There's a lot in Judge Heytens's majority opinion that strikes me as right (and good), including about why the plaintiffs have standing and why efforts to turn likelihood of success into a mixed probability analysis is bonkers. It's treating the three-paragraph #SCOTUS order as precedent that's not.

April 10, 2026 - 14:32 UTC

3
1
93
What are your thoughts about treating a corrected recorded as facts not before the court? I think the dissent is persuasive as to why that's wrong.
0
0
1
so... DOGE can access SS information now?
1
0
0
No, just that the conditions needed for an injunction were not met. In their decision, they actually seemed to believe that the plaintiffs would likely prevail on the merits, only after a full trial had taken place. So, perhaps good news? Who knows anymore with the courts? 🤷‍♀️
0
0
0
1/ Well ... as I posted recently about the massive breach by DOGE folks - completely and absolutely something that COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED - of the entire SSA database, is that maybe John Roberts' and his wife's SSA info will be leaked and used for drug trafficking or in a crypto scam. ...
3
0
5
*This was supposed to say: "... the good news is that John Roberts' and his wife's SSA info will be leaked and used for drug trafficking or a crypto scam."

Damn! And that wasn't even spell check's fault, though I blame it anyway.
0
0
1
2/ Which certainly would be a silver lining in the Court's so casually striking down federal privacy laws that restrict the executive - in all its unitariness - to gain unfettered access to all Americans' personal data, should it wish to use it for political purposes.

That & all other restrictions.
0
0
4
0
0
1