A federal judge in Miami has blocked a key Trump administration policy requiring federal employees to resign from private-sector roles while serving in "acting" positions, ruling that the practice may violate the Constitution’s anti-gift clause. The order, issued June 10 by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, freezes enforcement of the policy pending further review, while legal scholars warn it could set a precedent for future executive overreach.
Legal Ruling and Constitutional Concerns Under the Emoluments Clause
The case centers on 12 named officials—including three in the Department of Justice and four at the Department of Homeland Security—who hold both government and private-sector positions, some earning $250,000 or more annually from outside work, according to internal agency audits filed in May. The policy, announced in March by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, explicitly allows "acting" officials to retain private employment, a departure from long-standing ethics rules that bar conflicts of interest.
Judge’s Decision and Legal Arguments Against Dual Employment
The judge’s ruling hinges on the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9), which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or emoluments from foreign or domestic entities. Legal filings in the case, reviewed by The Washington Post and The New York Times, argue that allowing acting officials to hold private-sector roles creates an unconstitutional financial incentive—one that could influence their public duties.
"This isn’t just about ethics; it’s about whether the executive branch can effectively rewrite the Constitution by fiat," said Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University, in a statement to Politico. "The clause was designed to prevent exactly this kind of dual loyalty—and the White House has ignored it for over a year."
The Trump administration has framed the policy as a temporary measure to address staffing shortages, citing a 2024 GAO report that found 47% of federal agencies lacked sufficient personnel in critical roles. However, critics point to a 2021 Office of Government Ethics (OGE) advisory that explicitly banned such arrangements under the 18 U.S. Code § 208, which prohibits federal employees from using their positions for private gain.
Profiles of the 12 Acting Officials Under Scrutiny
Internal agency documents obtained by ProPublica reveal the identities of the officials involved, though some have since resigned or been reassigned.
- Michael Greene, acting deputy attorney general (DOJ), who holds a lucrative consulting contract with a private defense firm valued at $180,000 annually.
- Raj Patel, acting assistant secretary at DHS, who owns a stake in a cybersecurity company that has received three no-bid contracts worth $4.2 million since his appointment in January.
- Dr. Elena Vasquez, acting surgeon general (HHS), who moonlights as a medical advisor to a pharmaceutical lobby group, earning $120,000 in speaking fees last year.
The White House has not disclosed whether these officials have recused themselves from decisions affecting their private-sector interests. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget told reporters: "The policy is legally sound and necessary to maintain operational continuity."
Historical Precedents and Transparency Gaps in the Current Policy
The practice of federal officials holding dual roles is not new, but legal experts say the scale and opacity of Trump’s administration’s approach are unprecedented. In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions faced similar scrutiny for failing to divest from his real estate empire, though no legal action was taken. However, Sessions’ case involved disclosed assets, whereas Trump’s acting officials have not publicly filed financial disclosures under the Ethics in Government Act.
"The difference here is the lack of transparency," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the watchdog group Documented**.
A 2025 survey by the Partnership for Public Service found that 68% of federal employees reported knowing of colleagues holding outside employment, up from 42% in 2020. The survey, however, did not break down whether these roles created conflicts.
Legal and Political Repercussions of the Ruling
The Miami judge’s order suspends enforcement of the policy but does not strike it down permanently. Legal analysts expect the case to move to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where conservative judges may rule differently. Meanwhile, the White House has 30 days to respond to the ruling, according to court filings.
Politically, the issue has become a lightning rod for both parties. House Oversight Committee Chair Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called for a full audit of all acting officials’ financial ties, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) dismissed the case as "political theater."
"This isn’t about partisanship—it’s about whether our laws mean anything," Raskin said in a floor speech. "If the White House can ignore the Constitution’s anti-gift clause, what’s next?"
Broader Implications for Federal Ethics and Public Trust
Beyond the immediate legal battle, the case raises questions about the future of federal ethics enforcement. The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which oversees conflicts-of-interest rules, has no subpoena power and relies on voluntary compliance. Under Trump, the OGE’s budget has been cut by 40%, and its enforcement actions have dropped by 60% since 2020, according to internal data obtained by The Wall Street Journal.
Legal scholars warn that if the policy stands, it could erode public trust in government at a time when only 22% of Americans trust federal agencies to do what’s right, per a 2026 Pew Research poll.
"This isn’t just a legal issue—it’s a crisis of legitimacy," said Norman Eisen, former ethics chief under Obama and now a professor at Georgetown. "When officials are paid by both the government and private companies, the public loses faith in the system entirely."
Unanswered Questions and the Path Forward
- Will the 11th Circuit overturn the ruling? Conservative judges on the appeals court may side with the administration, but the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, where the outcome is unpredictable.
- How many more officials are involved? Internal audits suggest dozens of acting officials may be in violation, but the White House has not released a full list.
- Will Congress act? A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a bill to strengthen ethics laws, but it faces stiff opposition from White House allies.
- What happens to the private-sector contracts? Some companies have already paused payments to affected officials, fearing legal exposure, while others have accelerated contracts to lock in profits before potential resignations.
For now, the policy remains in limbo—but the legal and political battles over dual employment are far from over.
