so the vacatur is nationwide but the injunction only works to the benefit of the plaintiff states

Plaintiffs here ask the Court to enter the following permanent injunction: The Court permanently ENJOINS Defendants and their officers, agents servants, employees, and attorneys, including those at the Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), from initiating enforcement action, enforcing, implementing, giving intent to, or relying, in whole or in part, on the Kennedy Declaration or any materially similar policy which supersedes or purports to supersede the professionally recognized standards of care for gender-affirming care that exist in the Plaintiff States-against any provider in the Plaintiff States.

Ok this is the injunction the court entered, which explains why DOJ didn’t make a CASA argument.

Court vacated the rule/declaration, which is one of the forms of nationwide relief left available after CASA. No strong opinion on the injunction part of the order, would have to read more closely and think.

no judge should ever confess, in writing, to being Mad Online

you know what

I kind of hate this opinion

it does not display what I would usually call judicial virtue

Or do Copland's Night-Thoughts going into something from Ives' New England Holiday Symphony (the dates are fuzzy, just go with it, it would be so cool)

Disney animators looking for a challenge: animate "The Shoes of the Fisherman's Wife Are Some Jive Ass Slippers" going into the overture to Bluebeard's Castle.

my votes:

Schubert 9 (~1828) (gotta play the hits)
Jolas, Stances (1978) (Donald Duck plays the piano part)
Grand Pianola Music (1982, close enough)
in vain (2000, close enough)
Mahler 2 (1894) (1st movt)
Coltrane, Chasin’ the Trane (1962)
Shosty 10 (1953)
Petrushka (1911)

hmmmm what to program

Add 86 years for “Fantasia 2026” and we get the following list of years:

~1810s-20s
1978
1983
1999
1894
1962
1953
1911

more seriously:

Fantasia (1940)

Bach (Toccata/Fugue) (~1730s)
Tchaik (Nutcracker) (1892)
Dukas (Sorcerer) (1897)
Strav (Rite) (1913)
Beet (Pastoral) (1808)
Ponchielli (Dance of the Hours) (1876)
Musorgsky (Bald Mt) (1867)
Schubert (Ave Maria) (1825)

donald duck and mickey mouse over “For Phillip Guston” (four hour cut)

Of course nothing stops the court from referring everyone to the state Bar, or something, but I doubt the court has any power to void the settlement agreement or review it sua sponte

Generally settlements are private agreements (even confidential), and once one is reached the parties stipulate to dismiss under Rule 41. At which point the court has no discretion, the stip is automatically effective.

Sometimes the parties ask the court to retain j’x over settlement disputes

Do judges have to approve settlements for these kinds of claims? The only context where I’ve seen judicial approval of settlements is FLSA and class actions.

So at the risk of maybe overreading this and making an educated guess, I think I can guess what specifically Wyden is talking about.

I think it's about use of AI (LLMs) by FBI to surveil American communications without a warrant

i have met too many of them. most are devoted public servants with enough judicial virtue to get by. there are Exceptions

*buzzer noise*

sorry buddy, you just failed the only test of character that matters (“are judges god-kings fit to rule the rest of us as serfs y/n”)

when judges write stuff like this a giant cartoon ejector seat should pop up and shoot them into the next county over

Seventh Circuit also allows panels to overrule other panels but it happens rarely

let a thousand flowers bloom i say

There are some federal appellate circuits that work essentially like this. CA2 almost never sits en banc but it’s customary to circulate an opinion that contemplates overruling precedent, and sometimes opinions will note “we circulated this and nobody called for en banc review, so we have clearance”

none of this gets at the root of the problem though, which is that the Court needs to be massively disempowered. hard to think of a way to do that without Article V reform, but I have my ideas

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The real problem with the proposal is there’s no mechanism for overruling precedent. either panels can overrule other panels, in which case the law is a mess; or they can’t, and then the law is an even bigger mess

I think the uniformity comes more from having a final decision-maker for the whole country, rather than having the same set of people decide all the cases.

SCODE sits in panels almost all the time and Delaware law seems uniform enough. Ditto for CA9, despite their en banc not being a “real” en banc

travoltafication surgery

they’re going to take her face

off

I /think/ it’s the insane amount of caffeine that was in my large au lait that is causing the high but I am lying down until I feel better because there is no way I can cite check like this. send help

“Dear diary…”

went for coffee and a croissant across the street to get some work done, took my Vyvanse because there is many work. After the large coffee and croissant and meds I have gotten a kind of hyperfocus tunnel vision that feels very unpleasant, like a bad high.

Maybe my dose needs lowered. Yuck.