“Defendants appear to sanction unlimited Executive power, free from checks and balances, but the Constitution prohibits unilateral control over ‘official appointments’ by ‘dividing the power to appoint the principal federal offices … between the Executive and Legislative Branches,‘” Chutkan added.
The judge further dispatched the defendants’ argument that a court cannot review the president’s actions in this case.
“The fact that President Trump purports to create a position and assign it powers by Executive Order does not preclude review under the Appointments Clause,” she wrote.
“No branch may aggrandize its own appointment power at the expense of another and no branch may abdicate its Appointments Clause duties,” Chutkan added. “And the Judiciary has a duty to maintain ‘the constitutional plan of separation of powers.’ Consequently, the court will reject Defendants’ perverse reading of the Appointments Clause.”