Paul Stanton Kibel: “Courts Owe No Deference to DOGE”

Writing in The National Law Journal, Paul Stanton Kibel, director of the Douglas Forum on Conservation Law and a professor emeritus at Golden Gate University School of Law, argued the following:

Loper Bright [Enterprises v. Raimondo] does not support courts providing deference to the Department of Government Efficiency’s expansive view of its own authority nor does Loper Bright support courts providing deference to President Donald Trump’s view that he can appoint Elon Musk as the head of DOGE without U.S. Senate consent …

Contrary to the claims of Musk and the suggestions of Vance, Loper Bright therefore does not support courts providing deference to DOGE’s expansive view of its own authority nor does Loper Bright support courts providing deference to Trump’s view that he can appoint Musk as the head of DOGE without U.S. Senate consent.

Rather, Loper Bright supports the courts’ close and independent scrutiny of whether DOGE’s actions constitute an unconstitutional incursion into the legislative branch’s budgetary authority and whether Trump’s appointment of Musk to head DOGE without the consent of the U.S. Senate violates the Article 2 Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

Read the piece here (paywalled).