# This Is a Judicial Coup Against President Trump!

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJc5-QA0czo
Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/mJc5-QA0czo
Generated: 2026-01-13T15:34:46.403+00:00

---
## 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.

![Screenshot at 00:04: The video displays a PDF document showing the case caption 'AMERICAN FED'N OF GOV'T EMPLOYEES V. TRUMP' and the summary section of the judicial order being discussed.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/mJc5-QA0czo/00-00-04.jpg)

**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.

## Detailed Analysis

Andrew Branca analyzes the Ninth Circuit's decision in the case concerning President Trump's Executive Order 14210 regarding RIFs, highlighting the dissent written by Judge Ikuta. Branca notes that the panel majority essentially ignored the Supreme Court's prior intervention and wrongly pierced the deliberative process privilege. The panel majority found that the government's internal RIF Plans were not deliberative, relying on 'little evidence' and an 'unbelievably narrow view' of what constitutes deliberation. They suggested documents must reflect an executive branch employee's 'personal position' rather than an 'agency position' to qualify as deliberative. Judge Ikuta's dissent argued that this position is contrary to precedent and that the majority's ruling degrades the separation of powers by allowing courts to compel disclosure of internal executive branch communications. The dissent pointed out that the majority incorrectly assumed the RIF plans were predecisional deliberative documents and ignored the fact that the administrative record contained no evidence of harm from disclosure. Furthermore, the dissent argued that the majority's reliance on an 'ultra vires' claim to justify broad discovery was flawed, as the APA rules they cited only apply where there is no administrative record, which was not the case here. The dissenting opinion concluded that the panel majority made three errors that needed correction en banc.

### Ninth Circuit Panel Errors

- The panel denied a petition for rehearing en banc; Panel majority flirted with the idea that RIF plans were not even deliberative, finding 'little evidence'; Panel majority suggested documents weren't entitled to any deliberative process protection; Panel majority created a blueprint for an end-run around APA discovery rules.

### Judge Ikuta's Dissent

- Ikuta explicitly dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc; The dissent noted the majority's errors degraded the separation of powers; Ikuta recognized compelling extra-record discovery requires showing 'narrow exception' or 'strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior'.

### Deliberative Process Privilege

- The privilege protects deep common-law roots protecting separation of powers; The panel majority weakened this privilege by ignoring separation-of-powers concerns; Compelling disclosure must be exceptional and narrowly drawn.

### APA Discovery Rules

- The panel majority's ruling suggests ordinary discovery rules don't apply when the government claims an exception; The panel majority condoned departing from 'settled principles' to combat perceived government RIFs without normal rulemaking.

### Supreme Court Precedent

- The Supreme Court already had to step in once in this case; The Court's prior actions implied the President has the authority to direct executive agencies, contradicting the panel majority's view that agencies act independently.

![Screenshot at 00:00: Andrew Branca, SCOTUS Bar Attorney, begins discussion in his office setting.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/mJc5-QA0czo/00-00-00.jpg)
![Screenshot at 00:26: The screen displays a PDF document showing the case name 'AMERICAN FED'N OF GOV'T EMPLOYEES V. TRUMP' and the 'SUMMARY' section of the order.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/mJc5-QA0czo/00-00-26.jpg)
![Screenshot at 01:16: Text on screen highlights the panel's finding that Trump's Executive Order directed large-scale RIFs.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/mJc5-QA0czo/00-01-16.jpg)
![Screenshot at 03:00: The speaker emphasizes the concept of 'internal deliberative' documents being protected.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/mJc5-QA0czo/00-03-00.jpg)
![Screenshot at 09:59: The text highlights the dissent's claim that the panel majority's actions ignore the President's Article II Executive Power.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/mJc5-QA0czo/00-09-59.jpg)