the obvious adjustment: a specific tariff to recoup the costs of pollution. Or, call it a compensation for the regulations with which Americans must comply. CNAV would carry O’Brien’s idea further. Why not a tariff to cover compliance costs for all other forms of regulation?

When Peck discusses trade deficits, he blames them entirely on the removal of the gold standard. But he ignores what prompted President Richard M. Nixon to move off that standard. This is not to excuse Nixon; he should have re-instituted the pre-Wilson tariff regime. It is to remind people that trade deficits remain, even with a gold standard.

The sum of the game

Peck’s worst failing is his assumption that the sum of the Game of Life is not zero – and is never zero. For some games, the sum is zero. Land is finite. Minerals are finite. Even air and water are finite, though at least they each have a cycle of renewal. But the water cycle has a few choke points – limits on sources of water humans can tap for their use.

Must war, then, be the lot of humankind forever? Not necessarily. A civilizational state strives to acquire and defend enough land and resources for its people. But of necessarily, the aggregate of territory is finite. The Age of Discovery and Exploration is over. That of competition for scarce livable land has succeeded. (The only unsettled land now available for any kind of human settlement is Antarctica. Apart from its limited size, no one is going to try to scratch out a living on that cold, snow-blown, wind-swept continent any time soon.)

Under the circumstances, universal goodwill fails. Contrary to his glowing summation, humanity does live in a closed system of limited land, water (or at least fresh water), and minerals. And when he chastises his fellow human beings for consuming more than they produce, he contradicts himself. In an open system of unlimited resources, over-consumption would be impossible, would it not?

What the tariffs debate is not about

Finally, the debate on tariffs is not about Presidential versus Congressional power. Anything a President does, that might extend further than the law, Congress can easily codify. Peck doesn’t much want the tariff code that prevailed before Wilson, anyway. So anything he says about “not following procedure” becomes incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

To reply also to one other canard:

The continuation of what has been the economic status quo for decades does not constitute an emergency (“a sudden, urgent, usually unexpected occurrence”).

Oh, yes, it does. It certainly does when “the economic status quo,” for however long, is the equivalent of starvation or slow poisoning. Re-feeding and/or detoxifying a patient in that condition, on an exigent basis, is not only appropriate but imperative. That applies with greater force to a society that has suffered from a thoroughly wrongheaded fiscal policy.

The tariffs debate is about an America that is squandering its wealth, while pretending, ironically enough, to exploit other’s labor! Indeed, Democrats consistently made the same complaints Trump is now making about “free” trade. Republicans ignored them, to their detriment. But now Democrats have thrown those arguments away – and did it even before Donald Trump ran for President. Hint: Barack H. Obama is Woodrow Wilson 2.0.

A proper America first trade policy

So Donald Trump should continue his policy of aiming at tariffs that will replace income-tax revenues. Only recently he scored victories in the other purposes of tariffs: to force renegotiations of a lopsided trade regime. And apparently these tariffs have yielded significant revenues – and without a moment to lose, either.

At the same time, he must continue his campaign of territorial acquisition – where it makes sense. Greenland would serve a dual purpose: rare-earth mineral deposits, and shoreline to establish a Naval base or two, to supplement the present Space Force base. (Even Mr. Peck shouldn’t want Citizen Putin to start renaming the Arctic Nash Okean or Russkiy Okean. Arguably, Trump inadvertently tempted the Russian leader with a comparable precedent.) Trump shouldn’t try to acquire all of Canada. But Alberta Province would provide mineral resources, and the former Northwest Territories would secure the Northwest Passage.

More to the point, tariffs are a legitimate part of any civilizational, as opposed to a globalistic, policy. Globalism – even the soft globalism which libertarianism inevitably advocates – has worked against America and Americans. High time, therefore, that America abandon such policy.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/05/17/foundation/constitution/tariffs-trade-hard-truth/

Video:

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Yesterday a federal appellate court handed down an extraordinary order – extraordinary for two reasons. First, the court acted on a Saturday, not normally a working day. Second, the court said the lower, or trial, court made an elementary, indeed a rookie, mistake. The appeals court held that the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction in the matter before him – yet another matter involving the Trump administration. The reasoning behind their ruling could well apply to many more cases involving President Donald Trump’s authority to act.

