12 Comments
User's avatar
Lindsay Pennington's avatar

This was a good Christmas Eve report. Thanks Chris!

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

What do they say about repeating the same mistake? Probably the DoJ is trying to maneuver a trans care case before Judges Cannon or Bove.

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

I’m not sure what you’re talking about?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Frankly, neither do I. I *think* I was trying to suggest that the DoJ will still keep battering until they find a judge to agree with them. Perhaps a ham handed attempt to jurist shop.

Expand full comment
Jack Carter's avatar

Nice christmas gift indeed. Fuck trump and his fascist goons. Becoming more and more like true disgusting corrupt nazis

Expand full comment
Susan V's avatar

Good news!

Expand full comment
C Kipps's avatar

What a relief. Thank you, Chris.

Expand full comment
Nicole B's avatar

This is a good development. It's relieving to see this kind of pushback happening. Given that the executive branch is peddling junk science (when they even bother mentioning science at all), I can only imagine the horrors they'd unleash with all that private information. The email narrowing the subpeona is still even too much...

Eternally grateful for the depth and insightfulness of this reporting, Chris. Have a warm and lovely holiday!

Expand full comment
Michael Larson's avatar

"the Justice Department’s unusual requests"

Requests? Gee, I always thought subpoenas were demands for information -- the "give this to us or we will prosecute you" type of thing, as opposed to a "please give us this if you are so inclined" kind of thing. I could be wrong.

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

The requests for information within the subpoena are what I was specifically referring to — terminology used both by DOJ and the judge (and quoted in the piece). But, yes, you are right about the mandatory nature of a subpoena. That’s why they’re being challenged here. (Successfully.)

Expand full comment
Noorillah's avatar

'...the government's demand for deeply personal and private information about patients carries more than a whiff of ill-intent. This is apparent from their rhetoric.' Indeed--an outrageous, frightening and creepy request which in itself implies ill-intent. Thank you, Judge Bissoon. DOJ: MYOB!

Expand full comment
WCS's avatar

Thanks, Chris.

Expand full comment