Chris Geidner emphasizes the significance of litigation as a necessary tool for holding the Trump administration accountable. He argues that even unsuccessful lawsuits can generate public awareness and potentially alter policy implementation for the better. By legally challenging actions taken by power figures like Trump and Musk, advocates can ensure that oppressive measures are scrutinized. The recent legal challenges regarding the OPM's directive exemplify how litigation can affect agency policies, ultimately demonstrating that taking legal action is critical to resist compliance without contest.
The reality of litigation challenging the Trump administration is that it isn't all going to win. That's OK. Forcing the administration to defend its actions, on the record and in public, is important.
From a litigation perspective, not suing is sometimes "obeying in advance." Actions need to be challenged. If a key aspect of what President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others are doing right now is seeing what they can get away with, then a key part of pushing back against that needs to be challenging everything that can be challenged.
The mere fact of litigating can change implementation of policy to improve its application to those affected. Even a loss can advance awareness about oppressive steps being taken by the administration.
OPM's cave-in-process on Elon Musk's respond-or-resign email is a very good example, as multiple agencies are now instructing employees that responding is optional.
Collection
[
|
...
]