The Trump administration is still prohibiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff from issuing virtually all grant funding, an NIH official tells Popular Information. The ongoing funding freeze is also reflected in internal correspondence reviewed by Popular Information and was reiterated to staff in a meeting on Monday. The funding freeze at NIH violates two federal court injunctions, two legal experts said.

The funding freeze at NIH puts all of the research the agency funds at risk. As the primary funder of biomedical research in the United States, NIH-funded research includes everything from cancer treatments to heart disease prevention to stroke interventions.

  • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    28 days ago

    Any official that is disobeying a lawful order from a judge is in contempt, should be charged as such, and put in jail if they don’t obey the lawful order.

    If that doesn’t happen, then the people tasked with implementing the judge’s lawful orders (including contempt findings and sentences) are themselves in contempt.

    This cycle should repeat until the right people start going to jail for contempt, or they start following those lawful orders.

    If judges’ orders can be ignored with no consequence, we’re done as a country.

    • GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      28 days ago

      That’s what they campaigned on, dictator on day 1. And if we don’t start seeing judicial consequences for these criminals soon, I hope some brave hero will enforce extrajudicial consequences for them.

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      If judges’ orders can be ignored with no consequence, we’re done as a country.

      Judges have zero recourse to enforce judgements against the executive branch. All previous executives who have obeyed an order given by a judge have obeyed it voluntarily. The only recourse would be for congress to impeach and convict the president, which of course will not happen. It’s tempting to call this an oversight by the Founders, but it seems to me that this is by design. As long as there is not a congress that will convict the president, the courts cannot truly tell the president what to do.

      • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        28 days ago

        I would argue there’s a Constitutional duty for all sworn officers to be willing to impose a judge’s order if it’s lawful/constitutional (if ordered). That’s how warrants and seizure orders work, for example.

        The question I’m afraid to see tested is what if any judge tells an officer to do one thing and the president tells her to do something else?

      • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        28 days ago

        I mean, I was taught that this was specifically an executive check on judicial power in school 25 something years ago.

        But again that sort of implies that it “would only be used for good” by an executive against an out of control supreme court. It didn’t really account for a fascist just telling the courts to go fuck themselves just because.

        • popcap200@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          Yeah, but the courts explicitly can’t consider the president’s motive, so if he does it while president claiming it’s necessary for the United States, he’s free to go. It’s why he got completely let off for the hush money stuff. That had nothing to do with presidential duties.

          • Bronzebeard@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            28 days ago

            The courts claimed they the courts couldn’t, but still have themselves the option to judge what was and wasn’t.

            The courts later deciding that the president can just ignore the courts would be a bunch of power hungry dipshits completely removing their own power. It would be very dumb if them to do, even from the perspective of people who only care about themselves

  • Pistcow@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    28 days ago

    Has anyone consulted with Schumer on how his wagging finger is holding up!?

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      He’s deeply troubled by all of this, and incredibly disappointed. The Republicans are really going to need to consider that.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      And to think the democrats were about to offer a a spot on the next campaign bus to Trump! Oh well, maybe all will be forgiven by 2028

  • MellowYellow13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    I’m at the stage of violent protests and riots, literally burning shit down. They dont give af about any of us and are forcing fascism down on all of us at lightning speed.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    28 days ago

    I wonder if his supporters are ok with a president ignoring the courts. Probably.

    I’m starting to think being civil to them is no longer an option.