A government watchdog dismissed by President Donald Trump in January has filed a legal brief asserting that Trump was fully within his executive rights to fire him and the 16 other U.S. inspectors general removed just four days into his second term.
Eric Soskin was the former Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation. He was appointed during Trump’s first term as president. He was fired four days later, just after Trump had returned to the Oval Office.
Eric was fired as an inspector general, and he disagreed with the former IGs. “He wanted to be clear about that in his brief,” Beelaert stated.
Trump’s decision to remove government watchdogs across 17 agencies shortly after his election prompted a backlash of criticism and raised questions about the legality.
Eight of the watchdogs who were fired filed a suit, asking the judge in the case to declare the firings as illegal and restore the agency’s positions.
The plaintiffs’ next court hearing in D.C. is next week, but these remedies will not be successful. Soskin was so opposed to their reasoning that he refused to sign their suit and had his lawyers submit an amicus brief in his support, supporting the ability of the administration to terminate Soskin’s role.
Beelaert authored the amicus brief for Soskin, in which the main reasons why Trump has the right to make personnel decisions were outlined, including Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedents, and changes to federal policies.
In the brief, it is argued that the IG relied “mistakenly” on a precedent from the 1930s, Humphrey’s Executor. This precedent protects firings of agency employees in some cases and mandates a 30-day notice period before any personnel decision. Soskin’s attorneys argue that the case chosen is a misguided one and the precedent only applies to “multi-member expert balanced commissions that report primarily to Congress” and not to Soskin.
Beelaert stated, “Precedent of the Supreme Court over the past five to ten years almost completely rejected the idea that Congress could impose limitations on the President’s power to remove himself from office.”
Trump’s supporters point out that the 30-day notification period required by law is not mandatory anymore.
The Inspector General Act of 1998 was updated by Congress in 2022. Previously, the president had to inform Congress 30 days prior to any termination decision about any “reasons”. This notice requirement was changed in 2022, requiring only “substantive reasons for the termination, including case-specific details”.
According to the White House Director for Presidential Personnel, the terminations were in accordance with this requirement and reflected “changing priorities” within the administration.
Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee, R-Iowa, suggested to Congress earlier in the year that it should receive more details about the reason for firings. However, he declined to provide any further information on this matter.
The plaintiffs who are challenging these firings will have a difficult time presenting their case in the federal court next week.
The plaintiffs did not seem to be moved by their request for an emergency remedy.
She refused to grant the plaintiffs’ earlier request for temporary restraining orders – which is a difficult legal test that demands plaintiffs prove immediate and irreparable harm caused by the action – telling both parties that she was not likely to favor the plaintiffs in the larger preliminary hearing injunction scheduled for 11 March, unless new information or revelations were revealed.
Beelaert stated, “This is a powerful reminder of why elections are important.”
He said that of all times when the President should remove authority, the beginning of an administration is the most crucial. This was true for both parties.
It doesn’t matter who is in the White House. Beelaert stated that it does not matter who is president. The president should have the right to choose who will serve as part of his administration. To me, this is a little lost in the debate.
