Very sad. Doesn’t bode well for peaches this summer ‘round these parts.
www.kingsburysorchard.com
You know, that thing where attorneys purportedly devoted to textualism disregard both the text of the Fifth Amendment and the text of the statute--not to mention legislative intent and a unanimous 55-yr-old SCOTUS interpretation--in order to "update" a law's meaning.
www.justice.gov/olc/media/14...
Hope this'll encourage more songwriters to debut live versions of songs they wrote and recorded 59 years earlier.
Not surprising. The plaintiffs' case has many, many problems. Judge Pitts might simply deny the TRO on the ground that Stanford isn't a state actor. Easiest way out.
This sort of grotesque, juvenile and disrespectful (and ignorant--the Germans weren't the ones storming the beaches!) analogy is precisely in character with what *everyone* knew Hegseth to be. Keep the focus here where it belongs--on the 50 Senators who knowingly approved the horror.
Whether Stanford can do so successfully will depend on whether the US Att'y can show that the patient information is germane to a plausible GJ investigation of possible crimes in Northern Texas--dubious, but (presumably unlike Stanford) we don't yet know what's happening in the GJ.
As I predicted, Judge Pitts issues the safe and correct opinion--that the Stanford hospital is not a state actor. Now, perhaps, Stanford can work to challenge the subpoena (esp. on nonconstitutional grounds) in Fort Worth ... and eventually, in the SCOTUS.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
BREAKING: Judge denies patients of Stanford's children's hospital a TRO against the hospital in the patients' lawsuit seeking to stop Stanford from turning over invasive information about gender-affirming care to DOJ via NDTexas grand jury, finding they did not show the hospital is a state actor.
Very helpful recap of the gender-affirming-care subpoena cases. Like Stanford, I fear that the suits against Stanford and NYU might "result in the worst-case scenario for the plaintiffs." Today's hearing in San Jose might offer more clarity.
www.cnn.com/2026/06/05/p...
Parents said in court papers they’re worried that having records disclosed could expose them to retaliation by the Trump administration.