Supreme Court STEPS IN and SLAPS Down Lower Judge!

Summary

In a dramatic turn of events, the Supreme Court has overruled a controversial order by a lower court judge, emphasizing the proper jurisdiction for contract disputes. The case involved grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership program, which were terminated, prompting several states to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court clarified that the APA does not grant the court the authority to enforce contract payments, and the claims must be dealt with in the Court of Federal Claims. This decision underscores the limits of judicial power in political matters and could have broader implications on similar lawsuits.

Highlights

• The Supreme Court decisively knocked down a controversial order attempting to enforce contract claims under the APA! ⚖️
• The case highlighted the court's stance on keeping political and judicial roles distinct. 👩‍⚖️
• A reminder that the APA is not a catch-all for enforcing contract disputes. 🚫
• This ruling could reverberate across other APA-based lawsuits! 📜
• Expectations are set for courts to adhere strictly to jurisdiction lines. 🚦

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court halts a lower court's attempt to intervene in contract disputes. 🚫
• Clarification is provided on the jurisdiction over contract claims, directing them to the Court of Federal Claims. 🏛️
• The decision limits using the APA for enforcing contract payments, setting a clear legal standard. 📜
• There's a strong message against forum shopping for judicial benefits. 🛑
• Political decisions should remain within the purview of the executive branch, not judicially enforced. ⚖️

Overview

In a showdown as intense as a legal drama series, the Supreme Court has struck down a lower court's decision, which attempted to involve itself in contract-related disputes under the APA. This case, arising from the termination of educational grants, shone a stark spotlight on the ongoing tension between judicial interpretation and executive authority.

Robert Gouveia, Esq., breaks down the intricacies of this significant ruling and what it means for the future of contract and administrative law. The legal spectacle unfolded with states claiming unlawful termination of grants, with a lower court initially siding with them based on APA claims. However, the Supreme Court's decision clarifies that the APA isn't the right pathway for these disputes, instead pointing to the Court of Federal Claims.

With this decisive ruling, the highest court in the land sends a clear message about the boundaries of judicial intervention in political and executive decisions, reinforcing the importance of adhering to the proper legal channels in legal disputes. This verdict is bound to influence how courts handle similar claims going forward, promising a shakeup in current and future APA-based litigations.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction The chapter titled 'Introduction' deals with a judge taking charge of the executive branch, criticizing the misuse of the APA, and discussing issues with contract cancellations not being granted. It mentions the involvement of the Supreme Court and the anticipation of their decision.
• 00:30 - 01:30: Background of the Case This chapter provides background information on a legal case discussed in a Supreme Court opinion. The opinion was issued per curium, meaning no single judge claimed authorship, and it resulted from a closely contested 5-4 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was noted to have dissented, preferring to deny the application for a stay. The case originated from the District of Massachusetts and involves a brief opinion from the Supreme Court spanning only a few pages.
• 01:30 - 02:30: Judge Mang Jin Jun's Appointment The chapter discusses the appointment of Judge Mang Jin Jun and an order issued by a lower-level judge on March 10th from the District of Massachusetts. It briefly touches on the Supreme Court's actions for context. A notable point is mentioned about Joe Biden's pattern of appointing individuals not born in America.
• 02:30 - 03:30: The Lawsuit Against the Department of Education The chapter discusses a lawsuit involving the Department of Education, focusing on a judge appointed by Joe Biden. The judge, originally from South Korea, is now presiding in Massachusetts, a point that the speaker highlights, questioning why someone native to Massachusetts was not appointed given the constitutional matters involved. The chapter hints at underlying tensions regarding the judge's background and his role in interpreting constitutional issues across the United States.
• 03:30 - 05:30: Sovereign Immunity and Contract Claims Explained The chapter titled 'Sovereign Immunity and Contract Claims Explained' discusses a judge who has had a diverse career, including serving as a city judge in Boston, working with the ACLU, serving in the National Guard, and being part of the American Bar Foundation. He was appointed by Joe Biden and confirmed by a committee. The narrative indicates that he made a significant decision regarding certain states, such as California, Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland, which filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, on March 6. This complaint pertained to an action taken by the department on February 7th.
