This is fucking illegal and it doesn't sound like the ~verified~ person saying this is a lawyer.https://twitter.com/emilygorcenski/status/859502556665569288 …
-
-
It was a rulemaking from HHS, not an interpretation.
-
The rulemaking was literally an interpretation of the sex discrimination clauses.
-
The distinction is important to administrative lawyers and people who want to know what's going on.
-
The final rule literally calls it an interpretation.
-
Yes but it is literally a final rule and that's important because if they change it they have to have good reason under the APA.
-
I mean, we're arguing around and around. The final rule is "we interpret the law to mean this." We're saying the same thing.
-
And in any case Auer deference, so.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That injunction came as the result of a lawsuit about trans coverage and abortion coverage.
-
That injunction didn't do anything to undo people's statutory rights under §1557.
-
What it did do, which sucked, was prevent HHS from applying its rule. So complaining to HHS was out but you could still sue.
-
My "you misgendered me a few times" complaint had no avenue, someone getting denied care could still come down hard on everybody involved.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.