And now another emergency application to Trump’s SCOTUS where it is a lock where it is a lock which side at least 5 of them will align. So don’t pop any champagne just yet. Bleak times for the rule of law.
I hate to say it, but we may well see material unrest before this is all over. I don't think it has to be that way, because there is an answer on the horizon, but I'm not convinced the militant aspect of our side is going to wait for that.
I agree! Emergency declaration or Federal Court shopping like they did to RI hospital to get records. And they know where to go to that low brow Texas circuit court!!
Eventually it will be thrown out , but you know they are going to keep on trying! And if any of these plaintiffs cave in for fear before it being adjudicated is what I’m always worried about ‼️
Thank DAWG these cases ended up in Judge Boasberg's docket and not some rabid pro-Trump MAGA judge's docket. I suppose the next step for the FTC is to file these cases in the Fifth Circuit so they end up in front of Judge Kacsmaryk instead. Because you know they'll keep judge shopping until they get the result they're looking for.
That, they can't do. This was in the DC District Court so an appeal would go to the DC Court of Appeals. Despite my cynicism, I can't imagine that even the 5th CCoA would take an appeal from a case in a different circuit.
They could try to re-file the case from scratch in the 5th Circuit, but even that would face a hard-to-refuse motion for change of venue because the agency is in DC.
Not exactly. As I understand it, what happened here is that the DOJ issued a subpoena and both sought and got an order to enforce it all on the same day (April 30). They technically could file for that order anywhere since it's a new order unrelated to an existing suit.
It's true that the Texas court could and should have said "You filed this in the wrong place. Go away." But what matters here is that this is not a case of trying to appeal a district court ruling in a different circuit.
What's happening is that the subpoena itself is being challenged in the federal district court for Rhode Island. If that court issues an injunction (which, as the brief notes, seven other courts have done with similar demands), an appeal would have to go to the 1st CCoA, not the 5th.
As a sidebar, I was amused to see that the filing by the ACLU on behalf of the Child Advocate for RI used the Skrmetti decision against the DOJ, noting that in it (quoting the filing) "the Supreme Court reaffirmed that '[w]e afford States "wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,"' including specifically in the area of medical care for gender dysphoria."
In other words. the DOJ is trying to deny Rhode Island the very latitude that Skremetti allowed it.
Sorry for the delayed response; I've been out of it of late.
I thought I was clear but apparently I wasn't, so I'll try again.
First, I'll give the "I'm not a lawyer" speech so there may be subtleties and sneaky moves available of which I'm unaware, but that said, I'm confident I've got the basics right.
Okay. There are two things here: the subpoena and the order to enforce it. They came out of the notorious Northern District of Texas. That court could have (and reasonably should have) said the motion to obtain the order was filed in the wrong venue - but it didn't. No surprise there.
So if there was to be some appeal of the enforcement *order* on some grounds like it was overly broad or didn't allow enough time to comply or whatever, that would be in the 5th Circuit, since that's where it was issued.
HOWEVER, another rather common course is to move to quash *the subpoena itself.* Such a motion has been filed in federal court in Rhode Island along with the argument that this *is* the proper venue (which it would certainly appear to be). If that is successful, which I hope it will be, it would leave nothing for the 5th Circuit to rule on because the order to enforce would be moot. (You can hardly order enforcement of a subpoena that effectively doesn't exist.)
What's more, if the feds wanted to appeal a decision to quash the subpoena they would have to pursue it in the 1st Circuit (since that's where the decision was from) - again leaving the 5th Circuit with nothing to do.
The feds will likely argue that the 5th Circuit is the correct venue because that's where the case arose, but considering that the subpoena is to a hospital in Rhode Island, that is such a tissue-thin argument that I can't see any self-respecting court - which I gather those of the 1st Circuit are, even if the 5th CCoA isn't - buying it.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear before; I was trying to avoid going on too long.
You mean it's illegal for government to treat people with disregard because of who they are? What a concept! If only we'd known that, say, ever since the civil-rights movement, heh. I swear to God, the right wing is just ludicrous, between Dobbs, transphobic lunatic reactionary nonsense, gerrymandering and trying to say our side started that, blaming all left-wing people for Charlie Kirk's murder, on and on. It's just pathetic, these are pathetically brain-damaged people.
Chief Judge James Boasberg ruling in favor of the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, along mentioning the vacating the declaration tied to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is a major step forward for the transgender community.
These decisions reaffirm that science, evidence-based medical care, and constitutional protections still matter.
For transgender people, their families, and the medical professionals who support them, this ruling sends an important message: intimidation, political retaliation, and attacks on established standards of care should not replace medical expertise or basic human dignity.
The fight for equality and access to care is far from over, but this decision shows that the courts can still serve as a critical safeguard against government overreach and discrimination.
Now it's time for all those hospitals, clinics, doctors and organizations that rendered services to the transgender community will once again open their doors to this community.
This plus yesterday's Trevor Project study finding twice the amount of suicide risk for trans kids who can't get hormone therapy SHOULD put the nail in the coffin for all the anti-trans arguments that gender affirming care isn't lifesaving care.
Key word: "should". But as we all know these people will never stop trying to erase us.
If they're reaching all the way back to the fucking 1970s, they might as well drop the pretense of this having anything 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴𝘰𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 to do with children. My pushing-40 Millennial ass was still years away from even being born in 1979, and the 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 of my generation are in their 30s; they're straight up gunning for Boomers and Gen X with 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 shit. Like in every other right-wing culture war, children were just the smokescreen. There is 𝘯𝘰 age at which these fascist fucks believe we're mature enough to make our own decisions.
"The judge also ruled that the CIDs were designed to chill protected speech regardless of whether the FTC ever pursued formal enforcement."
That is still the case with regards to the majority of hospitals that have shuttered gender affirming care for youth.
Text from Erin's article:
"the Kennedy Declaration, which drove more than 40 hospital systems to shutter their trans youth programs before a federal judge vacated it as unlawful last month;"
According to the Needle's updated page dated May 5:
"Weeks after judge demands trans youth healthcare continue, no hospitals have reopened care"
I asked ChatGPT to check hospitals cited in earlier posts, here are the results:
Hospital / system status check - youth gender-affirming care
As of May 8, 2026, public evidence does not support a blanket statement that every hospital has reopened youth gender-affirming care after recent rulings. Rady Children's in San Diego appears to be a significant exception because California litigation produced a court order requiring continued care, excluding major surgeries.
Hospital / system: Rady Children's Hospital / Rady Children's Health, San Diego
Status: Care appears to be continuing under court order, with major surgery excluded.
Evidence note: NBC San Diego reported that a judge ordered Rady to continue gender-affirming care for patients under 19, excluding major surgeries. Rady's own site still lists a Center for Gender Affirming Care phone number.
Hospital / system: CHOC / Rady Children's Health Orange County
Status: Likely covered by the Rady/CHOC litigation context, but less direct public confirmation was found than for San Diego.
Evidence note: LAist reported that CHOC and Rady ended gender-affirming hormone therapy for under-19 patients on Feb. 6 pending AG litigation. The strongest directly accessible confirmation I found named Rady San Diego.
Hospital / system: Children's Hospital Colorado
Status: No public evidence found that youth medical gender-affirming care has reopened.
Evidence note: Colorado Sun reported that care remained suspended, and later reported that the Colorado Supreme Court was still weighing whether to require Children's to resume care. The Needle also said Children's Colorado had not reinstated youth transition care after the federal ruling.
Hospital / system: University of Colorado Health / UCHealth
Status: No clear public evidence found of youth care reopening.
Evidence note: UCHealth's public statement concerns surgical age restrictions, not a clear reopening of pediatric medical care. The Needle said it contacted University of Colorado Health System and received no response.