• 05:30 - 06:30: Judges' Misunderstanding of Sovereign Immunity The chapter discusses the concept of sovereign immunity and how judges sometimes misunderstand it. In this instance, it is about the termination of grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program. The plaintiffs filed a Temporary Temporary Restraining Order (TTRO) against the Trump administration, arguing that they couldn't just cut off these funds. A judge sided with the plaintiffs and granted their motion by entering a TTRO against Trump, thus restoring the funds to the plaintiffs. Trump countered by arguing that the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not extend to this case.
• 06:30 - 09:00: The TTRO Issued by Judge Yang The chapter discusses the challenges of suing the government due to sovereign immunity. A special court, the Court of Federal Claims, was established for contract claims under the Tucker Act. The chapter also touches on suing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but notes that there is generally no waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims under the APA, hence the necessity for the separate court.
• 09:00 - 15:00: Supreme Court's Response The chapter titled 'Supreme Court's Response' discusses a legal debate involving the Supreme Court of the United States (Scotas) and differing opinions on sovereign immunity. Some states argue they can sue due to waivers of sovereign immunity, while referencing a judge from Korea and a precedent from a Massachusetts session. The session revealed that, despite appearances of constitutional claims, the essence of the action was not based on a contract, as discussed in a previous thoughtful analysis by another judge.
• 15:00 - 20:00: Conclusion and Significance of the Ruling This chapter discusses a significant ruling where the plaintiffs argue that their rights to free association under the First Amendment were violated due to the cancellation of their contract with the government. They seek equitable relief not because the contract was canceled but to have the grants reinstated, essentially undoing the cancellation. The judge concurs with their argument, emphasizing the distinction between equitable relief and contract law, noting that they are not simply challenging the contract cancellation but are addressing broader constitutional issues.

Supreme Court STEPS IN and SLAPS Down Lower Judge! Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 okay this judge is now in charge of the executive branch it's ridiculous well you didn't explain it good enough for me to approve and sign off on your executive decision you can't order what you ordered there because it's a contract you're ordering the money to be paid that's not what the APA is for hello get the memo these APA claims are garbage your contract cancellations were never entitled to you the Supreme Court of the United States has finally spoken we've been waiting for something even a little bit of a tidbit of a smorgus
• 00:30 - 01:00 board of something and they gave it to us today you can see this came down in a per curium opinion so it is the opinion of the court there's not a single judge who's taking ownership of this decision and it looks to be very close decision a 5-4 decision because John Roberts would have denied the application for a stay and so some background on this case before we get into it very short opinion from the Supreme Court you can see it's just a couple pages here it's coming up from the District of Massachusetts and you're going to see the very first word
• 01:00 - 01:30 here basically is on March 10th the lower level judge did a thing so what did that lower level judge do well they issued this order you can see March 10th is the date of this order that came out from the district of Massachusetts and we'll read through what happened here just very briefly so we have some context what the Supreme Court has done but for background this is a judge who is called Mang Jin Jun and as Joe Biden did regularly he appointed a ton of people who were not born in America now that is an interesting pattern from Joe
• 01:30 - 02:00 it's curious to me how he can't find people from you know Massachusetts who were born in Massachusetts who could come and interpret the American Constitution based on their American heritage and upbringing and living in the country but Joe Biden did this for a lot of people this guy was born in South Korea in Seoul and has now been appointed to be the judge of Massachusetts and is now ruling on constitutional issues that impact the entire country acting like he's a natural-b born president but he's not so anyways just a little side note there but Joe Biden appointed this guy and he
• 02:00 - 02:30 was a Boston city judge before he then went and worked for the ACLU bunch of other things served in the National Guard and was part of the American Bar Foundation and Joe Biden appointed him and he was confirmed out of committee and so on and so forth so now he's in charge of apparently the country and he decided that accordingly in this order he said all right you know on March 6 a bunch of these blue states this is this judge writing uh California and Massachusetts and New York and Maryland and all of them they sued the secretary of education Linda McMahon they said that on February 7th the department of
