Reposted by SC the A Cat
SC the A Cat
@sctheacat.bsky.social
109 followers 177 following 140 posts
A lover of Pokémon, video games, tech writing, game documentation, content management systems, and more. Life long learner who wished she tried writing Markdown sooner.
![Department—claiming Defendants caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm for which they now seek “at least $10,000.000,000.00.” (DE 1 ¶ 11; Id. at 26). At first glance, the Complaint seemingly satisfies Article III by establishing causes of action “arising under . . . the laws of the United States[.]” U.S. CONST. ART. III, § 2. However, closer examination reveals that a justiciable case or controversy is absent; Plaintiffs and Defendants are not adverse because one party controls this litigation. See Muskrat, 219 U.S. at 361 (noting that judicial power only extends to “actual controversies arising between adverse litigants[.]”). In reaching this conclusion, the Court determines that Plaintiffs improperly Page 17 of 56 Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2026 Page 18 of 56 employed this lawsuit to justify a particular award in this matter—access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations—which was accomplished by leveraging control over Defendants. a. There is No Case or Controversy Because One Party Controls This Litigation. President Trump is Chief of the Executive Branch, see U.S. CONST. Art. II, § 1 (the “Vesting Clause”), and the Vesting Clause is the bedrock of his authority over that branch of government. Id. Specifically, the Vesting Clause states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Id.; see also Free Enter. Fund](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6cdw2mjawfdu73epojmnhrq3/bafkreiekeor7ysj6zyfpqk4h7vtxiqagncnovgzot6qszozjlh44zns3cq)
