🚨 URGENT U.S. TRAVEL ALERT 🚨
Heads up, everyone. A critical rule change goes into effect TOMORROW, Oct 14, that will prevent people with an "X" gender marker on their passport from flying to, from, or through the United States. Please read and share!!! (1/9)
I'll probably post more later, but a thing I'm doing today for fun yielded this:
gaussian analysts hoverbug
suddenly straight lovenuts
See if you can figure out what I was doing. (Hint: a=1.)
Researching the history of blind mail laws, I came across this: 14 Stat. 597, 1866 c. 199 (39th), July 13, 1866, paying Sgt. (ret.) George W. Bush (N.Y. 90th reg., co. G) a pension of $8/mo for 2y tile.loc.gov/storage-serv...
So George W. Bush actually did do military service. Or, well, one did.
@andrewtorrez.bsky.social @lizdye.bsky.social On Law & Chaos podcast 154, you said you hadn't heard of a pre-answer deposition. Not the same as Trump v Murdock's requested FRCP 32(a)(4)(C) depo, and can't be used on a non US resident, but in theory… there is FRCP 27, which is even pre *complaint*.
Disclaimer: although I have a lot of legal experience, I'm not a lawyer, I'm definitely not YOUR lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Go read everything cited in 8 FAM 102 for yourself.
No indication of what legal authority they would use to revoke. And they couldn't really distinguish people who get one under this injunction vs people who got one under Biden like me.
I'm sure they'll think of something creative though. They've no lack of creative interpretation of law these days.
If it's not in the statute (USC) then they'd have to get a law passed by Congress to authorize revocation. So far they have had a policy of "if you already have a passport it's fine".
Changing regs takes months at least and would be certain to get instantly sued over. Might be arbitrary & capricious to revoke even if they were to win on not granting/renewing new ones, depends on the ruling in the event that they win on appeal.
I may well have missed something broader like "can revoke if it would not now be issued even if it was okay to issue at the time", but I don't think so?
If it's not currently in the regs (CFR & FAM), they would have to do APA notice & comment rulemaking to add "we wanna un-trans people" as a basis.
"Error" seems the most plausible claim for them to make if they win on appeal, and I'm not particularly convinced it'd even be a good shot, since it wasn't error _at the time of issuance_, which is my reading of it, but rather trying to "correct" a legal point that changed later. Not the same.
In theory they could try to make trans people be 22 USC 212b sex offenders, but that's "just" a scarlet mark on your passport, not denial of it.
Don't think 22 CFR 51.60-62 really apply other than as redundant with above
No idea if retroactively not wanting to have done so could constitute "error".
Similar for 18 USC 1542 false statements to obtain passport, though they may claim your statement of gender is "false" anyway, I don't see that flying on mens rea under the circumstances.
8 USC 1504 cancellation if obtained illegally, fraudulently, or erroneously. "Erroneously" seems possible. These days they may claim that giving your trans gender is fraud, I don't think it would pass even the lowest mens rea when you specifically check the "yo I'm trans" box.
THREAD
Here are the laws that allow revoking passports.
8 FAM 102.1 fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08... statutory
8 FAM 102.2 fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08... regulatory
IMO vaguely plausible things they might try to use (not counting, like, owing too much taxes, having a pending felony case, etc):
LCC11 presenters on BlueSky: bsky.app/profile/did:...
The 11th Language Creation Conference list of presentations[1] and registration[2] are now up!
[1] conlang.org/lcc11-presen...
[2] conlang.org/lcc11-regist... (1/x)
Out of context:
"A brace of abrasive customers"
Agreed, this is something that ought to be available to everyone. It has clear privacy and permanence benefits.
list of banned keywords
🚨BREAKING. From a program officer at the National Science Foundation, a list of keywords that can cause a grant to be pulled. I will be sharing screenshots of these keywords along with a decision tree. Please share widely. This is a crisis for academic freedom & science.
I also note that www.chcoc.gov/content/init... says:
> Please contact Amanda Scales at amanda.scales@opm.gov if you have any questions regarding this memorandum.
That statement isn't limited to any particular audience. So, maybe Kel & others should email your questions to Amanda. 😉
3. Yes of course it _affects_ § 508 implementation in the sense of firing some people involved in that. Who, how, I dunno. Not a sufficiently specific question. 😛
4. IANAL, you are, shouldn't you answer this? 😉
2/2
The order is www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
My read:
1. The A in DEIA is not severable under the language of this order. Targets have to do DEI "and" A.
2. This isn't retaliation for any particular use of § 508, or on basis of disability, so it's probably clear in that respect.
1/2
That's not me, but hi. Sai is also my full legal name. 😁