• 02:30 - 03:00 education terminated all grants that were awarded under the TQP program the teacher quality partnership program whatever that is drifting teachers are us so plaintiff states filed a TTRO they said "You can't cut off those funds how dare you?" They held a hearing this judge said "I grant their motion and I enter a TTRO against Trump give them back their money." So then Trump says "Wait a minute the waiver of sovereign immunity in the APA does not extend to
• 03:00 - 03:30 contract claims which is something we've talked a lot about here so it's hard to sue the government because they've got sovereign immunity so they pass laws they say "Well if you want to sue because there's a contract breach we're going to set up a special court for you." It's called the Court of Federal Claims they actually did that under the Tucker Act not that Tucker and set that up but you can also sue under the APA but only if there's a waiver of sovereign immunity and specifically there isn't a waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow you to sue if it is a contract claim under the APA there's a whole separate court for that we've talked about this a ton here these
• 03:30 - 04:00 judges just don't understand it they're going to get told here in a minute though from Scotas now the states disagree saying "No waiver of sovereign immunity says we can sue you right here we can sue you in Massachusetts under this judge from Korea." Now very recently another session in this district examined this precise issue in substantially a similar case to this one massachusetts this is this judge writing says in that case in a thoughtful analysis another judge said that the essence of the action was not actually a contract remember they drape these things in constitutional claims even
• 04:00 - 04:30 though they're just contracts like we just got our contract canceled by the government but they say oh our free association rights were canceled under first amendment he says I agree and this judge is just going to copy and paste Judge Kelly because why you know reanalyze it yeah that sounds good here they say they're seeking relief equitable relief they want the grants reinstated okay they're not suing because the contract was cancelled hello they're suing to just turn the contract back on which is like to undo the cancellation oh my gosh and the judge is like "Yeah it's equity it's not contract
• 04:30 - 05:00 it's so ridiculous." Maybe that's how they do things there in South Korea i don't know but plaintiff states also this blue states seek to enjoin defendants from implementing giving effect to maintaining or reinstating under a different name the termination of any awarded grant so preserve the status quo so I think you're going to win i begin with the likelihood of success on the merits which is considered the most important of the four elements you're going to win this right this judge he's just going to get told in a minute I think you're going to win he writes "The record reflects there was no individualized analysis of any of
• 05:00 - 05:30 the programs." And that it appears that all the grants were simply terminated you didn't look at him on a case-by case basis we've already gone through this routine with the US aid case and then they said "Yeah we did marco Rubio was up late last that one night for like three nights he had like five Red Bulls." He was like "Yeah another one just keep it going." Yeah cancelled cancelled another one cancelled cancelled this judge I see no reasoned explanation articulated for why the department did what they did okay this judge is now in charge of the executive branch it's ridiculous well you didn't explain it good enough for me to approve and sign off on your executive decision
• 05:30 - 06:00 first the termination lists several theoretical bases for the termination grants it says you're canceled because you do DEI or you're not free from waste or fraud or it could be this he says "Well that's not clear enough i need a reasoned explanation you don't have power unless I sign off on it." There is no indication that the department examined the relevant records to the contrary it feels like they didn't look at these individually at And so since you didn't look at them individually I find this is arbitrary and capriccious under the APA and award them a victory he's going to get told in a minute for these reasons I think they're going to
• 06:00 - 06:30 win wrong under the APA and I'm going to say that it's arbitrary and capriccious sorry judge so the blue states have adequately shown that they would be irreparably harmed also if we don't grant this TTRO saying an irreparable injury is an injury that cannot be compensated for later and these are two sides of the same coin the termination of funding for California state uh with the objective of training and developing highqualified community- centered teachers has resulted in the loss in mentoring of 26 students and the loss of
• 06:30 - 07:00 stipens for 50 incoming students who need these stipens to participate in classroom teaching oh man they're doomed now here in Massachusetts where Boston Public Schools has relied on their money right he's like we need this money the abrupt termination of this grant has resulted in the loss of three full-time employees again judge these are decisions that the president makes these are political decisions if the people are unhappy with these firings Trump can be held accountable at the ballot box what is happening is these judges are substituting the TTRO rules which are
