From Derewal v. Vance, determined at present by Decide Jia Cobb (D.D.C.):
Turning to the criticism itself, Derewal alleges that the “twenty fifth Modification should be invoked on account of this constitutional disaster of our lifetime from senior’s SSA improperly withheld to our eco-damage and never honoring the function of POTUS,” and that “J.D. Vance, in his official-capacity, should name for twenty fifth Modification vote of Cupboard and enforcement.” She requests that this Court docket enjoin the constitutional disaster “by calling for twenty fifth Modification vote and enforcement,” and supply “any extra aid that th[e] Court docket deems simply and correct.” …
[T]o the extent that Derewal’s sought-after aid is an injunction eradicating the President from workplace beneath the Twenty-Fifth Modification, the Court docket has no energy to subject such an order. See Ballard v. Ohio Elections (S.D. Ohio 2025) (dismissing professional se criticism requesting that the courtroom “invoke the Twenty-Fifth Modification of the US Structure to forcibly take away the present President from workplace” as a result of “neither the Twenty-Fifth Modification nor any federal statute offers the Court docket such a broad energy”). The Twenty-Fifth Modification vests the Vice President and “a majority of … the principal officers of the manager departments”—not this Court docket—with the discretion to provoke any try and take away a sitting President….
[Furthermore,] {“[t]o set up standing, a plaintiff should present (i) that he suffered an damage in truth that’s concrete, particularized, and precise or imminent; (ii) that the damage was seemingly attributable to the defendant; and (iii) that the damage would seemingly be redressed by judicial aid.” Derewal’s criticism incorporates no factual allegations explaining how she has been concretely injured by Defendants’ actions. Derewal states that “senior’s SSA [has been] improperly withheld” and that there was “eco-damage,” however doesn’t allege that she has herself been affected by both of those actions. Absent any allegations to counsel Derewal has some “particularized stake within the litigation,” this go well with presents “exactly the form of undifferentiated, generalized grievance in regards to the conduct of presidency” that courts might not hear.}
The courtroom additionally denies plaintiff’s renewed movement to proceed pseudonymously.
