20 Comments
User's avatar
David J. Sharp's avatar

Well, of course! Once we penalize trans people for the wrong gender, we can move up to Islam being the wrong religion; African Americans, the wrong color.

ViaggiPazzi's avatar

Things you will never see in Civ. Pro. class.

Ranulf de Glanvill's avatar

Civil Procedure was a snoozer of a topic, the latest development in any topic being a 1934 opinion of the Court of Curds and Whey. Not anymore… casebook editors must go through 20 revisions in a month.

Peter Nicoll's avatar

When this nightmare ends - hopefully in 3 years - a way must be found and implemented to put an end to such egregious, manipulative forum shopping. (Really, "judge shopping".) That may impair Ds, such as if a case is appropriately filed in S FL. But this overt perversion of the judicial system cannot continue.

Do you have any suggestions on ways to address this?

Cissna, Ken's avatar

So the lawyers were being sneaky and got caught, and then the one branch of the govt that is mostly working behaved appropriately.

Artur Akkerman, LCSW's avatar

This is such a terrible time for our community and many others.

Sir Vantes's avatar

This whole thing sounds like a kid not liking one parent's answer, then going to the more permissive one in hopes of getting what they want.

This person thought there were rules against Officers of the Court acting like 5-year-olds.

One would hope that there are very painful penalties in the future.

Stephanie Stibbard's avatar

Your coverage is impressive and so vital to our understanding. Thank you for writing about this in such a timely manner (!! you're the only one so far !!) and making it so clear.

My mind is still trying to come to grips with this and I'm still laughing and saying, repeatedly, W.T.F??? Thank you, thank you.

Average Jane's avatar

Glen is Goldis, a lesbian who thinks her ideas of gender norm should be codified of people who are transgender. The sole reason she was hired. https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/01/gay-lawyer-who-thinks-trans-rights-are-homophobic-says-letitia-james-fired-her-for-her-views/

Average Jane's avatar

Glenna is Goldis, a lesbian who thinks her ideas of gender norm should be codified of people who are transgender. The sole reason she was hired. https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/01/gay-lawyer-who-thinks-trans-rights-are-homophobic-says-letitia-james-fired-her-for-her-views/

Maggie Washburne's avatar

It’s clearly Trans Derangement Syndrome

defineandredefine's avatar

Would this be the same Reed O'Connor who sentenced several people to absolutely draconian sentences for thought crimes?

Joeff's avatar

Did you ever write up the venue squabble between TX and CA federal courts over an NLRB case against SpaceX?

just a bug's avatar

O’Connor did go a step further by agreeing

to let Boasberg rule on WPATH’s request pending in D.C.

— that could have the effect of preventing the FTC’s case to proceed before him [O'C?] at all —

before he [O'C?] moves forward with the FTC’s case.

(O, for Button Magriel to unscramble my brain !)

Joeff's avatar

Evidently laws are needed to prevent the government (and maybe judges) from doing a lot of what they have been doing of late.

Dennis W.'s avatar

Aaah... Two judges identified trickery/deceptive practices employed by the Dt's lawyers. Let's see who wins? 🤔

TJ's avatar
3hEdited

Do you think O’Connor only delayed it because he fully intends to grant the motion but just wants to use Boasberg’s ruling next week in his ruling granting the motion?

I also don’t understand why Boasberg denied WPATH’s motion instead of just deferring like O’Connor did with the FTC motion? If the FTC’s motion is going to come back anyway, why not just keep WPATH’s emergency motion on hold so too?

Chris Geidner's avatar

Boasberg denied the July 2 TRO because the agreement with O’Connor mooted the need for it because WPATH’s June 30th motion — which could block O’Connor’s proceedings — will be resolved before O’Connor considers any requests before him.

If Boasberg denies the June 30 motion, then it would mean that he decided the FTC case can proceed in Texas, so O’Connor could do what he wanted with the case (and the immediate reason the FTC filed the Thursday TRO before O’Connor would itself have passed by).

Karen Gold's avatar

My brain is totally scrambled by these shenanigans, but it sounds like WPATH lawyers are on top of it.

TJ's avatar

Why do you think O’Connor decided to postpone considering the request? Given how quickly he’s ruled in favor of anti trans motions before, this seems a little suspicious.