District Court judge permanently enjoins the “Kennedy Declaration,” voiding the regime’s effort to heavily curtail gender-affirming care.
-
The opening of the opinion will go down in history as a vital expression of pro-democracy adjudication. “Unserious leaders are unsafe. There is nothing more serious than our leaders’ dedication to the rule of law so that we might maintain the integrity of our constitutional democracy. This
case highlights a leader’s unserious regard for the rule of law. This case demonstrates how disregard for the rule of law does not merely result in an abstract infraction. … 2/“… Rather, and tragically, this case is one of a long list of examples of how a leader’s wanton disregard for the
rule of law causes very real harm to very real people.” 3/ -
“… Rather, and tragically, this case is one of a long list of examples of how a leader’s wanton disregard for the
rule of law causes very real harm to very real people.” 3/The judge eloquently explains how RFK Jr.’s fascist disregard for rule of law connects with cruelty. “Secretary Kennedy’s utter failure to promulgate rules in accordance
with statutory authority, but instead threaten to cease federal funding to medical providers almost immediately after the declaration, caused chaos and terror for all those people and institutions of our great nation. Secretary Kennedy’s unlawful declaration harmed children.“ 4/ -
The judge eloquently explains how RFK Jr.’s fascist disregard for rule of law connects with cruelty. “Secretary Kennedy’s utter failure to promulgate rules in accordance
with statutory authority, but instead threaten to cease federal funding to medical providers almost immediately after the declaration, caused chaos and terror for all those people and institutions of our great nation. Secretary Kennedy’s unlawful declaration harmed children.“ 4/The opinion highlights how, without going through the fact-finding and notice and comment required by law, RFK Jr. decreed that gender-affirming care, especially for children, is not a medically appropriate treatment modality and then how swiftly HHS began to threaten major children’s hospitals with being struck off from Medicaid and Medicare so as to coerce these institutions into immediately denying gender-affirming care. 5/
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
The opinion highlights how, without going through the fact-finding and notice and comment required by law, RFK Jr. decreed that gender-affirming care, especially for children, is not a medically appropriate treatment modality and then how swiftly HHS began to threaten major children’s hospitals with being struck off from Medicaid and Medicare so as to coerce these institutions into immediately denying gender-affirming care. 5/
The judge rejects immediately the regime’s utterly ridiculous claim that Kennedy’s decree was not a final statement on HHS’s position on a medical standard of care. 6/
-
The judge rejects immediately the regime’s utterly ridiculous claim that Kennedy’s decree was not a final statement on HHS’s position on a medical standard of care. 6/
Likewise, the judge rejects the claim that Kennedy’s threat to strike off hospitals is not agency “final action”. Judge explains: “it presents healthcare
providers with the Hobson’s Choice to either stop providing gender-affirming care for minors or
risk the loss of critical funding necessary to operate at all.” 7/ -
Likewise, the judge rejects the claim that Kennedy’s threat to strike off hospitals is not agency “final action”. Judge explains: “it presents healthcare
providers with the Hobson’s Choice to either stop providing gender-affirming care for minors or
risk the loss of critical funding necessary to operate at all.” 7/Wow. Here’s the court summarizing its reaction to these and other procedural reasons HHS gave for claiming the court did not have the authority to review the Kennedy Declaration: 8/
-
Wow. Here’s the court summarizing its reaction to these and other procedural reasons HHS gave for claiming the court did not have the authority to review the Kennedy Declaration: 8/
“Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments are based on the bald-faced lie that the Kennedy Declaration amounts to nothing more than one man’s musings on gender-affirming care. This Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ attempts to gaslight it into believing that the Kennedy Declaration does anything other than what it says:… 9/
-
“Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments are based on the bald-faced lie that the Kennedy Declaration amounts to nothing more than one man’s musings on gender-affirming care. This Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ attempts to gaslight it into believing that the Kennedy Declaration does anything other than what it says:… 9/
“… proclaims that gender-affirming care for minors falls below professionally recognized standards of care, supersedes state laws that say otherwise, and empowers OIG to exclude healthcare providers from federal healthcare programs if they provide such care.” 10/
-
“… proclaims that gender-affirming care for minors falls below professionally recognized standards of care, supersedes state laws that say otherwise, and empowers OIG to exclude healthcare providers from federal healthcare programs if they provide such care.” 10/
