On a recent Wednesday, a federal appeals court stood firm against succumbing to the administrative whims of the now former U.S. President Donald Trump, who sought to dramatically reshape the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed overhaul, mindlessly spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was a mission to cause chaos in the organization by firing thousands of employees and reorganizing several agencies.
This questionable endeavor was halted by a stride of sanity from a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The panel unstintingly held up a federal judge’s injunction brought forth by several Democrat-led states. The Trump administration’s ploy of reorganization was swiftly met with principled opposition, a move that proves some pillars of reason remain in our legal system.
According to the highly questionable plan from Secretary Kennedy’s office, announced earlier this year, the intention was to commence a large-scale jumbling of the department’s functionality, disrupting work for thousands of employees. The absurd rationalization that the states could not substantiate immediate harm if the injunction was lifted did not sit well with the panel.
The foundation of their collective decision relied on copious amounts of testimony from state officials – solid evidence that contradicted the reckless claims of the Trump administration. The court astutely observed that the government failed to articulate how the district court had erred by acknowledging these established facts.
Interesting to note that all three judges on this panel were appointed by ex-President Joe Biden, a Democrat whose tenure, however controversial, reminds us of the importance of checks and balances. Under the proposed plan, the Health Department would have seen a myopic downsizing that involved the termination of 10,000 dedicated employees.
In a bid to monopolize power, the scheme further intended to centralize some functions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies under Kennedy’s remit. A nugget of wisdom expressed in the old English idiom – ‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
Standing courageously against the potential misdirection of public health services, 19 states, together with the District of Columbia, contested the implementation of the restructuring plan. The proposed changes included mind-boggling initiatives such as merging 28 divisions into 15 while shutting down half of its 10 regional offices.
While the states presented a united front against the entire plan, their specific ask was to prevent the reckless terminations and disarray in four critical agencies within HHS, namely, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office of Head Start.
The adverse consequences of the intended cuts would have been disastrous. They entailed closure of infectious disease labs, abandoning crucial research and suspending vital partnerships. The proposed disarray would have appended challenges on the CDC, limiting its capacity to investigate diseases, and disrupt the Head Start centers supporting early childhood education.
In July, relief came in the form of agreement from a judge who highlighted the arrogated stance of the administration. In her order, she expressly stated that the administration lacked the necessary constitutional authority to commandeer wholesale structural and functional changes in congressional agencies.
Not one to respect court orders, the administration predictably appealed, brazenly asking the ruling to be voided with a flawed comparison to two previous cases where the U.S. Supreme Court lifted orders to reinstate employees at other agencies. Alarmingly, this was part of a wider effort to silence the voices of those who dare to question the administration’s decision-making processes.
The administration’s dubious arguments that speculated potential harms on states as a result of departmental changes held no water. Challenges to unlawful terminations, they argued, should be left for the affected federal employees to pursue – an attempt to divide and rule.
However, showing the impartial judgment deciders are known for, the 1st Circuit iterated on Wednesday that states are heavily reliant on HHS for numerous public health services. Therefore, it is the state’s duty to protect these services, and they rightfully have a stake in the controversy.
Despite the narrative spun by the previous administration, the importance of maintaining the integrity and structure of health institutions cannot be understated. These institutions serve the people, and any actions that compromise their efficacy are undeniably a cause for concern and legal redress. Thankfully, this instance showed that the justice system, despite complexities, can serve as an often-needed counterbalance.
The post Biden’s Appointees Protect Trump’s Disarray Plan: Makes Mockery of Legal System appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