• 07:00 - 07:30 not for this okay not to come in and make political judgments and issue nationwide injunctions on the basis of political discretionary decisions this judge is not politically accountable to anybody that's why he can do whatever he wants he might think this is an appropriate benefit because he knows those guys and they save him a parking spot at their happy hours but it's apparent he says these harms have already resulted and I agree with the states that these damages and further compensation later down the line are not going to make us whole and so they have established irreparable harm again Scotas is going to reverse this in a
• 07:30 - 08:00 minute but he wraps up saying finally upon consideration of these the public interest supports these if I don't grant this the record shows if I deny this relief dozens of programs upon which public schools and universities and students and faculty and teachers rely will be gutted that's the point only the strong will survive that's the point on the other hand if I were to grant the TTRO as another court has put it defendants merely would have to disperse the funds all they have to do is just give the money out and I find that absent an order there's a serious risk that these services are going to be
• 08:00 - 08:30 disrupted and it's integral to their daily lives like these are all political considerations we know so for the reasons above this judge wrote "Trump shall immediately restore the states to the pre-existing status quo give them all that government money back." Says Trump is also enjoined prohibited from stopping the funding of them you're also enjoined from stopping the funding of other entities within 24 hours of this order you shall provide notice about these people getting their money back you should confirm your compliance with this TTRO this TTRO shall become
• 08:30 - 09:00 effective immediately upon entry by this court and more by March 11th the party shall give us briefing and so on obviously Trump was not happy about this and appealed it so of course this was signed off by the South Korean judge called Mong J jun who is now in charge of the executive branch saying you can't cancel these funds okay you didn't do it to my satisfaction now all of this is obviously wrong so Trump appealed it it went up to the court of appeals and then it went up to the United States Supreme Court and now that we're caught up here we are trump applies to the Supreme
• 09:00 - 09:30 Court wanting to vacate Judge Jang's order issued out of Massachusetts so the Supreme Court has come back down what I believe is a 5 to4 decision we can look at it in more detail with John Roberts joining the libs came out and said "All right listen on March 10th the United States District Court for Massachusetts issued what it styled as a TTRO." Okay they call it a temporary restraining order and we've here talked a lot about these we know what they are okay they're preliminary injunctions they call them
• 09:30 - 10:00 TTRO's cuz they call everything things that are not what they are okay we can see that it's a preliminary injunction on our face even a three-year-old could see that that's an injunction well it thinks it's a TTRO it's not it's an injunction everyone knows okay even no matter what you put on it how much wigs or dresses or whatever it's an injunction in joining the government from terminating various education related grants now the order also requires the government from Judge Yang to pay out past due grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as
• 10:00 - 10:30 they acrew so everything Trump said with the Department of Ed is reversed now the district court's conclusion writes to the Supreme Court rested on a finding that the states are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because they were suing under the APA and remember tons of lawsuits that we've covered here are also brought under this same claim it's the same type of garbage saying "Well it's a constitutional loss our rights are being infringed there's no other remedy anywhere else." And they're suing on these bases with other things attached too but major claims we've
• 10:30 - 11:00 talked about this statute a lot supreme Court says "Okay he says they're going to win." And it's based on that law cuz that's what they're suing under so on March 26 then Trump's government filed this application to vacate the judge's lower order and to request an immediate administrative stay which is what they're deciding now although the courts of appeals generally lack appellet jurisdiction over appeals from TTRO's because they're temporary temporary restraint and they say it's just for like 14 days just chill out okay once we litigate this then you can appeal it up
