Attorney gives Trump huge legal news ahead of U.S. Supreme Court showdown

The Trump admin is mired in legal battles. It’s headed to the High Court.

That’s why an attorney just gave Trump huge legal news ahead of a U.S. Supreme Court showdown.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz Defends Presidential Authority in Federal Employment Disputes

Attorney Alan Dershowitz discussed the expansive powers of the president over federal employment during a Monday appearance on Newsmax. He addressed a lawsuit filed in California by attorneys representing federal employees. The lawsuit alleges that Elon Musk and President Donald Trump unlawfully threatened firings if employees failed to report their weekly accomplishments, aiming to prevent widespread layoffs. Dershowitz, however, argued that such actions fall within the president’s legal authority, emphasizing the unique role the executive branch plays in these decisions.

During his segment on The Record with Greta Van Susteren, Dershowitz made it clear that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has the ultimate say in matters of federal employment, especially when a conflict arises between private sector figures like Musk and government officials. He explained, “He’s the head of the executive branch, and if he has a conflict between Elon Musk, who is not technically employed by the government, and the head of the FBI, who obviously is technically employed by the government, the head of the executive makes the decision.”

Dershowitz also referred to historical precedents to illustrate the president’s authority. He drew on the actions of President Thomas Jefferson in 1801, who took swift steps to remove federalists from government positions upon assuming office. “The first thing Thomas Jefferson did when he got into office in 1801 is he fired every federalist he could find. He said, I don’t want any federalists here. They’re a bunch of pro this and pro that, and I’m against that, and I’m going to fire them all,” Dershowitz recalled. “He attacked the judiciary, and they sued him, and it was Marbury versus Madison. So executive authority is very, very broad under the Constitution, and there is only one executive, unlike the Supreme Court, which has nine members in Congress, which is 500-something.”

Dershowitz further clarified that there is no constitutional issue with requiring federal employees to report their weekly activities, a request that Musk had made on Saturday. Musk had ordered that all federal employees submit reports detailing their work achievements from the previous week. Dershowitz was firm in his stance that the president has the constitutional power to enforce such measures. “There’s only one executive, and that’s the president. And, ultimately, the buck stops there, and he has to make the decision. I don’t see any constitutional issues that are being raised by that. And frankly, I don’t see any problem about asking employees to list the five things they did this weekend,” he said.

Although The Record host Greta Van Susteren raised concerns about potential invasions of privacy and misuse of resources, Dershowitz remained unperturbed. He argued that such efforts, including Musk’s directive, were more about asserting presidential power and reinforcing accountability within the expansive structure of the federal government.

He described the move as a demonstration of strength, stating, “This is a show of power. This is muscle flexing. And, clearly, it can’t be enforced. And you have the heads of the union saying, ‘Don’t answer,’ and others saying, ‘Well, maybe we’ll take our retirement benefits, we’re going to retire anyway.’” Dershowitz further emphasized that this initiative was a “work in progress” aimed at reasserting the president’s authority over the executive branch, reflecting the original vision of the presidency in the early days of the nation. “Let’s remember at the time of the Constitution, the executive branch was one person, the president, not even the vice president, just the president.”

The conversation also touched on a more recent executive action by Trump. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order mandating the return of all federal employees to in-person work, effectively ending remote work arrangements except in exceptional circumstances. A federal judge initially blocked the buyout offers related to this order but later allowed the continuation of a plan that permits employees who choose to resign by February 6, 2025, to remain in a “deferred resignation program” through September 30, 2025, still receiving pay without working.

Dershowitz’s claim notes the powers that the president holds in overseeing federal employment, from enforcing in-person work mandates to determining how and when employees are held accountable for their productivity. Ultimately, Dershowitz’s interpretation of the Constitution suggests that the executive branch holds substantial sway over such matters.

Trump Supports Musk’s Push for Accountability Among Federal Employees

Recently, President Donald Trump voiced his support for Elon Musk’s controversial demand that federal employees explain their recent accomplishments by the end of Monday, or risk facing termination. Musk’s bold stance, which aimed to increase accountability within the federal workforce, caused a stir when government officials were informed that compliance with his directive was, in fact, voluntary.

During a meeting in the Oval Office with French President Emmanuel Macron, President Trump echoed Musk’s sentiments. “What he’s doing is saying, ‘Are you actually working?'” Trump stated, referring to Musk’s request for federal employees to account for their work. Trump emphasized that the failure to respond to Musk’s demands could result in termination. “And then, if you don’t answer, like, you’re sort of semi-fired or you’re fired, because a lot of people aren’t answering because they don’t even exist,” Trump added.

Trump, aligning himself with Musk’s criticism of federal bureaucracy, highlighted the inefficiencies Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency was allegedly uncovering. According to Trump, Musk’s department had identified “hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud” in the federal workforce, suggesting that taxpayer dollars were being paid to employees who may not even exist.

Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, did not back down from his earlier demands despite pushback from various quarters. He expressed frustration with what he described as federal workers’ resistance to even the “tiniest amount of accountability.” Continuing his stance on firings, Musk took to his social media platform, X, to reinforce his position: “Subject to the discretion of the President, they will be given another chance,” Musk wrote. “Failure to respond a second time will result in termination.”

The backlash against Musk’s edict came swiftly, particularly from legal advocates representing various groups such as unions, businesses, veterans, and conservation organizations. On Monday, these attorneys filed an updated lawsuit in federal court in California, claiming that Musk’s threat of mass firings violated legal protections for federal employees. The lawsuit highlights concerns over due process and the legality of such abrupt, sweeping actions within the federal workforce.

In response to the legal challenge, Anna Kelly, a deputy press secretary at the White House, dismissed the lawsuit. “In the time it took these employees on taxpayer-funded salaries to file a frivolous lawsuit, they could have briefly recapped their accomplishments to their managers, as is common in the private sector, 100 times over,” Kelly argued.

Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.