U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued the ruling on Wednesday and rejected Biden’s request to enjoin the investigation led by Special Counsel David Weiss via Zero Hedge.
It has been noted that Biden contended that Weiss’s appointment violated the Appropriations Clause, arguing that he is not an “independent counsel” and was not approved by Congress.
“The Court should enjoin the Special Counsel from continuing to fund his investigation and prosecution of Mr. Biden without an appropriation from Congress or promptly deny the motion so it can be appealed,” Mr. Biden’s motion, filed on May 14, stated.
The judge found no merit in Mr. Biden’s claims, stating that the use of permanent appropriations to fund special counsels has been well-established and previously upheld.
“Mr. Weiss was lawfully appointed,” under relevant statutes, “to serve as special counsel to conduct investigations and prosecutions relating to this criminal matter,” Judge Noreika wrote in her decision, “and he is an ‘independent counsel’ appointed pursuant to ‘other law’ within the mining of the permanent appropriation.”
Judge Noreika ruled that Biden’s motion was not presented as a “serious request.” However it was rather as a necessary procedural step before he could appeal.
Biden then contended that Mr. Weiss lacked authority from Congress because he “is not an independent counsel and that is by design.”
In their response motion, the prosecution highlighted that Biden’s attempts to claim Appropriations Clause violations had been struck down in two district and two circuit courts, using the same arguments. Additionally, they contended that Biden “now offers no new facts or law” to support his motion for an injunction.
Biden went on to acknowledge that his motion relied on previously rejected arguments. He asked the judge to either enjoin Weiss “or promptly deny the motion so it can be appealed.”
His motion filed on May 14 stated that if the district court found against him regarding his argument of Appropriations Clause violations, “as it did previously,” then he would “have the basis” to take it to the Third Circuit “to address this issue when considering Mr. Biden’s forthcoming petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.”
In calling his request unserious, the judge highlighted the motion’s length, at four and a half pages, and noted that half of it was dedicated to “explaining why the Third Circuit would have jurisdiction over an appeal should this Court deny the requested injunction.”
“The Court has no reason to believe that Defendant’s inevitable appeal of this denial of his motion for an injunction is any more meritorious than his prior efforts,” Judge Noreika wrote.
Earlier in the case, on May 14, the district court rejected his request to delay the trial, and on May 21, the Third Circuit denied his motion to stay the district court proceedings. These setbacks came after the Third Circuit dismissed Mr. Biden’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on May 9. The case is set to go to trial next week on June 3.