• 11:00 - 11:30 once it comes down and you have a finality after the end we get to a preliminary injunction then you can appeal it but it's too early to appeal right just like in criminal law you appeal at the conclusion of the case broadly speaking the Supreme Court says but it's not a TTRO we can see it just like everybody they say several actors council in favor of construing the district court's order as an appealable preliminary injunction we can see it hanging there among other consideration the district court's order from Judge Yong carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction obviously and
• 11:30 - 12:00 they're citing cases so this is like instruction to all the other courts right they're reminding hey other circuits if you're issuing a TTRO and you're calling it a TTRO but it has the chromosomes of a preliminary injunction then you should go with the chromosomes you know see what those look like and the case law for that is Samson and Abbott so you got to follow these guidelines if it's a TTRO masquerading as a preliminary injunction we're going to call it out as a PI so just reminder on that so everybody who's doing this little game now you know go read Samson
• 12:00 - 12:30 go read Abbott those are our Supreme Court cases we decided this one in 1964 we revisited it again in 2018 so stop with the games injunctions are injunctions now moreover Judge Yang's basis for issuing the order is strongly challenged they say Supreme Court as the government Trump is likely to succeed in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA no jurisdiction you can't order what you ordered there because it's a contract you're ordering
• 12:30 - 13:00 the money to be paid that's not what the APA is for hello saying "Hey judge." the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity which if you have sovereign immunity the government cannot be sued so they say well there's a law that says the government waves that so we can sue you here under the APA supreme Court says no the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply if quote if any other statute that grants consent to the lawsuit meaning the government is agreeing to be sued if that other statute expressly or impliedly forbids
• 13:00 - 13:30 the relief which is sought then you can't come and sue under the APA okay so in other words if there's a law that says you can't sue for that thing under this statute then you can't go and try to find another statute or forum or bring that same claim under the APA right it's like you can't go from mom to dad if you go to dad and dad says "Sorry you can't do that you can't go to mom and she says "Well I'm APA mother so I guess I'll allow you to do it." No you're prohibited from that thing you can't use the APA as a safety valve to
• 13:30 - 14:00 just go "Well I can't bring it over here because it's specifically statutoily prohibited so I'll just use this catch-all claim to bring a claim." Nor does the waiver apply to a claim that is seeking quote money damages look at the law five US code 702 now it's true right which is what we're talking about so the judges are calling this out specifically these are contract claims for money they're saying "No they're not they're equitable claims to just return the contracts to their status quo position." So you mean you want specific performance to reinstitute the contract no we just want them to turn the autopay
• 14:00 - 14:30 back on okay so you want money is what you're saying no we just want the check boxes to be reon so the money goes into your account right yeah got it so you want money damages yeah true the lower court said well you know just because there's a possibility this is what the lower judge that there might be money that results in this case right the judge is saying well I am yeah I'm ordering a return to the status quo so what they're getting money but that doesn't make this a contract claim i'm just returning it to the status quo because these are constitutional violations that caused a problem here
• 14:30 - 15:00 they say "Well but as we've recognized the APA's limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money." H derp hey dumb dumb judge look at this case called Great West Life issued by the Supreme Court in 2002 you can't force money payments under the APA the Tucker Act not that Tucker grants the Court of Federal Claims which how many times have we screamed that here the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdictions over suits over any express or implied contracts with the
• 15:00 - 15:30 United States you're in the wrong courtroom and this is everywhere so we've seen there are hundreds of cases that have been filed now a good portion I'd say over 50% of them have some sort of an APA claim wrapped up in there and most of these are contract claims even you Perkins Koi and all these people there so our rights are being violated although I don't know if they came under the APA with theirs specifically but many of them are saying right our rights are being violated and these are contract cancellations trump has every right to cancel these things and if they want to complain about it it's already
• 15:30 - 16:00 in US code go sue in the right court you can't go forum shop for certain judges now as for the remaining state factors this is the Supreme Court writing the states have not even refuted the government's representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are dispersed remember this concept too once the money goes out of the government bank account it's gone forever they're not going to get it back and so our response well issue an injunction bond make them post some money up so that they have some skin in the game so that if Trump is successful as these cases appeal up through the