The matter at hand in the jurisdiction dispute

Actually the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on four appeals before it. All these cases arise out of decisions by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, in response to an executive order by President Trump. That order called for eliminating, “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” any non-statutory components and functions of certain agencies. It also called for reducing the statutory functions to “the minimum presence and function required by law.” Executive Order 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.” This order affected seven named agencies, among them: the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). Kari Lake, former gubernatorial candidate in Arizona, serves as Senior Adviser to the Acting CEO of USAGM.

USAGM controls six different media organs, including

• Voice of America (VOA),

• Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MEBN),

• Reporters Without Borders (abbreviated RSF for the French form Rapporteurs sans frontières),

• Radio Free Asia (RFA),

• Open Technology Fund (OTF), and

• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), two networks in tandem addressing former members of the Warsaw Pact.

VOA is strictly a government agency, but the other five are private agencies that operate on grants from USAGM.

In response to EO 14238, USAGM:

1. Placed over 1000 employees on administrative leave,

2. Terminated 600 “personal service” contracts,

3. Terminated the grant agreements for MEBN and RFA, and

4. Shut down VOA completely.

USAGM took similar action against RFE/RL and OTF, but their lawsuits are at different stages.

What the various courts have done

On March 21, Reporter Patsy Widakuswara, six other reporters, RSF, and four unions sued to get their jobs back. Widakuswara v. Lake, case 1:25-cv-01015-RCL. They at first filed in the Southern District of New York. On April 4, on the government’s motion, the case was transferred to the District of Columbia court. On April 22, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of that court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the government to:

1. Re-hire all employees on administrative leave and reinstate all personal-service contracts,

2. Restore the RFA and MEBN grants, and

3. Switch VOA back on.

In his Memorandum Opinion, Judge Lamberth asserted that he had jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs had standing. Specifically Judge Lamberth rejected an argument that the Trump administration advanced, that the court lacked jurisdiction according to an “intervening” case on point. Department of Education v. California, 145 S. Ct. 966 (2025).

The government appealed the injunction almost immediately to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake, 25-5144. Specifically they appealed the first two parts of the injunction, disputing Judge Lamberth’s assertion of jurisdiction.

As is almost routine, the appellate court issued an administrative stay on Thursday (May 1). Two days later they followed that up with a stay pending appeal – meaning a stay until further notice. The panel, consisting of Judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao, and Cornelia Pillard, voted 2-1 to issue the stay. Judges Katsas and Rao are Trump appointees; Judge Pillard is an Obama appointee.

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

The panel issued their order per curiam, meaning without signatures, and attached a statement under that same condition. Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented from the unsigned statement in nearly every particular.

In their statement, Judges Katsas and Rao thumped Judge Lamberth for asserting a jurisdiction that, they say, he lacks. Article III District Courts have no jurisdiction over:

1. Personnel actions – hiring, firing, and entering into or terminating contracts, nor:

2. Grants and grant revocations.

Judge Lamberth asserted jurisdiction over the personnel actions because he accepted plaintiffs’ arguments that the Trump administration was engaging in “wholesale dismantling” of VOA and USAGM, and that such dismantling was in violation of statute. The panel reminded him that the Administrative Procedure Act does not grant jurisdiction in such cases. As to the grants, the Tucker Act provides that the Court of Federal Claims is the only forum for handling of grant disputes.

Furthermore, contrary to Judge Lamberth’s assertions, the panel found that Department of Education v. California does indeed apply.

Judge Padilla bases her entire dissent on the avowal by Lake that VOA is “irretrievably broken” and produces “radical propaganda.” Apparently the judge feels that VOA has an absolute right to produce whatever content it wishes, and that Presidents may not gainsay it. Given that VOA is a direct agency of the government itself, that assertion strains credulity.

