Reposted by Lise 🇺🇦
This bit, and how it interacts with the "unitary executive" is worth focusing on
The district court's order (as summarized here by the panel) says as a matter of law Scott Bessent effectively *is* Trump, and even if he isn't, he's still effectively Trump's agent
![Third, the district court explained that, by executive order,
President Trump had asserted his supervision and control of the
entire Executive Branch, including specifically control over its liti
gation activities. That executive order provides that his opinions
on questions of law are “controlling on all employees in the con
duct of their duties.” Id. at 22 (citing Ensuring Accountability for
All Agencies, E.O. 14215 (Feb. 18, 2025)). The executive order
states that President Trump “provide[s] authoritative interpreta
tions of law for the executive branch.” E.O. 14215 at § 7. As a
result, the court found it “[un]surprising[ ]” that, unlike in other
similar cases, no attorney for the defendants ever appeared or chal
lenged the action. See D.E. 106 at 23.
“Considering the brief chronology, the silent docket, and
[the] [d]efendants’ deviation from basic litigation strategies pur
sued in similar cases,” the court concluded that the “[d]efendants
chose not to ‘advance an interpretation of the law as the position](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:eoss3vmzem55cm5kuddhdmwn/bafkreielf4a2kc45hie23tf327mwwedkci2jfshfv2czn3gw2s4776f63a)
![Fourth, the district court found that the resolution of the
lawsuit further indicated that the parties’ interests were “one and
the same,” demonstrating lack of adversity and improper motive:
“[T]he extraordinary award fashioned by the [p]arties for claims
that were never litigated, and have yet to be defined, on behalf of
unidentified third parties whose future remedies bear no relation
ship to the claims in this case, indicates that real adverse interests
were never before the [c]ourt.” Id. at 27–29.
After providing further reasons, the district court concluded
that the fact that the parties were not adverse and the lawsuit col
lusive and jurisdictionally improper was “so obvious and so insur
mountable” that it led the court to conclude that the plaintiffs filed
the lawsuit for the improper purpose of justifying and legitimating
“a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact.” Id. at 38.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:eoss3vmzem55cm5kuddhdmwn/bafkreigdtc5pjo5dqrtap5yg4kfn6qydqp5flba3oqm57tuvrfgz6byjn4)
