There is a powerful means to challenge executive action apart from the Administrative Procedure Act.

Agencies could conceivably use AI at numerous points in the rulemaking process, raising a host of legal and policy questions. AI tools of various stripes could be used to identify subjects for rulemaking or regulations in need of revision or elaboration. 

So-called “universal” injunctions—court orders that bar the government from enforcing a challenged policy against anyone, not just the plaintiffs in a case—have been a feature of litigation against the Trump administration. Or at least they were. In last Friday’s decision in Trump v. CASA,

 Over the last several months, the administration has sought to shrink the federal government by slashing the federal workforce and by dismantling entire agencies. Those efforts have repeatedly run aground in the courts before judges appointed by presidents of both parties (including by President Trump himself).

With the adults long since dismissed and Congress missing in action, resistance to this Trump power grab could come from an unlikely source: federal judges.

Federal employees seeking to challenge the Trump Administration’s unprecedented efforts to dismantle federal agencies and decimate the civil service have faced a dilemma. The federal Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) generally permits employees to contest serious adverse personnel actions only before an