An outside expert

Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist and counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, also weighed in. She dropped a fourteen-post thread on X in full support of the appellate court’s stay and supporting statement.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: HUGE win from Trump Administration and D.C. Circuit enters stay of lower court injunction. Lower court barred Trump Administration from managing Voice of America. D.C. Circuit stayed decision allowing Trump to move forward w/ firings/grant terminations.

Full order. Thoughts follow.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726388271423522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726517896425725

Court of Appeals decision is based on fundamental issue of "jurisdiction." This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726946822803638

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918727511464104404

The Court of Appeals decision is also significant because it addresses the "wholesale" "dismantling" argument being presented in several cases (such as USAID cases). The Administrative Procedures Act is NOT for such claims either & Congress did not waive such immunity! Additionally, Court of Appeals held that district court lacked jurisdiction to restore grants because Congress gave that authority to Court of Claims.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728045579391038

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728443170115984

Court of Appeals also notes how SCOTUS decision compels that result...which it DOES and yet district court ignored SCOTUS. Decision stressed why claims about grants must got to Court of Claims.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728737392038258

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729207523193043

Court of Appeals adds that Plaintiffs can't avoid Court of Claims by framing as non-APA claims. Court of Appeals again highlights that with no bond the harm to government is irreparable. Also noted that Voice of America isn't being shuttered.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729730225824112

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730062452433101

Court of Appeals also notes Judiciary Branch must follow the law too!

In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3 key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;…

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730276907155522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730625579622660

… and c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article III obey Article I.

Final thought: It is next to impossible to reconcile opinion here with same panels refusal to clarify stay in other case involving USAID and grants from legal perspective. Practically: Judge Katsas in other case figured decision on merits would be soon enough so no harm.

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730900256240038

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918731234437394472

With regard to that last thought: part of winning an injunction, or a stay, is a showing of irreparable harm absent either injunction or stay. In the USAID case, Judge Katsas thought a decision on the merits would be forthcoming soon enough to avoid harm.

Kari Lake was understandably pleased with the appeals court decision.

BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II. Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to.

https://x.com/KariLake/status/1918745448640057454

Specifically, USAGM need not rehire the same people Kari Lake fired from VOA, nor restore the RFA and MEBN grants. If VOA must continue, then it will continue with a different cadre running it.

In general, this is the first time in history that courts have tried to tell a President with what voice he and his subordinates must speak. It is also the first time that trial courts have made such elementary reversible errors. “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction” is the quickest way to get a court to throw out a case. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make that abundantly clear. Any judge who tries to set that aside is not fit to sit as a judge. Whether by reason of incompetence or bias, the conclusion is the same.

Prof. Cleveland is right about another thing: this case will affect other such cases. After all, Article III gives Congress full authority to decide jurisdiction.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2025/05/04/news/jurisdiction-courts-exceeding/

Video:

EO 14238:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/20/2025-04868/continuing-the-reduction-of-the-federal-bureaucracy

Court dockets and documents:

Trial level:

Docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69846584/widakuswara-v-lake/

Complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.1.0.pdf

Memorandum Opinion:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.98.0_1.pdf

Preliminary Injunction:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.99.0.pdf

Dept. of Ed. v. California order:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf

Appellate level:

Docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940505/patsy-widakuswara-v-kari-lake/

Administrative Stay:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211/gov.uscourts.dcd.279211.107.0.pdf

Stay pending appeal:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41991/gov.uscourts.cadc.41991.01208736131.0.pdf

Margot Cleveland’s thread:

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726388271423522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726517896425725

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918726946822803638

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918727511464104404

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728045579391038

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728443170115984

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918728737392038258

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729207523193043

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918729730225824112

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730062452433101

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730276907155522

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730625579622660

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1918730900256240038

Kari Lake’s reaction:

https://x.com/KariLake/status/1918745448640057454

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/