I am a reasonably intelligent person but I think lawyers always fail to appreciate how challenging it is to understand triple negatives like, “vacating an injunction blocking…” that leaves the rest of us wondering, “wait, so they CAN access it or they CAN’T?”

April 10, 2026 - 14:36 UTC

4
0
32
Honestly I am still confused - "vacated an injunction blocking DOGE from accessing Social Securit data" sounds like the injunction blocked access, and vacating it now effectively allows access. Am I misreading this?
2
0
1
This is not a decision on the merits, so this is not over.
0
0
0
Yes, but the part missing is that the injunction blocking access was stayed immediately after it was issued, so there was never functionally any period when it was in force. So there’s no net change in policy.

But these are useful to read bc they reflect judges’ thinking about the issues.
0
0
3
same
0
0
0
They can continue to access it. This ruling doesn't change anything in that sense, bc the injunction prohibiting it (that this decision removed) was stayed almpst immedoately after it was issued. This doesn't end things either. They can still have a trial on the merits.
0
0
7
In exchange for 3 years of your life and a shitload of money, you too can speak like this.
0
0
1