Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://chaosfem.tw/users/theogrin/statuses/116429342547716159">Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊 (theogrin@chaosfem.tw)'s status on Sunday, 19-Apr-2026 13:00:55 JST</a><a href="https://chaosfem.tw/@theogrin" title="theogrin@chaosfem.tw"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/106268-48-20230408163938.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊</a></section><article><p>Just a reminder that one of my great joys in life is reading an opinion by a thoroughly angry judge, and today's decision on the Kennedy Declaration is absolutely full of that.  Ahh, the delicious, nutritious rage.</p><p><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.191371/gov.uscourts.ord.191371.93.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.191371/gov.uscourts.ord.191371.93.0_1.pdf</a></p><p><a href="https://chaosfem.tw/tags/legal" rel="tag">#legal</a> <a href="https://chaosfem.tw/tags/uspol" rel="tag">#uspol</a> <a href="https://chaosfem.tw/tags/hhs" rel="tag">#hhs</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/6332896#notice-12472725">In conversation</a><time datetime="2026-04-19T13:00:55+09:00" title="Sunday, 19-Apr-2026 13:00:55 JST">about 6 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://chaosfem.tw/@theogrin/116429342547716159" rel="external" title="Sent from chaosfem.tw via ActivityPub">chaosfem.tw</a></span></span><a href="https://chaosfem.tw/@theogrin/116429342547716159">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/6006921">A snippet from the refutation of and injunction towards the Kennedy Declaration, a piece of transphobic hate which has resulted in many hospitals dropping trans youth healthcare.  This segment reads:
-----
Defendants also argue that an injunction is unnecessary in light of the Court’s declaratory relief because “the federal government is presumed to follow the law as declared by courts.”  [Citation]  (“[W]e have long presumed that officials of the
Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.”)), ECF No. 89. The record here is more than sufficient to overcome such a presumption. First, Defendants” patently incredible arguments in this case leave the Court with no confidence that Defendants will adhere to the Court’s declaration. Second, administrative agencies under the current administration have a significant and troubling history of evading or flouting prior court orders.
-----
The last portions of this are highlit.</a></label><br><a href="https://chaosfemtw.files.fedi.monster/media_attachments/files/116/429/331/199/087/201/original/7ffc042c9486e86c.png" rel="external">https://chaosfemtw.files.fedi.monster/media_attachments/files/116/429/331/199/087/201/original/7ffc042c9486e86c.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊 (theogrin@chaosfem.tw)'s status on Sunday, 19-Apr-2026 13:00:55 JST Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊
Just a reminder that one of my great joys in life is reading an opinion by a thoroughly angry judge, and today's decision on the Kennedy Declaration is absolutely full of that. Ahh, the delicious, nutritious rage.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.191371/gov.uscourts.ord.191371.93.0_1.pdf
#legal #uspol #hhs
In conversationabout 6 months ago from chaosfem.twpermalink
Attachments
1. A snippet from the refutation of and injunction towards the Kennedy Declaration, a piece of transphobic hate which has resulted in many hospitals dropping trans youth healthcare. This segment reads: ----- Defendants also argue that an injunction is unnecessary in light of the Court’s declaratory relief because “the federal government is presumed to follow the law as declared by courts.” [Citation] (“[W]e have long presumed that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.”)), ECF No. 89. The record here is more than sufficient to overcome such a presumption. First, Defendants” patently incredible arguments in this case leave the Court with no confidence that Defendants will adhere to the Court’s declaration. Second, administrative agencies under the current administration have a significant and troubling history of evading or flouting prior court orders. ----- The last portions of this are highlit.
  https://chaosfemtw.files.fedi.monster/media_attachments/files/116/429/331/199/087/201/original/7ffc042c9486e86c.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice