3 ms·

If I were Trump or Vought I'd be over the moon about this ruling. A lowly district judge telling the president what to put on a federal agency's website. No ide

If I were Trump or Vought I'd be over the moon about this ruling. A lowly district judge telling the president what to put on a federal agency's website. No idea about the legal side, but the optics are great for Trump.

alphabettsy 2y ago
That’s an interesting way to reframe what happened, no doubt how it will be portrayed on Fox News. Telling them to restore the information that was already there temporarily is hardly telling the president what to put on an agency site. It’s a temporary injunction. Extremely common legal procedure pending a real decision in the case.
- geye1234 2y ago
  It's hardly a reframe. Whether the content was there before is irrelevant. A judge is dictating the contents of an agency site, at the behest of a private party. A temporary injunction may well be common, but it doesn't mean it isn't a bizarre-sounding decision in this case. Removing the info, at least much of it, was a crap decision. But this feels like a massive win for Trump.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    This is still a strange way to reframe things. America is supposed to be a nation of laws. The Judiciary is one of our checks on the executive, and the executive is supposed to behave in good faith and execute what Congress has passed. You're essentially saying the executive should have no checks on it.
  - Reubachi 2y ago
    "A judge is dictating the contents of an agency site, at the behest of a private party." No, a judge is undoing an executive order from a federal agency that did not pass judicial scrutinty for legalitybased on 200+ years of judicial framework and precidence. Nothing to do with information, politics, etc. this is exactly what the framework of the constitution allows for and happens dozens of times a day every day in every locale. Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms "Agency Site" in place of the term "Agency Operating under the Executive Privilege of the Federal Government" and "private party" in place of the "The United States". This is IMO very cut and dry, will get very little media coverage, and I struggle to think how one falls on "This looks good for person X".
    - deathanatos 2y ago
      > Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms […] "private party" in place of the "The United States". "private party" in their comment likely refers to the plaintiff in the case, "Doctors for America", which is a private party. But I agree with you, though: of course the plaintiff is a private party. Who else would it be, when the government is violating the Constitution? Is upthread expecting the government to sue itself?
gamblor956 2y ago
This is actually pretty basic U.S. administrative law. A federal agency did an action without following procedures set forth by law, and the judge is ordering them to undo that action. It's irrelevant what the content is; the judge didn't rule that specific content needed to go back on the website. He undid the action itself. Yes, to laypeople that distinction doesn't matter. But it matters a great deal to lawyers and to the agencies. And note: this is not a win for Trump or his administration. It's egg on his face, because he could have accomplished this without the courts being able to undo it...if he had followed the procedures set forth in the APA (which would have required a few weeks). This injunction is likely to last longer than it would have taken for them to do things correctly the first time. Republicans already control the 3 branches of federal government. They don't need PR wins any more.
- geye1234 2y ago
  That makes sense, and I don't know why you got downvoted. IANAL, and still less an administrative lawyer. I'm just saying that Trump and Vought are going to make hay with the optics of this. It will seem bizarre to many that the content of a website can be matter for the courts.
  - apical_dendrite 2y ago
    I would guess that a doctor saying that she's having trouble dealing with an STD outbreak at a high school because the resources she needs are suddenly no longer available, or she has to take time out of a patient appointment to try to figure out where to find information (which are the some of the injuries alleged in the suit) is a much more compelling issue for most people.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
You can read the ruling here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/12/doctors-for-america-v-office-of-personnel-management/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/12/doctors-for... It is quite detailed. There are at least two laws in question. One specifically says that the government must '"provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products,” which HHS defines to include electronic documents and webpages.' (quoting the ruling, which quotes the law) Clearly the government did not do this. The other is the Administrative Procedures Act, which forbids arbitrary and capricious actions by agencies. Also, if you think the "optics" of this are good, consider whether you want your doctor wasting time trying to find an alternative resource instead of practicing medicine.

alphabettsy 2y ago

That’s an interesting way to reframe what happened, no doubt how it will be portrayed on Fox News. Telling them to restore the information that was already there temporarily is hardly telling the president what to put on an agency site. It’s a temporary injunction. Extremely common legal procedure pending a real decision in the case.

geye1234 2y ago
It's hardly a reframe. Whether the content was there before is irrelevant. A judge is dictating the contents of an agency site, at the behest of a private party. A temporary injunction may well be common, but it doesn't mean it isn't a bizarre-sounding decision in this case. Removing the info, at least much of it, was a crap decision. But this feels like a massive win for Trump.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  This is still a strange way to reframe things. America is supposed to be a nation of laws. The Judiciary is one of our checks on the executive, and the executive is supposed to behave in good faith and execute what Congress has passed. You're essentially saying the executive should have no checks on it.
- Reubachi 2y ago
  "A judge is dictating the contents of an agency site, at the behest of a private party." No, a judge is undoing an executive order from a federal agency that did not pass judicial scrutinty for legalitybased on 200+ years of judicial framework and precidence. Nothing to do with information, politics, etc. this is exactly what the framework of the constitution allows for and happens dozens of times a day every day in every locale. Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms "Agency Site" in place of the term "Agency Operating under the Executive Privilege of the Federal Government" and "private party" in place of the "The United States". This is IMO very cut and dry, will get very little media coverage, and I struggle to think how one falls on "This looks good for person X".
  - deathanatos 2y ago
    > Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms […] "private party" in place of the "The United States". "private party" in their comment likely refers to the plaintiff in the case, "Doctors for America", which is a private party. But I agree with you, though: of course the plaintiff is a private party. Who else would it be, when the government is violating the Constitution? Is upthread expecting the government to sue itself?

gamblor956 2y ago

This is actually pretty basic U.S. administrative law. A federal agency did an action without following procedures set forth by law, and the judge is ordering them to undo that action. It's irrelevant what the content is; the judge didn't rule that specific content needed to go back on the website. He undid the action itself. Yes, to laypeople that distinction doesn't matter. But it matters a great deal to lawyers and to the agencies. And note: this is not a win for Trump or his administration. It's egg on his face, because he could have accomplished this without the courts being able to undo it...if he had followed the procedures set forth in the APA (which would have required a few weeks). This injunction is likely to last longer than it would have taken for them to do things correctly the first time. Republicans already control the 3 branches of federal government. They don't need PR wins any more.

geye1234 2y ago
That makes sense, and I don't know why you got downvoted. IANAL, and still less an administrative lawyer. I'm just saying that Trump and Vought are going to make hay with the optics of this. It will seem bizarre to many that the content of a website can be matter for the courts.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  I would guess that a doctor saying that she's having trouble dealing with an STD outbreak at a high school because the resources she needs are suddenly no longer available, or she has to take time out of a patient appointment to try to figure out where to find information (which are the some of the injuries alleged in the suit) is a much more compelling issue for most people.

apical_dendrite 2y ago

You can read the ruling here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/12/doctors-for-america-v-office-of-personnel-management/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/12/doctors-for... It is quite detailed. There are at least two laws in question. One specifically says that the government must '"provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products,” which HHS defines to include electronic documents and webpages.' (quoting the ruling, which quotes the law) Clearly the government did not do this. The other is the Administrative Procedures Act, which forbids arbitrary and capricious actions by agencies. Also, if you think the "optics" of this are good, consider whether you want your doctor wasting time trying to find an alternative resource instead of practicing medicine.