The full slate of judges on a federal appeals court in Virginia rejected the Trump administration’s request to give the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “immediate and unfettered” access to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) records systems, dealing the president another court loss just after passing the 100-day mark in office.

In a nine-to-six vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday kept in place a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, of Maryland, that blocked the Elon Musk-led organization from gaining access to the highly sensitive personal information of “essentially everyone in the country.” The majority reasoned that the “bedrock” principle of the SSA keeping personal data confidential “has been flouted by the sudden grant to DOGE of unfettered access to SSA system of records.”

In the majority’s 12-page order, Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King, an appointee of Bill Clinton, heaped praise on Hollander, an appointee of Barack Obama, referring to her as a “very able district judge” who had “carefully and thoughtfully examined the evidence and the legal issues” in the case. He also noted that her initial TRO order was accompanied by a 137-page opinion, while her preliminary injunction order included a 148-page opinion.

King lauded Hollander’s dual opinions as “addressing extensive evidence proffered by the parties” and “refining the pertinent legal analysis” of the lawsuit. The complaint accused the administration of violating the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by granting DOGE SSA system access, and claimed it was acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by “flouting SSA protocols for hiring, onboarding, training, and granting systems access to the DOGE affiliates.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

In her latest opinion in the case, Hollander noted that since the SSA’s inception in 1935, it has “collected, stored, respected, and protected” personal and private data of U.S. citizens. She then emphasized that ensuring the confidentiality of that information was a “bedrock principle of the agency” — a principle the Trump administration sought to change by giving DOGE “unfettered access to SSA systems.”

“The objective to address fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bloat is laudable, and one that the American public presumably applauds and supports,” Hollander wrote. “Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard earned money is not squandered.”

Rather, she said, the issue was how DOGE wants to perform its work, and how the SSA was willing to abandon its long-standing mission.

“However, the issue here is not the work that DOGE or the [Social Security Administration] want to do,” she continued. “The issue is about how they want to do the work. For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,” adding, “This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.”

Hollander ultimately found the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits, as did the majority of the appellate court judges.

“[Hollander’s preliminary injunction] analysis of those claims and the preliminary injunction factors is lengthy, thorough, and compelling,” the appellate court’s opinion says. “Rather than repeating that carefully crafted analysis herein, I adopt and attach hereto the [preliminary injunction] Opinion in its entirety.”

A nurse at a county jail in Minnesota is facing a manslaughter charge nearly six years after an inmate under her care died in a case that’s already resulted in a $2.6 million lawsuit and a new law in the victim’s name to ensure something like that never happens again.

Michelle Rose Skroch, now 37, is facing charges of second-degree manslaughter culpable negligence and two counts of felony criminal neglect, one for “knowingly depriving” inmate Hardel Sherrell of medical care and the second for doing so for an “extended period of time.” A criminal complaint says the 27-year-old Sherrell was booked into the Beltrami County Jail on Aug. 24, 2018. While his blood pressure was high, he was otherwise in good condition in his initial health screening. He had a history of high blood pressure and a recent incident of respiratory failure, the complaint said.

More from Law&Crime: ‘The victim’s face is broken’: Patient viciously attacks nurse for no apparent reason, likely blinding her for life, cops say

Three days after arriving at the jail, Sherrell began complaining of chest pain and said his fingers on his left hand were tingly. Doctors performed an EKG and gave him ibuprofen, Tylenol and an anti-anxiety medication. Sherrell also stated he had stopped taking his blood pressure medication in January 2018.

Sherrell’s condition continued to worsen over the ensuing days and kept falling out of his bunk bed and was unable to stand up. He said he was unable to feel his legs. A nurse went to check on him on Aug. 31, 2018, and found him lying on a mat in his cell and not able to move. His mouth also was drooping and his speech was slurred.

A jail doctor opined that Sherrell may be suffering from Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a rare autoimmune disorder affecting the peripheral nervous system. Sherrell went to the hospital where an emergency room physician diagnosed him with “malingering and weakness” as he was able to move his legs. They sent him back to jail after an MRI found no abnormalities, the complaint said. The ER doc instructed him to return to the hospital if he had a fever, signs of stoke and/or worsening weakness.

Skroch, who worked for MEnD Correctional Care, LLC which was contracted to provide medical services at the jail, came to work on Sept. 1, 2018, and was advised about Sherrell’s condition. When she went to see him, she allegedly just stood at his cell door and “never conducted a standard, basic nursing assessment.” She told Sherrell to “get up and walk” and that “there was nothing wrong with him and he could get up and walk if he wanted to,” according to the complaint. Sherrell “pleaded” for medical attention but Skroch allegedly said she “would not bargain with him.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Don’t give money to law schools unless they…

Law Schools

Don’t give money to law schools unless they teach originalism, conservative federal appeals judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 29, 2024, 12:17 pm CDT

“Anti-originalist” law professors dominate law schools, and they aren’t equipping students with the practical knowledge that they need to make originalist arguments, a conservative federal appeals judge said last week in a lecture hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Judge Amul Thapar of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati said conservatives could spur change by withholding donations to the schools, report Bloomberg Law, Law360 and Reuters via the Originalism Blog. How Appealing links to the video.

Taxpayers can also play a role by demanding that publicly funded law schools stop “pursuing their own political agendas,” Thapar said, according to Reuters.

Bloomberg Law and Law360 highlighted this remark: “Make no mistake: Money talks. Only when the taxpayers and donors alike demand it will law schools start to change.”

Originalist judges interpret the Constitution based on its meaning as understood at the time it was written. Thapar, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, was on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court short list.

Thapar said law professors at too many law schools tell their students that a court’s originalist analysis “is just a smokescreen for some nefarious political goal.”

The lack of training, Thapar said, means that lawyers are missing originalist arguments that could benefit their clients, according to Bloomberg Law and Law360.

“It’s amazing how many times my colleagues and I say, ‘If they only would have made argument X, their client might have had a chance,’” Thapar said.