Hospital / system: NYU Langone
Status: No public evidence found that NYU Langone reopened its Transgender Youth Health Program.
Evidence note: NYU News reported that NYU Langone had not resumed the program after the federal ruling. The Needle documented the closure and removal/reframing of youth program pages.
Hospital / system: Children's Minnesota
Status: Yes. This one did resume care, although the resumption predated the later Kennedy Declaration ruling.
Evidence note: MPR reported that Children's Minnesota would resume all services in its gender health program. The Needle treated this as a limited reopening case that predates the federal ruling.
Hospital / system: Children's Hospital Los Angeles / CHLA
Status: No public evidence of reopening found.
Evidence note: AP and local reporting described CHLA's Center for Transyouth Health and Development as closing in July 2025. No current public reopening notice was found.
I am glad to hear the fishing expedition was shut down.
This isn't the SCOTUS making the call, so I hope the decision sticks.
Thank you for the reporting, Erin.
And of course, particularly but not exclusively when done by people acting as officers of an American jurisdiction, participation in this propaganda effort to abuse transgene people in law and policy can make people subject to prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242. Getting that done should become a Democrat party platform plank. Persons not in an American jurisdiction may be subject to the ICC.
Some of these SoCons* can be taken out of circulation, and the rest discouraged thereby.
And now another emergency application to Trump’s SCOTUS where it is a lock where it is a lock which side at least 5 of them will align. So don’t pop any champagne just yet. Bleak times for the rule of law.
I hate to say it, but we may well see material unrest before this is all over. I don't think it has to be that way, because there is an answer on the horizon, but I'm not convinced the militant aspect of our side is going to wait for that.
I agree! Emergency declaration or Federal Court shopping like they did to RI hospital to get records. And they know where to go to that low brow Texas circuit court!!
Eventually it will be thrown out , but you know they are going to keep on trying! And if any of these plaintiffs cave in for fear before it being adjudicated is what I’m always worried about ‼️
Thank DAWG these cases ended up in Judge Boasberg's docket and not some rabid pro-Trump MAGA judge's docket. I suppose the next step for the FTC is to file these cases in the Fifth Circuit so they end up in front of Judge Kacsmaryk instead. Because you know they'll keep judge shopping until they get the result they're looking for.
That, they can't do. This was in the DC District Court so an appeal would go to the DC Court of Appeals. Despite my cynicism, I can't imagine that even the 5th CCoA would take an appeal from a case in a different circuit.
They could try to re-file the case from scratch in the 5th Circuit, but even that would face a hard-to-refuse motion for change of venue because the agency is in DC.
But that is exactly what they did with a hospital in RHODE ISLAND.
https://www.wpri.com/news/politics/aclu-fights-doj-order-seeking-ri-hospital-records-of-children-receiving-gender-affirming-care/
Not exactly. As I understand it, what happened here is that the DOJ issued a subpoena and both sought and got an order to enforce it all on the same day (April 30). They technically could file for that order anywhere since it's a new order unrelated to an existing suit.
It's true that the Texas court could and should have said "You filed this in the wrong place. Go away." But what matters here is that this is not a case of trying to appeal a district court ruling in a different circuit.
What's happening is that the subpoena itself is being challenged in the federal district court for Rhode Island. If that court issues an injunction (which, as the brief notes, seven other courts have done with similar demands), an appeal would have to go to the 1st CCoA, not the 5th.
As a sidebar, I was amused to see that the filing by the ACLU on behalf of the Child Advocate for RI used the Skrmetti decision against the DOJ, noting that in it (quoting the filing) "the Supreme Court reaffirmed that '[w]e afford States "wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,"' including specifically in the area of medical care for gender dysphoria."
In other words. the DOJ is trying to deny Rhode Island the very latitude that Skremetti allowed it.
Uh, don’t think that will stop 5th circuit. How do they get to rule on that Rhode Island case⁉️
Sorry for the delayed response; I've been out of it of late.
