Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The lawsuit seeking to kick Elon Musk out of government, explained [View all]
VoxOn Thursday, a group of current or former workers at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the foreign aid agency that the Trump administration appears to be trying to dismantle, filed a lawsuit making an audacious argument. According to their complaint in Doe v. Musk, billionaire Elon Musk’s appointment to — well, to whatever President Donald Trump has appointed him to within government — violates the Constitution.
The theory behind this lawsuit is pretty straightforward. The Constitution designates certain high-ranking government employees — those who, in the Supreme Court’s words, exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” — as “officers of the United States.” The Doe lawsuit alleges that Musk is wielding the powers of such an officer without being properly appointed to that role.
The most powerful of these officers, known as “principal” officers, must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Lesser officials, known as “inferior” officers, may sometimes be appointed without the Senate’s consent. But even inferior officers must be appointed in a manner “established by law.”
The Doe complaint argues that Musk is wielding the kind of sweeping, cross-agency authority that could only be exercised by a principal officer — and thus Musk should be powerless to act because he was not confirmed by the Senate. Alternatively, the complaint argues that, even if Musk counts as an inferior officer, he was not appointed to his role in a manner established by an act of Congress, and therefore his appointment is invalid.
It is difficult to judge the merits of this claim because the full scope of Musk’s duties is rather opaque — he’s been designated as a “special government employee,” a position that only allows him to work 130 days a year for the government. But it’s unclear what authority he actually possesses in this role.
The theory behind this lawsuit is pretty straightforward. The Constitution designates certain high-ranking government employees — those who, in the Supreme Court’s words, exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” — as “officers of the United States.” The Doe lawsuit alleges that Musk is wielding the powers of such an officer without being properly appointed to that role.
The most powerful of these officers, known as “principal” officers, must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Lesser officials, known as “inferior” officers, may sometimes be appointed without the Senate’s consent. But even inferior officers must be appointed in a manner “established by law.”
The Doe complaint argues that Musk is wielding the kind of sweeping, cross-agency authority that could only be exercised by a principal officer — and thus Musk should be powerless to act because he was not confirmed by the Senate. Alternatively, the complaint argues that, even if Musk counts as an inferior officer, he was not appointed to his role in a manner established by an act of Congress, and therefore his appointment is invalid.
It is difficult to judge the merits of this claim because the full scope of Musk’s duties is rather opaque — he’s been designated as a “special government employee,” a position that only allows him to work 130 days a year for the government. But it’s unclear what authority he actually possesses in this role.