Missouri AG Files Suit Against Biden Administration: 'Exceeding His Legal Authority'

[Polds4OSU]

Sorry Missouri AG, but the SCOTUS Ruled recently that POTUS is IMMUNE to any and all legal authority as long as he is acting in an official capacity.

So if the POTUS acting in official capacity is immune to the Law, therefore there is NO legal Authority in official acts as the Law has been temporarily nullified by immunity...therefore nullifying any and all authority the Law once had.



Missouri AG Files Suit Against Biden Administration: 'Exceeding His Legal Authority'
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services over its rule that allegedly forces health care professionals to perform sex change surgeries.

The rule bars health care and insurance providers who receive federal funding from refusing care based on a patient’s gender identity or sexual orientation, which legal experts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation could force religious hospitals and doctors to perform sex change surgeries.


HHS issued the rule on April 26 under the Affordable Care Act.

The plaintiffs, which include six additional states and the American College of Pediatricians, are asking the court to “declare” the rule “unlawful.”

“Doctors should not be compelled to harm children. But a new final rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act forces doctors to perform, refer for, or affirm harmful gender-transition procedures and forces States to pay for these dangerous procedures in state health plans,” the lawsuit reads.


— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 10, 2024

The plaintiffs allege the rule violates health care providers' First and Fifth Amendment rights.

They also say it was unconstitutionally created and “exceeds Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and transgresses on the reserved powers of the States,” a news release from Bailey's office said.


“Joe Biden is once again exceeding his legal authority in order to force his radical transgender ideology onto the American people,” the attorney general said in a statement.

"His administration is threatening to hold federal funding hostage from any healthcare provider that refuses to perform or affirm harmful and irreversible transgender procedures," Bailey said.

The Missouri Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, which went into effect in August 2023, bars health care providers from performing sex change surgeries on minors through August 28, 2027.

The states that joined Missouri in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Supreme Court:

 

[JTOSU]

Are you thinking that since SCOTUS ruled on Presidential immunity from prosecution that somehow that invalidates the ability to challenge EO or agency decisions?

If anything SCOTUS recent rulings have potentially helped this suit with their Loper case.

 

[CowboyJD]

Sorry Missouri AG, but the SCOTUS Ruled recently that POTUS is IMMUNE to any and all legal authority as long as he is acting in an official capacity.

So if the POTUS acting in official capacity is immune to the Law, therefore there is NO legal Authority in official acts as the Law has been temporarily nullified by immunity...therefore nullifying any and all authority the Law once had.

The SCOTUS didn’t rule that POTUS is “immune to any and all legal authority” for official acts.

It ruled he is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Recent SCOTUS ruling has no application to civil challenges of EOs or administrative rulings like this lawsuit.

 

[Polds4OSU]

The SCOTUS didn’t rule that POTUS is “immune to any and all legal authority” for official acts.

It ruled he is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Recent SCOTUS ruling has no application to civil challenges of EOs or administrative rulings like this lawsuit.

The SCOTUS agreed in 2016 in McDonnell V USA that an official act of a US elected official can be a Resolution or a Govt Decision
McDonnell argued that the “official act” should be limited to “those acts that ‘direct a particular resolution of a specific governmental decision’ or that pressure another official to do so. And the SCOTUS agreed with that



This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in McDonnell v. United States, rejecting the Government’s broad interpretation of an “official act” under federal bribery law. The Court held that without more, setting up meetings, talking to other officials, and organizing events are not “official acts” as defined by statute. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court unanimously agreed to narrowly interpret the term “official act,” citing constitutional, due process, and federalism concerns with the Government’s broad interpretation.

Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife Maureen were convicted on bribery charges in 2014. McDonnell was indicted earlier that year for accepting over $175,000 in gifts and loans from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, in exchange for performing certain “official acts.” McDonnell was charged and convicted on counts of honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion. During his jury trial, McDonnell requested an alternate jury instruction to define “official act” – an element of bribery that the Government was required to prove for a conviction. The District Court denied the instruction. Following his conviction, McDonnell filed motions to vacate the conviction and for acquittal, which the District Court denied. McDonnell appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s decision.

