President Donald Trump launched a legal summary in January, a government regulator that argued Trump could fire him within his executive power, while 16 other U.S. inspectors were removed for only four days after their second term.
Former U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General Eric Soskin was appointed during Trump’s first presidency. Four days after Trump returned to the Oval Office, he was fired, Givens Pursley’s attorney Jeff Beelaert told Fox News in an interview.
“Eric was one of the fired inspectors and disagreed with his former IG colleague. He wanted to make it clear when submitting the profile.”
Trump’s inauguration soon after his turn to remove government regulators from 17 government agencies, sparking strong opposition, criticism and questions about the legitimacy of personnel rulings.
Litigation Tracker: New Resistance to Fight Trump’s Second Term through Litigation Attacks Against EOS
E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court saw in Washington, DC (Mandel Ngan/AFP VíaGetty Images)
The move prompted lawsuits from eight ousted regulators who asked the case’s presidential judge, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, to declare their shooting illegal and to restore their acting position.
These remedies are considered long-term and are unlikely to succeed when the plaintiff appears in DC Court for his next hearing. Even so, Soskin disagrees with their reasons that not only did he refuse to join the lawsuit, but he also had his lawyers support the government’s ability to terminate his role on his behalf.
Beelaert helped the authors say Amicus’ summary on behalf of Soskin, outlining the main reasons why Trump does have the right to make these personnel decisions under Article 2 of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and latest news on federal policy.
The summary calls for the IGS’s “error” dependence on the 1930s precedent, Humphrey’s executor, who in some cases protected the agency’s shooting and required a 30-day notice period for any personnel decision. Soskin’s lawyers argue that the reliance on this situation is misleading, and that the precedent only applies to members of the “multi-person, expert, balanced committee” who largely report to Congress and have no dispute here.
“In the past five years, the Supreme Court precedent has almost completely rejected the notion that Congress can impose restrictions on the president’s removal authorities,” Beelaert said.
Trump hopes ‘activists’ sue the government if money is lost
The Supreme Court justice took a photo in the Supreme Court. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
Other critics point out that Trump failed to give Congress a 30-day notice period before ending the administration’s regulators — a form that Trump supporters no longer need it under the law.
In 2022, Congress updated the Inspector General Act of 1978, which previously required the president to make any “reason” for termination with Congress 30 days before any decision was made. The notice provisions were revised in 2022 and only require “substantial reasons, including detailed and specific cases”.
The White House chief of president claims that the firing is consistent with the request, reflecting “change priorities” within the administration.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grasley (R-Iowa) suggested earlier this year that Congress should be provided with more information on the cause of the shooting, although he recently refused to elaborate on the matter.
Trump temporarily thwarts Doge’s mission to end USDA
President Donald Trump spoke to reporters at the Oval Office of the White House on February 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The plaintiff who challenged the sacking is likely to face a tough time in the federal court case next week.
The chairman of the case, Reyes, was not moved by the plaintiff’s bid for emergency relief.
She refused to approve their earlier interim restraining orders—a difficult legal test that required plaintiffs to prove “irreparable” and immediately hurt by action—and sued both parties at the hearing that she was reluctant to hear the trial plan with a larger scheduled schedule unless there was new or inspiring information.
“At the end of the day, this makes the election crucial,” Bellat said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“In all times when the president should be dismissed, this is the beginning of the government,” he said, which should be the most important, he said, for both parties.
“It doesn’t matter who serves in the White House. I think it doesn’t matter whether it’s President Trump, President Biden – it doesn’t matter.” “The president should be allowed to choose who wants to serve in his administration. For me, that’s a little lost in this debate.”