I thought I was clear but apparently I wasn't, so I'll try again.
First, I'll give the "I'm not a lawyer" speech so there may be subtleties and sneaky moves available of which I'm unaware, but that said, I'm confident I've got the basics right.
Okay. There are two things here: the subpoena and the order to enforce it. They came out of the notorious Northern District of Texas. That court could have (and reasonably should have) said the motion to obtain the order was filed in the wrong venue - but it didn't. No surprise there.
So if there was to be some appeal of the enforcement *order* on some grounds like it was overly broad or didn't allow enough time to comply or whatever, that would be in the 5th Circuit, since that's where it was issued.
HOWEVER, another rather common course is to move to quash *the subpoena itself.* Such a motion has been filed in federal court in Rhode Island along with the argument that this *is* the proper venue (which it would certainly appear to be). If that is successful, which I hope it will be, it would leave nothing for the 5th Circuit to rule on because the order to enforce would be moot. (You can hardly order enforcement of a subpoena that effectively doesn't exist.)
What's more, if the feds wanted to appeal a decision to quash the subpoena they would have to pursue it in the 1st Circuit (since that's where the decision was from) - again leaving the 5th Circuit with nothing to do.
The feds will likely argue that the 5th Circuit is the correct venue because that's where the case arose, but considering that the subpoena is to a hospital in Rhode Island, that is such a tissue-thin argument that I can't see any self-respecting court - which I gather those of the 1st Circuit are, even if the 5th CCoA isn't - buying it.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear before; I was trying to avoid going on too long.
You mean it's illegal for government to treat people with disregard because of who they are? What a concept! If only we'd known that, say, ever since the civil-rights movement, heh. I swear to God, the right wing is just ludicrous, between Dobbs, transphobic lunatic reactionary nonsense, gerrymandering and trying to say our side started that, blaming all left-wing people for Charlie Kirk's murder, on and on. It's just pathetic, these are pathetically brain-damaged people.
I will be so grateful when this nonsense is over. It is exhausting.
Some good news for a change. I want to send Judge Boasberg some flowers, I think.
Chief Judge James Boasberg ruling in favor of the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, along mentioning the vacating the declaration tied to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is a major step forward for the transgender community.
These decisions reaffirm that science, evidence-based medical care, and constitutional protections still matter.
For transgender people, their families, and the medical professionals who support them, this ruling sends an important message: intimidation, political retaliation, and attacks on established standards of care should not replace medical expertise or basic human dignity.
The fight for equality and access to care is far from over, but this decision shows that the courts can still serve as a critical safeguard against government overreach and discrimination.
Now it's time for all those hospitals, clinics, doctors and organizations that rendered services to the transgender community will once again open their doors to this community.
This plus yesterday's Trevor Project study finding twice the amount of suicide risk for trans kids who can't get hormone therapy SHOULD put the nail in the coffin for all the anti-trans arguments that gender affirming care isn't lifesaving care.
Key word: "should". But as we all know these people will never stop trying to erase us.
I agree should is the key - but unfortunately we still have trump, jfk jr, religious zealots, and others who will never get it.
If they're reaching all the way back to the fucking 1970s, they might as well drop the pretense of this having anything 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴𝘰𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 to do with children. My pushing-40 Millennial ass was still years away from even being born in 1979, and the 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 of my generation are in their 30s; they're straight up gunning for Boomers and Gen X with 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 shit. Like in every other right-wing culture war, children were just the smokescreen. There is 𝘯𝘰 age at which these fascist fucks believe we're mature enough to make our own decisions.
Glad to see there are still some in the judiciary that see that Trump regime for what it is.
Kudos to WPATH and Endocrine Society for standing up to the lawlessness of the Trump regime.
Text from Erin's article:
"The judge also ruled that the CIDs were designed to chill protected speech regardless of whether the FTC ever pursued formal enforcement."
That is still the case with regards to the majority of hospitals that have shuttered gender affirming care for youth.