In vacating the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court held that (1) to constitute an official act, a question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power and must be something specific and focused that is pending or may by law be brought before a public official; (2) a typical meeting, call or event is not a question or matter; and (3) without something more, setting up meetings, hosting events, and calling upon other officials are not decisions or actions on questions or matters.

The Government argued for a broad interpretation of “official acts” under 18 U.S.C. § 201, which prohibits public officials from receiving or agreeing to receive anything of value in exchange for taking official action. Under the Government’s interpretation, “official act” would include nearly any activity by a public official. McDonnell argued that the “official act” should be limited to “those acts that ‘direct a particular resolution of a specific governmental decision’ or that pressure another official to do so.” The Court agreed that the statute required a narrower interpretation of “official act” as adopting the Government’s interpretation would open the door to “overzealous prosecution.” In a continuation of the precedent articulated in Skilling v. United States, the Court passed on an opportunity to invalidate the federal bribery statutes, opting instead to construe rather than condemn Congress’s legislative efforts.



Isn't a resolution in the US legal system defined as
In the United States legal system, a resolution is a crucial concept that often comes up in various legal contexts. Understanding the legal definition of a resolution is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the law.

A resolution refers to a formal expression of intent or decision made by a legislative body, such as a city council, state legislature, or Congress. It is typically used to address matters within the jurisdiction of the governing body and can vary in significance and scope depending on the context.

Resolutions are commonly used to express support or opposition to a particular issue, establish policies, or commemorate significant events. They are distinct from laws or statutes, as resolutions are typically not enforceable like legislation. Instead, they serve as formal statements that reflect the collective will of the governing body.


So all of this to say. Is this Admin Ruling nothing more than a Resolution in a Legal scope that was delivered by the POTUS Admin that is establishing Policy as a Formal Statement

By SCOTUS own words and Legal recognition of Resolution...wouldn't this not be considered an Official Act ?

Thus Putting it in conflict with the SCOTUS most recent Immunity Ruling ?

 

[CowboyJD]

The SCOTUS agreed in 2016 in McDonnell V USA that an official act of a US elected official can be a Resolution or a Govt Decision
McDonnell argued that the “official act” should be limited to “those acts that ‘direct a particular resolution of a specific governmental decision’ or that pressure another official to do so. And the SCOTUS agreed with that



This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in McDonnell v. United States, rejecting the Government’s broad interpretation of an “official act” under federal bribery law. The Court held that without more, setting up meetings, talking to other officials, and organizing events are not “official acts” as defined by statute. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court unanimously agreed to narrowly interpret the term “official act,” citing constitutional, due process, and federalism concerns with the Government’s broad interpretation.

Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife Maureen were convicted on bribery charges in 2014. McDonnell was indicted earlier that year for accepting over $175,000 in gifts and loans from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, in exchange for performing certain “official acts.” McDonnell was charged and convicted on counts of honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion. During his jury trial, McDonnell requested an alternate jury instruction to define “official act” – an element of bribery that the Government was required to prove for a conviction. The District Court denied the instruction. Following his conviction, McDonnell filed motions to vacate the conviction and for acquittal, which the District Court denied. McDonnell appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s decision.

In vacating the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court held that (1) to constitute an official act, a question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power and must be something specific and focused that is pending or may by law be brought before a public official; (2) a typical meeting, call or event is not a question or matter; and (3) without something more, setting up meetings, hosting events, and calling upon other officials are not decisions or actions on questions or matters.