• 16:00 - 16:30 courts of appeals and into the Supreme Court if Trump is successful we get the money back otherwise the taxpayers are on the hook once these funds are gone and paid out to all their Democrat grifters they're going to dump them back into their politicians hands and we're never going to see a dime of it so they say there's no guarantee that the government is going to get any of it back if they win so that's why they want a stay because that money will be gone and the judges in response to the demand for the injunction bonds has been to just make a nominal injunction bond of $100 and well you know it's just enough that's fine they don't have the funds to come up with it and this will secure
• 16:30 - 17:00 their appearance so the Supreme Court continues "No grantee promised to return the withdrawn funds should its grant termination be reinstated." Right so in other words states you have not promised to give the money back and the district court inclined to impose a bond so by contrast the government compellingly argues that the respondents would not suffer a reparable harm while the TTRO are stayed right they've represented in this litigation the states that they have the financial wherewithal they're going to keep their programs running so if respondents ultimately prevail the
• 17:00 - 17:30 Supreme Court says they can get back pay okay they can just go sue in the court of federal claims and get damages they say we're owed you know $10 million okay go sue over there and claim it then you can get it but you don't need a stay that stops Trump from doing all of these changes and if respondents instead decline to keep the programs operating if they want to eliminate the programs then any ensuing irreparable harm would be of their own making so they want to cancel everything then that's fine they've already explained that there is no irreparable harm so that basis from Judge Yang is not good so such
• 17:30 - 18:00 self-imposed costs are not the subject of an inquiry on a motion to stay right if they say "Well we have to wind down our services." Well that's your prerogative make that decision if it's not worth it to you to fund these things the federal government was funding then close it so the Supreme Court says "We construe the application as seeking a stay pending appeal and grant the stay." and the March 10th order and the March 24th extension from the lower level judge from Massachusetts is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for
• 18:00 - 18:30 the first circuit so this is like a roadmap back for the court of appeals to say hey we don't think there is any irreparable harm we don't think that there is any you know merits to their claim under the APA and we don't think the district court even has jurisdiction here so it's like a guideline for the court of appeals to dismiss this case and disposition so says it is stayed and disposition of a petition for writ of sir shiiori if it is timely sought now if the supreme court denies cert the stay shall automatically terminate and in the event cert is granted the stay
• 18:30 - 19:00 shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court okay so he's basically given like if this then that if this then that but we're going to the first circuit everything is on stay till the first circuit disposes of this if the first circuit does not dispose of this Trump will go to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court denies cert then the stay is terminated right we know oh Supreme Court's not acting on it that judge is right it can be allowed to exist if the Supreme Court grants it then the stay shall terminate when they send down judgment from the Supreme Court this court which would of course
• 19:00 - 19:30 coincide with the judgment so we have the rest of it fleshed out so this judge is now stay judge John from South Korea now serving in the district of Massachusetts who wrote an order that prohibited everybody in the department of education from doing anything and ordered everybody to go back to the status quo so it's very clear that they're amazing and you know is clear on the merits and they have a reparable harm and boohoohoo all the things he was scolded and reversed by the Supreme Court and what is so nice about this is hopefully all of the other circuits all
• 19:30 - 20:00 of the other districts get the memo these APA claims are garbage your contract cancellations were never entitled to you you don't get to enjoy the government teeth for all eternity go find another source of income stop suing and trying to make constitutional claims the American people have said enough already go find something else to do and thank you for your attention to this matter the Supreme Court dropping a good one and I think this is the beginning right of some solidarity on how the court will address these one at a time
• 20:00 - 20:30 peace meal i don't know why they chose this case specifically but they did and it should have reverberations throughout the rest of the cases we're covering here so we'll keep our eye on this thanks for joining us and subscribing as we