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.
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.
Removing the info, at least much of it, was a crap decision. But this feels like a massive win for Trump.
You're essentially saying the executive should have no checks on it.
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".
"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?
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.
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.
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.