Court Unsurprisingly Rejects 25th Amendment Claim

From Derewal v. Vance, decided today by Judge Jia Cobb (D.D.C.):

Turning to the complaint itself, Derewal alleges that the “25th Amendment must be invoked due to this constitutional crisis of our lifetime from senior’s SSA improperly withheld to our eco-damage and not honoring the role of POTUS,” and that “J.D. Vance, in his official-capacity, must call for 25th Amendment vote of Cabinet and enforcement.” She requests that this Court enjoin the constitutional crisis “by calling for 25th Amendment vote and enforcement,” and provide “any additional relief that th[e] Court deems just and proper.” …

[T]o the extent that Derewal’s sought-after relief is an injunction removing the President from office under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Court has no power to issue such an order. See Ballard v. Ohio Elections (S.D. Ohio 2025) (dismissing pro se complaint requesting that the court “invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution to forcibly remove the current President from office” because “neither the Twenty-Fifth Amendment nor any federal statute gives the Court such a broad power”). The Twenty-Fifth Amendment vests the Vice President and “a majority of … the principal officers of the executive departments”—not this Court—with the discretion to initiate any attempt to remove a sitting President….

[Furthermore,] {“[t]o establish standing, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.” Derewal’s complaint contains 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 has been “eco-damage,” but does not allege that she has herself been affected by either of these actions. Absent any allegations to suggest Derewal has some “particularized stake in the litigation,” this suit presents “precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government” that courts may not hear.}

The court also denies plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed pseudonymously.

The post Court Unsurprisingly Rejects 25th Amendment Claim appeared first on Reason.com.