That is 0 articles you have read today.
The Aporia is free and carries no advertising, so readers are the only
thing paying for it. If you are getting this much out of it, a small
donation is what keeps it independent.
Daily limit reached
You have read 0 articles today.
That is more than the 15 a day The Aporia gives away,
and well past what it can carry on nothing. Your allowance resets at
midnight.
There is no advertising here and nothing about you is sold, so readers
are the only thing paying for it. If the site is worth this much of
your day, it is worth a few dollars.
Everything else stays open: the
maps, the
directory and
search do
not count against this, and neither does re-opening something you have
already read today.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard arguments challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order from March 2025 that reduced staffing and grants at three government agencies to minimum levels mandated by law. The Justice Department defended the order, while attorneys representing Democrat-led states argued it unlawfully closed down these congressionally established agencies by firing most of their staff and halting services. The panel did not provide a timeline for its decision but has historically ruled against such broad executive actions from previous administrations.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-17,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order significantly reducing several federal agencies, including the Minority Business and Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, to their legally mandated minimum staffing levels. This move was challenged by a coalition of Democrat-led states, leading a federal district court judge to rule that the executive order was unlawful. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard arguments from the Justice Department and the Democratic state coalition as the Trump administration sought to overturn this ruling. Deputy solicitor general Ester Murdukhayeva argued that the administration had effectively shut down these agencies by firing nearly all staff, citing previous rulings against sweeping executive orders. The court did not indicate when or how it would rule on the case.
Written for “Trump Legal Challenge Against Agencies” on 2026-09-17,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted
verbatim and was checked against the article text before being
stored, so you can find it in the original.
Leaning score -0.50 for article 14624 (high confidence, 2 verified quotes) · logged 2026-09-17
A federal appeals court grilled the Trump administration on Wednesday over its bid to overturn a ruling that stopped it from gutting three small federal agencies the administration considered “unnecessary.”
asserted
administration → grill → agencies
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reducing several agencies, including the Minority Business and Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, to the minimum staffing and size mandated by law, as part of sweeping cuts his administration made to the size of the federal government.
asserted
administration → sign → government
The order was challenged by a coalition of Democrat-led states, leading a federal district court judge to strike down the order as unlawful.
asserted
order → challenge → order
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard arguments from the Justice Department and the coalition of Democratic states as the administration seeks to reverse that ruling.
asserted
administration → hear → ruling
DOJ lawyer Simon Jerome argued to the panel that the federal government should be allowed to reduce the agencies’ workforces and cut grants to the minimal amounts, rejecting the Democratic states’ claims that the executive order amounts to an unlawful closure of the agencies.
“The agencies are free to streamline their operations within the bounds of federal statutory law.
uncertain
agencies → argue → law
I haven’t taken plaintiffs to disagree at any point during this litigation, yet the order in this case prevents the three agencies in the appeal from doing that by complying with Executive Order 14238, a facially valid executive order,” Jerome said.
asserted
Jerome → take → Order
The panel grilled Jerome on the DOJ’s arguments that the district court’s ruling, which reinstated grants and ordered employees who had been terminated via the executive order to be rehired, overstepped its authority under the law.
asserted
who → grill → law
Ester Murdukhayeva, deputy solicitor general at the New York attorney general’s office, argued that the Trump administration had essentially closed the agencies based on how much the size of the agencies had been reduced, urging the panel to uphold the lower court’s ruling.
“The uncontested record in this case shows that defendants functionally shut down three congressionally created agencies by indiscriminately firing all or nearly all of their staff and ceasing to provide programs and services,” Murdukhayeva told the panel, adding that the 1st Circuit has ruled against the administration in similar cases regarding sweeping executive orders.
asserted
Circuit → argue → orders
“The district court correctly concluded that that was arbitrary and capricious, and defendants do not challenge that finding.”
asserted
defendants → conclude → finding
The 1st Circuit panel did not indicate how or when it would rule.
asserted
it → indicate → ?
The three-judge panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Julie Rikelman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden; William Kayatta, an appointee of former President Barack Obama; and Seth Aframe, a Biden appointee.
asserted
panel → include → Obama
The Trump administration has faced several high-profile losses at the 1st Circuit, which is the most left-leaning federal appeals court in the country, but several of those losses have been successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.
asserted
several → face → Court
Among the agencies that the administration aimed to reduce in size and workforce, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has long been a source of scrutiny for alleged waste and abuse in the federal government.
asserted
Service → aim → government
The FMCS is mainly designed to mediate conflicts between labor unions and companies.
asserted
FMCS → design → unions
The largely unknown federal agency was found in the early 2010s to spend like “reigning kings,” spending government funds on painted portraits of each of the former agency heads, among other pricey expenditures.
asserted
agency → find → expenditures
Trump’s March 2025 executive order did not single out the agency’s excesses but did say that the goal of his order was to eliminate “non-statutory functions” of “unnecessary governmental entities.”
asserted
goal → single → entities
The Aporia
