On Thursday, February 13, 2025, The Federalist published an opinion piece by retired attorney John A. Lucas, criticizing a recent ruling by New York federal Judge Paul Engelmayer. Lucas contends that Engelmayer did not adequately review the final complaint before issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) that restricts Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk, access to Treasury documents.

The opinion highlights the rapid timeline of events leading to the TRO. According to Lucas, the judge’s order was issued with such speed that it raises doubts about whether he fully analyzed the extensive case filings submitted by 19 Democrat state attorneys general. He argues that the sheer volume of material—over 80 pages of the complaint and a lengthy legal memorandum—would require significant time to review, which was not afforded in this instance.

Lucas points out that Judge Engelmayer is the first to grant a TRO against a sitting U.S. president, which also prevents a cabinet secretary from accessing his own records without giving the involved parties a chance to respond. The attorney claims that Engelmayer offered no substantive analysis regarding his constitutional authority to make such a ruling or the federal rules governing injunctions and restraining orders.

The opinion piece outlines a detailed timeline of court filings related to the case. On February 7, at 7:32 p.m., Colleen Faherty, a special trial counsel, notified two government lawyers of the states’ concerns regarding the defendants’ actions and their intent to seek immediate relief. Just seven minutes later, Faherty filed a complaint that was later deemed technically deficient by the court.

Subsequently, Faherty submitted a proposed order for the judge’s consideration, followed by a 40-page legal memorandum in support of the TRO. Lucas notes that the legal memorandum contained over 27 pages of discussion and citations to 54 court opinions.

The timeline continues with Judge Engelmayer granting the TRO at 12:39 a.m. on February 8, just hours after the initial complaint was filed. Lucas highlights that a properly filed version of the complaint was not submitted until after the judge had already issued his order, questioning how thoroughly Engelmayer could have reviewed the materials.

He emphasizes that Engelmayer had access to the complaint for a mere five hours before issuing the order. Lucas argues that this timeframe is insufficient for any judge to conduct a diligent review of such a complex case, especially considering the significant implications of the ruling.

Furthermore, Lucas expresses skepticism about the integrity of the order itself, suggesting that the expedited nature of the ruling indicates a predetermined outcome. He posits that the rapid issuance of the TRO, coupled with the lack of detailed analysis from Engelmayer, raises questions about the judicial process.

In conclusion, Lucas calls for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the ruling, emphasizing the need for accountability in the judicial system. He suggests that Congress should explore whether Judge Engelmayer’s actions warrant impeachment, given the perceived flaws in the decision-making process.

 

 

Source: The Federalist