A left-wing legal group with the misleading name Democracy Forward is proving to be the biggest obstacle to translating President Donald Trump's massive election victory into real change.
The group's mission is to thwart the decisions of the 77 million voters who supported Trump for president.
It sues the Trump administration repeatedly, venue shopping for sympathetic district court judges -- the lowest on the totem pole -- who will act as stooges, issuing national injunctions to halt Trump's agenda, never mind how flimsy or outright false the legal claims are.
The brainchild behind Democracy Forward is the scandal-plagued Democratic lawyer Marc Elias, who chairs the group. He's the same culprit whose fingerprints were allegedly all over the fake anti-Trump Steele dossier in 2016. He was also behind the state-by-state changes in election law intended to tilt the scales in favor of Democrats in 2020.
On Friday, Democracy Forward struck again, winning an order by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston to suspend Trump's plans to shrink 21 federal departments and agencies -- everything from the departments of Energy, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor and many more to the Social Security Administration, Small Business Administration and National Science Foundation.
In terms of sheer size, this is the most consequential court battle to stop Trump yet.
Recommended
Democracy Forward claims to be defending democracy. "At this critical moment where those who were responsible for January 6th have returned to power, we must use the law to defend our democracy and build for a better future," the group's "About Us" page reads.
There's the big lie. Democracy Forward suggests Trump "returned to power" through some illicit coup. The truth is, he was elected by huge popular and Electoral College majorities.
One of Trump's winning campaign promises was to drain the swamp, shrink the size and cost of government, and eliminate 10 regulations for every new one slapped on the public. Democracy Forward is fighting to protect the interest groups and unions that benefit from the ever-growing government.
Illston insists that her ruling is intended to "protect the power of the legislative branch." She argues the president must consult with Congress to make "large-scale overhauls of federal agencies."
Many previous presidents have consulted Congress, and Section 903 of the 5 U.S. Code states that the president "shall" submit to Congress any broad reorganization plan.
Even so, Illston's making a weak argument. Article II of the Constitution puts the president exclusively in charge of the executive branch, and any statute that impinges on that authority may be unconstitutional. Two higher federal courts in other parts of the country have refuted the argument she makes, but she says other circuits do not bind her.
Illston's argument sounds more like a mere pretext than a sincere attempt to protect Congress. After all, Congress isn't suing to ask for protection.
Look who is suing: the four largest public employee unions in the nation -- despairing that the layoffs will mean fewer union dues collected and a heavier workload for those who are still on the job. This is a lawsuit to protect the gravy train.
Also joining the lawsuit are Democratic cities and state governments arguing that the federal spigot is about to be turned off. "Where will our funding come from?" they ask. The gist of the argument is that the federal government should only get bigger, never smaller. It's crazy.
The city of Baltimore contends that when federal employees are laid off, the city collects less tax revenue. No one is stopping Baltimore residents from finding work in the private sector.
In a similar lawsuit launched in March against Trump's reorganization of the Department of Education, Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers whined that Trump's plan could lead to block grants to the states, some even allowing the money to go for private school vouchers.
Sorry, Randi. These issues should be decided with elections, not lawsuits.
Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's CEO, told HuffPost that long before Trump's victory, the group created a spreadsheet of Trump's policies -- guided by the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 -- and plotted legal actions against each one.
Seeking national injunctions has been their most corrupt weapon. However, on May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to impose urgently needed limits on district courts' issuance of these injunctions.
Not a minute too soon. Limiting national injunctions will rein in the left-wing litigation complex and handcuff Elias.
Don't let the name of his latest operation fool you. Democracy Forward is really democracy undone -- a planned assault on your right to choose.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member