The Government argued for a broad interpretation of “official acts” under 18 U.S.C. § 201, which prohibits public officials from receiving or agreeing to receive anything of value in exchange for taking official action. Under the Government’s interpretation, “official act” would include nearly any activity by a public official. McDonnell argued that the “official act” should be limited to “those acts that ‘direct a particular resolution of a specific governmental decision’ or that pressure another official to do so.” The Court agreed that the statute required a narrower interpretation of “official act” as adopting the Government’s interpretation would open the door to “overzealous prosecution.” In a continuation of the precedent articulated in Skilling v. United States, the Court passed on an opportunity to invalidate the federal bribery statutes, opting instead to construe rather than condemn Congress’s legislative efforts.



Isn't a resolution in the US legal system defined as
In the United States legal system, a resolution is a crucial concept that often comes up in various legal contexts. Understanding the legal definition of a resolution is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the law.

A resolution refers to a formal expression of intent or decision made by a legislative body, such as a city council, state legislature, or Congress. It is typically used to address matters within the jurisdiction of the governing body and can vary in significance and scope depending on the context.

Resolutions are commonly used to express support or opposition to a particular issue, establish policies, or commemorate significant events. They are distinct from laws or statutes, as resolutions are typically not enforceable like legislation. Instead, they serve as formal statements that reflect the collective will of the governing body.


So all of this to say. Is this Admin Ruling nothing more than a Resolution in a Legal scope that was delivered by the POTUS Admin that is establishing Policy as a Formal Statement

By SCOTUS own words and Legal recognition of Resolution...wouldn't this not be considered an Official Act ?

Thus Putting it in conflict with the SCOTUS most recent Immunity Ruling ?

None of that addresses, conflicts with, or is even relevant to what I said.

SCOTUS held that official acts are presumptively immune from CRIMINAL PROSECUTION…..not from civil challenge alleging the official act to be outside of the scope of authority or legally invalid or improper. It said nothing about civil challenges to the validity or legality of official actions.

The lawsuit in question is a civil challenge. Not a criminal one.

 

[Polds4OSU]

None of that addresses, conflicts with, or is even relevant to what I said.

Official acts are presumptively immune from CRIMINAL PROSECUTION…..not from civil challenge alleging the official act to be outside of the scope of authority or legally invalid or improper.

The lawsuit in question is a civil challenge. Not a criminal one.

My point being. The Missouri AG can not argue that this policy and rule has overstepped any legal Authority as they are arguing......as an official Act the SCOTUS deemed ALL official acts the ability to potentially protect its issuer from prosecution even if it is illegal. Doesn't this lead to the ida that SCOTUS has DeFacto added a legal Authority to ALL Official Acts of the POTUS? thus negating the Missouri AG from arguing the POTUS doesn't have Legal Authority to Make this Rule?

Missouri AG might be able to argue its unconstitutional, argue it is unenforceable, etc etc etc.....but doesn't the Recent SCOTUS ruling with the combination of the McConnell ruling in 2016 mean that ALL POTUS Official Acts carry some level of Legal Authority ? and that this is a resolution that can be defined as a Legal Act ?

I think the Missouri AG has many different ways to challenge this civil issue, But I wouldn't see how they could successfully argue that the POTUS didn't have the Legal Authority to have it issued by his Admin since the SCOTUS Ruling on immunity


I'm no legal scholar obviously, just seems that way in my mind and I'm trying to understand.

 

[JTOSU]

The SCOTUS immunity ruling has zero impact on the AG challenging the agency ruling. The AG is not charging the President with a crime.

If you are looking for a link to recent SCOTUS rulings, the Loper ruling actually provides more leeway for courts to rule in favor of the AG.

 

[CowboyJD]

My point being. The Missouri AG can not argue that this policy and rule has overstepped any legal Authority as they are arguing......as an official Act the SCOTUS deemed ALL official acts the ability to potentially protect its issuer from prosecution even if it is illegal. Doesn't this lead to the ida that SCOTUS has DeFacto added a legal Authority to ALL Official Acts of the POTUS? thus negating the Missouri AG from arguing the POTUS doesn't have Legal Authority to Make this Rule?

Finding that official acts are presumptively immune from criminal prosecution in no way precludes arguing or suing that those same official acts exceeded the authority under the law to make them.