Axed government watchdog says Trump has right to fire him

Eric Soskin, the former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, was appointed by Trump during his first presidential term. He was then fired just four days after Trump returned to the Oval Office, Jeff Beelaert, an attorney for Givens Pursley and a former Department of Justice official, told Fox News in an interview.

"Eric was one of the fired inspectors general, and disagreed with his former IG colleagues. He wanted to make that clear in filing a brief," Beelaert said. 

Trump moved shortly after his inauguration to purge the government watchdogs from across 17 government agencies, prompting intense backlash, criticism and questions over the legality of the personnel decisions. 

These remedies are considered a long shot, and are unlikely to succeed next week when the plaintiffs appear in D.C. court for their next hearing. Even so, Soskin disagreed so strongly with their rationale that he not only declined to join their lawsuit, but also had lawyers file an amicus brief on his behalf supporting the administration's ability to terminate his role.

Beelaert helped author that amicus brief on Soskin's behalf, which outlined primary reasons that Trump does have the power to make these personnel decisions, under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy.

The brief invokes the IGs "mistaken" reliance on a 1930s-era precedent, Humphrey's Executor, which protects agency firings in certain cases, and requires a 30-day notice period for any personnel decisions. Soskin's lawyers argue that the reliance on this case is misguided and that the precedent applies solely to members of "multi-member, expert, balanced commissions" that largely report to Congress, and are not at issue here.

"Supreme Court precedent over the last five, ten years has almost all but rejected that idea that Congress can impose restrictions on the president's removal authority," Beelaert said.

Other critics noted that Trump failed to give Congress a 30-day notice period before he terminated the government watchdogs - a formality but something that Trump supporters note is no longer required under the law.

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of "changing priorities" from within the administration. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.

Plaintiffs challenging the firings are likely to face a tough time making their case next week in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Reyes, the presiding judge in the case, did not appear moved by the plaintiffs' bid for emergency relief.

She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order - a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove "irreparable" and immediate harm as a result of the actions - and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for March 11.

"At the end of the day, this drives home the idea that elections matter," Beelaert said. 

"And of all the times that the president should have the removal of authority, it's the start of the administration" that should be most important, he said, noting that this is true for both political parties.

"It doesn't matter who serves in the White House. I think that any president, whether it's President Trump, President Biden - it doesn't matter," Beelaert said. "The president should be allowed to pick who is going to serve in his administration. And to me, that's a bit lost in this debate. "