The court proceeds to explain how RFK Jr. and HHS egregiously violated every part of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court concludes: 11/
-
The court proceeds to explain how RFK Jr. and HHS egregiously violated every part of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court concludes: 11/
“This Court can scarcely recall an APA action that has come before it in which the agency’s action was so clearly unlawful. Indeed, many of Defendants’ arguments rest on the
same falsehoods about the Kennedy Declaration and its effects that the Court already rejected in
response to Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments. … 12/ -
“This Court can scarcely recall an APA action that has come before it in which the agency’s action was so clearly unlawful. Indeed, many of Defendants’ arguments rest on the
same falsehoods about the Kennedy Declaration and its effects that the Court already rejected in
response to Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments. … 12/“Defendants’ merits briefing takes these absurd
arguments a step further by suggesting that finding the Kennedy Declaration unlawful would
impinge Secretary Kennedy’s First Amendment right to express his views and hinder public
debate on a matter of public importance. … 13/ -
“Defendants’ merits briefing takes these absurd
arguments a step further by suggesting that finding the Kennedy Declaration unlawful would
impinge Secretary Kennedy’s First Amendment right to express his views and hinder public
debate on a matter of public importance. … 13/“Defendants cannot bully or gaslight this Court into ignoring the many procedural and
legal flaws of the Kennedy Declaration by invoking one of the most sacred principles of our
constitutional democracy—the freedom of speech—when that principle comes nowhere close to
being implicated.”The judge is simply not having any of the executive branch’s bullshit. 14/
-
“Defendants cannot bully or gaslight this Court into ignoring the many procedural and
legal flaws of the Kennedy Declaration by invoking one of the most sacred principles of our
constitutional democracy—the freedom of speech—when that principle comes nowhere close to
being implicated.”The judge is simply not having any of the executive branch’s bullshit. 14/
Along the way to granting the plaintiffs every possible form of relief from the Kennedy Declaration and subsequent HHS action, the judge writes: 15/
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
Along the way to granting the plaintiffs every possible form of relief from the Kennedy Declaration and subsequent HHS action, the judge writes: 15/
“The Defendants’ unserious approach to governance stumbles far below the necessary commitment to a constitutional democracy that requires the rule of law to be
regarded, respected, and honored as sacred. Considering Defendants’ arguments in this case and this administration’s repeated flouting of court orders and the rule of law, the Court finds that declaratory relief alone is
insufficient… 16/ -
“The Defendants’ unserious approach to governance stumbles far below the necessary commitment to a constitutional democracy that requires the rule of law to be
regarded, respected, and honored as sacred. Considering Defendants’ arguments in this case and this administration’s repeated flouting of court orders and the rule of law, the Court finds that declaratory relief alone is
insufficient… 16/“injunctive relief is warranted here because, unlike declaratory relief, it is ‘backed by the power of contempt.’”
The judge is making it clear that the Trump executive branch is the worst sort of lawbreaker. 17/
-
“injunctive relief is warranted here because, unlike declaratory relief, it is ‘backed by the power of contempt.’”
The judge is making it clear that the Trump executive branch is the worst sort of lawbreaker. 17/
Finally, in an absolute genius touch, the judge signs the opinion:
“s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him)
United States District Judge” 18/ -
Finally, in an absolute genius touch, the judge signs the opinion:
“s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him)
United States District Judge” 18/@heidilifeldman Bless this judge to the moon and back again.
-
Finally, in an absolute genius touch, the judge signs the opinion:
“s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him)
United States District Judge” 18/Today the NY Times published an expose of the Roberts Court which made me ashamed to be in any way associated with the same profession as its members. But I will always be keenly proud to be associated with a jurist like Judge Kasubhai. 19/19
-
“injunctive relief is warranted here because, unlike declaratory relief, it is ‘backed by the power of contempt.’”
The judge is making it clear that the Trump executive branch is the worst sort of lawbreaker. 17/
"The Defendants’ unserious approach to governance stumbles far below the necessary commitment to a constitutional democracy that requires the rule of law to be regarded, respected, and honored as sacred."
That phrase needs to be carved in stone and erected on the steps leading up to the Supreme Court of these United States
-
"The Defendants’ unserious approach to governance stumbles far below the necessary commitment to a constitutional democracy that requires the rule of law to be regarded, respected, and honored as sacred."
That phrase needs to be carved in stone and erected on the steps leading up to the Supreme Court of these United States
