The direction of the Doches of Elon Musk probably violates the clause of the appointments of constitution, says the judge

The role of Elon Musk supervising the Ministry of Effectiveness of the Government is probably a violation of the CLUSE of appointments of the United States Constitution, a federal judge wrote on Tuesday.

Theodore Chuang, judge of the American district court of the Maryland district, wrote in a notice There is more than enough evidence – mainly statements made by Musk and Donald Trump – who shows that the richest man in the world really acts as a Doge leader despite the statement of the government that he is only a “special advisor to the president”.

Chuang expressed the opinion in a case brought against Musk and Doge by anonymous workers from the American Agency for International Development (USAID). The judge also wrote that the actions that Musk has taken in this role, such as the closure of the USAID – that Musk said he had thrown into the “shred— are therefore probably unconstitutional too.

“Musk has exercised real authority in the USAID that only a properly appointed officer can exercise,” he wrote. (The United States officer is a legal distinction stated by the appointment clause.)

Chuang’s opinion occurs more than 50 days after Trump took up his duties and allowed Musk to start cutting government agencies With his Doge team. His opinion is the most direct shooting through the bow of Musc and Doge among the many proceedings brought in the past two months.

In his opinion, Chuang ordered the restoration of certain operations of USAID and Musc and Doge restricted to take other measures to dismantle the agency.

It is not clear if Musk and Doge will follow this order; Musk and President Trump have spent the last days assignment on social networks Affirming that judges who governing against their actions should be dismissed. The promotion of this idea by Trump is so offline with the behavior of the presidents who preceded him that the chief judge of the Supreme Court John Roberts published a rare public declaration reprimands him.

“For more than two centuries”, Roberts wrote“It has been established that dismissal is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a legal decision. The normal appeal examination process exists for this purpose.”