|
Gmail Peter Burgess
suing Trump
1 message
Update Team, Public Citizen Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:10 PM
Reply-To: robert@citizen.org
To: peterbnyc@gmail.com
Peter,
President Trump’s outrageous conduct and chaotic governance is hard to ignore.
But we can’t afford to lose sight of the Trump administration’s overriding objectives.
This administration aims to give Big Business the power to poison our food, endanger our families, steal from our pocketbooks and pollute our air — all to boost profits.
That’s why our lawsuit — Public Citizen v. Donald J. Trump, which would block Trump’s anti-regulatory executive order — is so important.
Can I count on you to help make sure we have the resources to keep fighting Trump?
Contribute now.
Thank you for standing with us!
Onward,
Robert
Update from Public Citizen
Peter,
High atop Donald Trump’s to-do list as president is unshackling Big Business from the regulatory controls that keep us safer and our pocketbooks better protected from corporate predators.
Trump’s deregulatory Executive Order — requiring the elimination of two regulations for every new one adopted — is the single most important means by which he aims to deliver this gift to Corporate America.
And that’s exactly what we aim to block with our lawsuit, Public Citizen v. Donald J. Trump.
The Trump Department of Justice just asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.
It said that our claims are “entirely speculative” and that we can’t show how we would “specifically be affected” by “hypothetical future action.”
But there’s nothing speculative or hypothetical about our claims.
Our case points out the unavoidable effects of Trump’s deregulatory order on public health, safety, worker and environmental protections.
For example, to adopt a new rule to make cars safer, the auto safety agency will have to eliminate at least two existing safety rules (or find some other agency ready to do so).
The rules eliminated must impose costs at least equal to the costs of the new rule.
That’s not all: In conducting this 1-in, 2-out system, the agency will not consider the benefits of the new rule.
If that sounds nuts, that’s because it is. No one would adopt such a scheme unless their objective was to undo our system of regulatory protections.
So here’s where we are: The agencies that protect health, safety, workers and the environment face an impossible choice. Either don’t adopt new rules — no matter what new technologies or risks emerge — or get rid of important existing protections.
This is not just insane policy; it’s against the law and violates the Constitution.
If you can, please contribute today to show Trump that we have the financial strength to stand up to his stunning abuses of power — and to win.
Our regulatory agencies have a duty under the law to adopt new protections that make sense.
Nothing in the law directs or permits them to look only at cost, or to condition new rules on the elimination of existing ones.
No president may order agencies to follow such arbitrary directions.
That’s what our lawsuit shows.
We filed the lawsuit in February, and the case is now moving into high gear.
Last week, the government urged that the case be dismissed. This week, we asked the judge to rule in our favor (a “motion for summary judgment”), based on the facts and law we have presented.
Here’s what’s going to happen next.
We will respond to the government’s filing, and they will respond to ours.
Then the judge will rule.
Whichever way the judge rules, the losing side is likely to appeal.
You never know what’s going to happen in litigation, but we intend to prevail.
And we’ll keep you apprised every step of the way.
Please chip in today to help us fight back against Trump’s wild lawlessness and preserve lifesaving regulatory protections.
Donate now or even join our monthly giving program.
Thank you for anything you can contribute!
Onward,
Robert Weissman
President, Public Citizen
© 2017 Public Citizen • 1600 20th Street, NW / Washington, D.C. 20009 • unsubscribe
|
|
