Judge Chuang is mulling whether to grant a preliminary injunction in a suit alleging that DOGE violates the Appointments Clause. He asked the government to file documents that reflect who authorized certain actions related to the dismantling of USAID. Some of the responses are..interesting. 1/
Let's start with category 3 of Judge Chuang's order, which requested "specific orders or other decision documents" signed by the government official that authorized the decision to "shut down USAID headquarters and remove USAID signage from the building beginning on January 31, 2025." 2/
In response to the request for docs showing who ordered the shut down of USAID on *January 31*, DOJ filed a letter in which GSA tells USAID that its occupancies are cancelled. The problem? The letter was sent on *FEBRUARY 7.* It doesn't show who authorized the building's closure a week earlier! 3/
Also, keep in mind that category 3 of the order also requested documents related to the decision to take down signage from USAID's buildings starting on Jan. 31. The letter DOJ filed says nothing about that, and they omit the part about signage in their exhibit description for category 3. 4/
Ok, now let's look at what the government filed in response to category 5, in which the judge requested "orders or other decision documents" showing who authorized the decision to "take USAID's website offline on February 1, 2025." 5/
It's an email from an official who works in web management at USAID. The body of the email and its recipients are redacted. But the subject line reads: "USAID.gov is offline." But that's not an order or command! It's just a description of what was happening at the time! 6/
I’m still going through these filings and will add more later if I can. But from what I’ve seen thus far, many of DOJ’s submissions are not really responsive to the court’s order. End/to be continued…?