Text from Erin's article:
"the Kennedy Declaration, which drove more than 40 hospital systems to shutter their trans youth programs before a federal judge vacated it as unlawful last month;"
According to the Needle's updated page dated May 5:
"Weeks after judge demands trans youth healthcare continue, no hospitals have reopened care"
https://theneedlenews.com/2026/05/weeks-after-judge-demands-trans-youth-healthcare-continue-no-hospitals-have-reopened-care/
I asked ChatGPT to check hospitals cited in earlier posts, here are the results:
Hospital / system status check - youth gender-affirming care
As of May 8, 2026, public evidence does not support a blanket statement that every hospital has reopened youth gender-affirming care after recent rulings. Rady Children's in San Diego appears to be a significant exception because California litigation produced a court order requiring continued care, excluding major surgeries.
Hospital / system: Rady Children's Hospital / Rady Children's Health, San Diego
Status: Care appears to be continuing under court order, with major surgery excluded.
Evidence note: NBC San Diego reported that a judge ordered Rady to continue gender-affirming care for patients under 19, excluding major surgeries. Rady's own site still lists a Center for Gender Affirming Care phone number.
Hospital / system: CHOC / Rady Children's Health Orange County
Status: Likely covered by the Rady/CHOC litigation context, but less direct public confirmation was found than for San Diego.
Evidence note: LAist reported that CHOC and Rady ended gender-affirming hormone therapy for under-19 patients on Feb. 6 pending AG litigation. The strongest directly accessible confirmation I found named Rady San Diego.
Hospital / system: Children's Hospital Colorado
Status: No public evidence found that youth medical gender-affirming care has reopened.
Evidence note: Colorado Sun reported that care remained suspended, and later reported that the Colorado Supreme Court was still weighing whether to require Children's to resume care. The Needle also said Children's Colorado had not reinstated youth transition care after the federal ruling.
Hospital / system: University of Colorado Health / UCHealth
Status: No clear public evidence found of youth care reopening.
Evidence note: UCHealth's public statement concerns surgical age restrictions, not a clear reopening of pediatric medical care. The Needle said it contacted University of Colorado Health System and received no response.
Hospital / system: NYU Langone
Status: No public evidence found that NYU Langone reopened its Transgender Youth Health Program.
Evidence note: NYU News reported that NYU Langone had not resumed the program after the federal ruling. The Needle documented the closure and removal/reframing of youth program pages.
Hospital / system: Children's Minnesota
Status: Yes. This one did resume care, although the resumption predated the later Kennedy Declaration ruling.
Evidence note: MPR reported that Children's Minnesota would resume all services in its gender health program. The Needle treated this as a limited reopening case that predates the federal ruling.
Hospital / system: Children's Hospital Los Angeles / CHLA
Status: No public evidence of reopening found.
Evidence note: AP and local reporting described CHLA's Center for Transyouth Health and Development as closing in July 2025. No current public reopening notice was found.
I hate this administration 😡
They'll appeal to scotus and they'll win.
I am glad to hear the fishing expedition was shut down.
This isn't the SCOTUS making the call, so I hope the decision sticks.
Thank you for the reporting, Erin.
And of course, particularly but not exclusively when done by people acting as officers of an American jurisdiction, participation in this propaganda effort to abuse transgene people in law and policy can make people subject to prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. § 241, & 18 U.S.C. § 242. Getting that done should become a Democrat party platform plank. Persons not in an American jurisdiction may be subject to the ICC.
Some of these SoCons* can be taken out of circulation, and the rest discouraged thereby.
*Social Conservatives.
Now this is what we needed. Let's see if Trump bulldozes over this.
There are reasons to be unhappy with PinkNews, but this was in my Facebook feed and seems significant:
https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/01/30/monty-fritts-gop-candidate-governor-trans-kids/
!!! genocide trigger warning !!!
That is a man who should be involuntarily committed to psychiatric care.
@ErinReed
#ErinReed