This Is a Judicial Coup Against President Trump!

Quick Overview

The panel majority in the Ninth Circuit's decision in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump wrongly pierced the deliberative process privilege by ignoring separation-of-powers concerns, allowing compelled discovery of internal executive branch communications that should have remained protected, thereby creating a blueprint for future end-runs around APA discovery rules.

Key Points: The panel majority in the Ninth Circuit decision wrongly pierced the deliberative process privilege by ignoring separation-of-powers concerns regarding internal RIF (Reduction in Force) documents. Judge Ikuta's dissent recognized compelling extra-record discovery requires a high burden, specifically a "narrow exception" or strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior. The panel majority suggested that the documents were not entitled to any deliberative process protection, which Judge Ikuta argues is contrary to precedent. The panel majority created a blueprint for making an end-run around the APA's normal discovery rules by suggesting that internal RIF Plans were 'predecisional deliberative documents' without proper justification. The dissenting opinion notes that the Supreme Court had already stepped in once in this case, and the panel majority's action ignores the President's Article II executive power, which is vested in him, not agencies acting independently. The panel majority wrongly suggested that the government's internal RIF Plans were not even deliberative, finding 'little evidence' to support this claim. The government petitioned for a writ of mandamus to halt the production of intra-governmental documents, but the panel majority denied it, leading to the dissent.

Context: The video features Andrew Branca, a SCOTUS Bar Attorney, analyzing a Ninth Circuit ruling concerning the deliberative process privilege in the context of challenges against President Trump's Executive Order 14210, which directed federal agencies to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs). Branca focuses heavily on the dissenting opinion, particularly by Judge Ikuta, who criticized the majority panel for overstepping its authority and weakening established legal precedents regarding executive privilege and discovery.