Watchdog claims proof of 'harm' nonexistent in suit against Trump's ban on trans surgeries for minors
Is this competence or optics?
FIRST ON FOX: A Trump-aligned lawfare group filed records requests attempting to uncover the "harm" that Democrat states said was being incurred as the result of one of President Trump's Day One executive order banning sex changes for minors.
However, those states either ignored their requests or said they could not find any responsive records documenting the very harms their lawsuit warns are already unfolding.
After 15 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Josh Shapiro sued the president and his Department of Justice over the executive order that was issued on Aug. 1, America First Legal subsequently filed records requests to those states that were suing in an attempt to uncover whether the claims of injury are true and accurate. Only three states, Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, have provided any sort of response thus far. Furthermore, the responses that did arrive indicated there were no responsive records relating to AFL's request even though they asked for documents pertaining to precisely what the lawsuit in question alleges.
"States suing the Trump Administration appear to lack evidence of actual harm supporting their allegations," said Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal. "The Trump Administration’s executive order sought to protect minors from permanent physical damage. Protecting children should not be subject to politics."
TRUMP ADMIN FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN ON NOTIFYING PARENTS OF GENDER TRANSITIONS VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW
While a nationwide preliminary injunction was issued just a few months after the issuance of Trump's executive order prohibiting physicians from performing sex change surgeries on individuals under the age of 19, according to Epstein, the plaintiffs must still must show "standing" in order for a court to provide a remedy and just because the plaintiffs filed their suit early does not mean this responsibility disappears.
"Because standing is necessary for any federal court to provide a remedy, plaintiffs must plead concrete evidence of harm in their complaint," Epstein asserted. "Here, plaintiffs' complaint failed to show an actual, traceable loss tied to the federal action, beyond merely speculative claims of harm or generalized concerns. Filing suit early does not eliminate this requirement to establish standing."
Fox News Digital reached out to the health departments and Attorneys General offices in Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, to request information about the documents being relied on by plaintiffs in their suit against Trump's executive order. In particular, Fox News …
Is this competence or optics?
FIRST ON FOX: A Trump-aligned lawfare group filed records requests attempting to uncover the "harm" that Democrat states said was being incurred as the result of one of President Trump's Day One executive order banning sex changes for minors.
However, those states either ignored their requests or said they could not find any responsive records documenting the very harms their lawsuit warns are already unfolding.
After 15 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Josh Shapiro sued the president and his Department of Justice over the executive order that was issued on Aug. 1, America First Legal subsequently filed records requests to those states that were suing in an attempt to uncover whether the claims of injury are true and accurate. Only three states, Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, have provided any sort of response thus far. Furthermore, the responses that did arrive indicated there were no responsive records relating to AFL's request even though they asked for documents pertaining to precisely what the lawsuit in question alleges.
"States suing the Trump Administration appear to lack evidence of actual harm supporting their allegations," said Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal. "The Trump Administration’s executive order sought to protect minors from permanent physical damage. Protecting children should not be subject to politics."
TRUMP ADMIN FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN ON NOTIFYING PARENTS OF GENDER TRANSITIONS VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW
While a nationwide preliminary injunction was issued just a few months after the issuance of Trump's executive order prohibiting physicians from performing sex change surgeries on individuals under the age of 19, according to Epstein, the plaintiffs must still must show "standing" in order for a court to provide a remedy and just because the plaintiffs filed their suit early does not mean this responsibility disappears.
"Because standing is necessary for any federal court to provide a remedy, plaintiffs must plead concrete evidence of harm in their complaint," Epstein asserted. "Here, plaintiffs' complaint failed to show an actual, traceable loss tied to the federal action, beyond merely speculative claims of harm or generalized concerns. Filing suit early does not eliminate this requirement to establish standing."
Fox News Digital reached out to the health departments and Attorneys General offices in Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, to request information about the documents being relied on by plaintiffs in their suit against Trump's executive order. In particular, Fox News …
Watchdog claims proof of 'harm' nonexistent in suit against Trump's ban on trans surgeries for minors
Is this competence or optics?
FIRST ON FOX: A Trump-aligned lawfare group filed records requests attempting to uncover the "harm" that Democrat states said was being incurred as the result of one of President Trump's Day One executive order banning sex changes for minors.
However, those states either ignored their requests or said they could not find any responsive records documenting the very harms their lawsuit warns are already unfolding.
After 15 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Josh Shapiro sued the president and his Department of Justice over the executive order that was issued on Aug. 1, America First Legal subsequently filed records requests to those states that were suing in an attempt to uncover whether the claims of injury are true and accurate. Only three states, Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, have provided any sort of response thus far. Furthermore, the responses that did arrive indicated there were no responsive records relating to AFL's request even though they asked for documents pertaining to precisely what the lawsuit in question alleges.
"States suing the Trump Administration appear to lack evidence of actual harm supporting their allegations," said Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal. "The Trump Administration’s executive order sought to protect minors from permanent physical damage. Protecting children should not be subject to politics."
TRUMP ADMIN FINDS CALIFORNIA BAN ON NOTIFYING PARENTS OF GENDER TRANSITIONS VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW
While a nationwide preliminary injunction was issued just a few months after the issuance of Trump's executive order prohibiting physicians from performing sex change surgeries on individuals under the age of 19, according to Epstein, the plaintiffs must still must show "standing" in order for a court to provide a remedy and just because the plaintiffs filed their suit early does not mean this responsibility disappears.
"Because standing is necessary for any federal court to provide a remedy, plaintiffs must plead concrete evidence of harm in their complaint," Epstein asserted. "Here, plaintiffs' complaint failed to show an actual, traceable loss tied to the federal action, beyond merely speculative claims of harm or generalized concerns. Filing suit early does not eliminate this requirement to establish standing."
Fox News Digital reached out to the health departments and Attorneys General offices in Massachusetts, Illinois and Nevada, to request information about the documents being relied on by plaintiffs in their suit against Trump's executive order. In particular, Fox News …
0 Comments
0 Shares
45 Views
0 Reviews
