21 Comments

Thank you for the detailed description. It's good to hear a story of a judge ruling to preserve rights and the law. Sadly, this is a clear case where Sen. Durbin's cowardly inability to get past the asinine blue-slip rule will cause pain and suffering for years to come. Red states continue to have empty judgeships that should have been filled by competent judges to dilute the effects of the partisan hacks installed by Cheetolini.

Expand full comment

Durbin is utterly spineless. We desperately need more judges like Hinkle.

Expand full comment

Too bad we can't elect Hinkle as a senator. But then we'd have a big hole on the bench in Florida.

Expand full comment

I couldn't agree more!

Expand full comment

The blue-slip rule is pure suckerism. Republicans have been playing partisan hardball with stacking the federal judiciary for 40+ years now. It's been the most effective long-term weapon in their arsenal for amassing power. In this generation, they have taken it to the extreme of confirming nakedly unqualified culture-war extremists to lifetime positions where they can simply nullify legislative or executive actions that Republicans don't like, while at the same time refusing to act on the President's Supreme Court nominee for the sole reason that the President is a Democrat.

And the Democrats' response? To refuse to move on their own nominees either, if a single Republican senator doesn't like them. In the name of bipartisanship and collegiality that has been dead for half a century.

It's blood boiling.

Expand full comment

Yes it absolutely is🤬

Expand full comment

This is fantastic news and a beautifully written argument against what we all know is blatant legislative discrimination. Trans people get called everything from "Satanists" to "imps and demons" and every other insult under the sun during these legislative debates, in more states than just Florida. It's obvious that these laws are fueled by animus, but... ultimately that's what today's Christian conservative policy groups want. They want the "right" (power) to discriminate at will and in legislation, with no penalty or consequence. We cannot give them that power.

Expand full comment

(Also I'm not intending to throw shade at pagans or Satanists or any other group, the legislators are clearly using these terms as insults, not me.)

Expand full comment

It almost makes me cry to read the writing of a judge who remembers why they entered the field of law. Who remembers what justice really is.

Unfortunately, his decision now goes to the Eleventh.

Expand full comment

Does the ruling address the in person nature of the informed consent process? The prior rules required that informed consent paperwork required by the state must be signed during an in person visit with a clinician. It’s a huge win that NPs can practice again but the in person piece made telehealth impractical and nearly impossible.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, in-person consent is still required, but only as to "initiation of treatment." He notes, "As the defendants apparently acknowledge, the statute and rules do not preclude remote communication for other purposes, including, for example, renewal of prescriptions." See pages 81-82 of the ruling.

Expand full comment
Jun 11Liked by Chris Geidner

Thank you for the quick reply!!!

Expand full comment

As much as I love all the other parts, this bit is disheartening. The in-person requirement is a barrier to care that is not equally applied to other types of medicine.

Expand full comment

100% agree, this overall amazing news but it's honestly kind of weird considering the stance the judge took that he left this provision in place.

Expand full comment

So nice to have a judge who not only understands the role of animus in much of today's "culture wars" legislation but also sets a clear record, not only distinguishing the case in this way but also including arguments that will be important in any appeal from the 11th Circuit upwards.

As I recall, the North Carolina Supreme Court had a similar showing of animus in its racial gerrymandering case, complete with smoking gun document showing intent to suppress minority votes. Then, of course, the newly elected NC Supremes simply overturned the former court.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Chris. It’s never been more important for The People to understand the murky details underlying complicated litigation involving perceived social and political issues than it is today. Glad you’re on the case!

Expand full comment

I worry about this issue when SCOTUS gets around to deciding it.

Expand full comment

This is wonderful ruling and a win for trans care in FL. How does this effect other states doing this?

Expand full comment

Another Judge steps up to ensure the rights of everyone are protected. Judges shouldn't and most don't pick and choose among the classes they protect. Even Trump has the rights he was accorded by a most impressive New York trial Judge.

Expand full comment

Would not *animus* also receive short shrift on appeal to the 11th CA as did "parental rights", or "equal protection", etc., based upon the controlling opinion in *Eknes-Tucker* ? And would the same tRumpy three-judge panel also hear the FL appeal?

Expand full comment

We need more judges like Hinkle. Which ties into what GeorgeC commented. Durbin is absolutely spineless. Thank you for the comprehensive explanation😊🏳️‍⚧️🥳

Expand full comment