Latest news with #JohnDBates
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump admin unlawfully killed health websites related to gender, court rules
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration's Office of Personnel Management did not comply with all necessary laws when it ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to speedily comply with the president's executive order on 'gender ideology.' On the first day of his term, President Trump passed a deluge of executive orders, including one that ordered government agencies to change the language of government materials that address 'gender ideology.' This is the administration's way of referring to transgender or non-binary people. Soon after, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) deleted 'hundreds or even thousands' of government healthcare websites, according to Doctors for America (DFA), the nonprofit that filed the lawsuit. This includes websites from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among others. Given a 48-hour timeline to comply with the order, many agencies opted for what Judge Bates describes as 'the most extreme approach: fully removing any webpage with any offending language, no matter how minimal, without any stated intent to modify and republish the webpage.' The government took down websites with, the plaintiffs argued, vital health information on topics like youth mental health, vaping, HIV testing, opioid abuse, contraception, osteoporosis, menopause, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and instructions for clinicians on how to prescribe and administer FDA-approved drugs. To be clear, the judge did not rule on the administration's ideology, but rather in how these agencies went about deleting the sites and data sets. The plaintiffs argued that the speed and decision-making of information removal violated, for instance, the Administrative Procedure Act law. 'The government is free to say what it wants, including about 'gender ideology,'' Judge Bates wrote. 'But in taking action, it must abide by the bounds of the authority and the procedures that Congress has prescribed … and the government failed to do so here.' Not only were these websites removed for Americans seeking reliable health resources, but also, DFA members were blocked from accessing data and reference materials that they long relied on in their daily work, the court documents said. Some doctors testified that the removal of these resources impacted how efficiently they were able to provide care to their patients. One doctor who works in 'one of the most underserved high schools in Chicago' said that she was unable to use CDC resources to help her manage a chlamydia outbreak at the school. Other doctors reported that it became more difficult to provide guidance about STI prevention and contraception to patients with complex medical histories, whose cases may require additional research from clinicians. Judge Bates ruled that the websites that the plaintiff's doctors rely on must be restored if those sites have been taken down or substantially modified. However, it's yet to be seen how much of this health information will be restored, as some federal judges have claimed that this administration can be uncooperative with their rulings.
TechCrunch
03-07-2025
- Health
- TechCrunch
Trump admin unlawfully killed health websites related to gender, court rules
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration's Office of Personnel Management did not comply with all necessary laws when it ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to speedily comply with the president's executive order on 'gender ideology.' On the first day of his term, President Trump passed a deluge of executive orders, including one that ordered government agencies to change the language of government materials that address 'gender ideology.' This is the administration's way of referring to transgender or non-binary people. Soon after, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) deleted 'hundreds or even thousands' of government healthcare websites, according to Doctors for America (DFA), the nonprofit that filed the lawsuit. This includes websites from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among others. Given a 48-hour timeline to comply with the order, many agencies opted for what Judge Bates describes as 'the most extreme approach: fully removing any webpage with any offending language, no matter how minimal, without any stated intent to modify and republish the webpage.' The government took down websites with, the plaintiffs argued, vital health information on topics like youth mental health, vaping, HIV testing, opioid abuse, contraception, osteoporosis, menopause, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and instructions for clinicians on how to prescribe and administer FDA-approved drugs. To be clear, the judge did not rule on the administration's ideology, but rather in how these agencies went about deleting the sites and data sets. The plaintiffs argued that the speed and decision-making of information removal violated, for instance, the Administrative Procedure Act law. 'The government is free to say what it wants, including about 'gender ideology,'' Judge Bates wrote. 'But in taking action, it must abide by the bounds of the authority and the procedures that Congress has prescribed … and the government failed to do so here.' Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW Not only were these websites removed for Americans seeking reliable health resources, but also, DFA members were blocked from accessing data and reference materials that they long relied on in their daily work, the court documents said. Some doctors testified that the removal of these resources impacted how efficiently they were able to provide care to their patients. One doctor who works in 'one of the most underserved high schools in Chicago' said that she was unable to use CDC resources to help her manage a chlamydia outbreak at the school. Other doctors reported that it became more difficult to provide guidance about STI prevention and contraception to patients with complex medical histories, whose cases may require additional research from clinicians. Judge Bates ruled that the websites that the plaintiff's doctors rely on must be restored if those sites have been taken down or substantially modified. However, it's yet to be seen how much of this health information will be restored, as some federal judges have claimed that this administration can be uncooperative with their rulings.
The Guardian
23-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US judge overturns Trump order targeting major law firm Jenner & Block
A US judge on Friday overturned Donald Trump's executive order targeting Jenner & Block, a big law firm that employed a lawyer who investigated him. Trump's executive order, called Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block, suspended security clearances for the firm's lawyers and restricted their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. Trump accused the law firm of engaging in activities that 'undermine justice and the interests of the United States', claiming that it participated in politically driven legal actions. In the executive order, Trump specifically criticized the firm for hiring Andrew Weissmann, an attorney who worked on Robert Mueller's investigation into allegations of Russian influence in Trump's 2016 campaign. The firm sued to block Trump's order, arguing it violated the constitution's first and fifth amendments. US district judge John D Bates ruled on Friday that Trump's directive violated core rights under the US constitution, mirroring a 2 May ruling that struck down a similar executive order against law firm Perkins Coie. Bates did not mince words when calling a Trump executive order unconstitutional, which sought to target Jenner & Block. Trump's order, Bates wrote, 'makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed'. 'Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the constitution,' Bates said. The justice department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The administration can appeal Bates' order to the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. Trump signed an executive order in March, targeting Jenner & Block by suspending security clearances and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work. This was, Trump claimed, because of politically motivated 'lawfare' the firm engaged in. By attempting to push forward this executive order, Trump attempted to 'chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers'. Bates added that the Trump executive orders against law firms 'follow the same recipe: other than personalized touches in their first sections, they generally direct the same adverse actions towards each firm and decry the threat each firm poses to national security and the national interest'. Bates was appointed to the District of Columbia in 2001 by George W Bush. He blocked Trump's executive order completely. Apart from Jenner and Perkins Coie, two other firms – WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey – have sued the Trump administration to permanently block executive orders he issued against them. Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Milbank, Simpson Thacher and Skadden Arps, have pledged nearly $1bn in free legal services to causes the White House supports and made other concessions to avoid being targeted by Trump. The justice department has defended Trump's executive orders against Jenner and other law firms as consistent with the broad reach of presidential authority. Reuters contributed reporting
Washington Post
23-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge strikes down Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block law firm
A federal judge on Friday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order sanctioning the law firm Jenner & Block, the second time a court has struck down one of Trump's efforts to punish a firm. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates wrote that Trump's order was unconstitutional, saying the president was trying 'to chill legal representation the administration doesn't like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers.'
