Constitutional Law Expert Baffled by Court’s Restraint on Trump’s Buyout Offer
Introduction:
Jonathan Turley, a prominent constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor, expressed surprise and confusion over a federal judge’s extension of a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Trump administration’s buyout offer to federal employees.
Turley’s Stance:
Turley argued that the offer is "perfectly within the wheelhouse of the president." He emphasized that presidents have the authority to dictate employee conditions, such as work arrangements and staffing levels. In this case, he saw no constitutional issue with the buyout offer, which allows federal employees to resign and receive a lump sum payment in exchange for staying home and seeking other employment.
Turley pointed out that over 65,000 employees have voluntarily accepted the buyout proposal. He questioned the court’s intervention, stating that such authority belongs to the executive branch, not the judiciary.
Legal Authority of the President:
Turley asserted that the president has the authority to "downsize" the federal workforce and make personnel decisions, including reducing the number of employees. He noted that Congress has a role in determining the size of the workforce, but the president has the power to manage its composition and operations.
Turley drew a distinction between employee protections and permanent employment. Federal employees are entitled to due process and employment protections, but they do not have an absolute right to retain their positions indefinitely.
Judge’s Decision and Implications:
The TRO issued by Judge George O’Toole has put the buyout program on hold. The judge has not provided a timeline for a decision, leaving the fate of the offer uncertain.
The lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of labor unions alleges that the administration lacks the authority to administer the buyout payments and that the offer is arbitrary and capricious. They also raise concerns about the potential impact of mass resignations on the government’s ability to function.
Conclusion:
Turley remains perplexed by the court’s decision to intervene in the president’s buyout authority. He believes that the administration has acted within its constitutional powers and that the judiciary should defer to the executive branch in matters of personnel management. The outcome of the legal challenge remains to be seen, but the TRO has cast uncertainty over the future of the buyout program.
