Thread by @EWess92 on Thread Reader App
Ho boy. Florida AG @JamesUthmeierFL sued the American Academy of Pediatrics in Florida for deceptive practices--endorsing experimental sex change surgeries on children without basis. AAP then sued the AG in . . . Chicago federal court to stop his enforcement. The Court granted! 
This out-of-state anti-suit injunction violates several vital principles of jurisprudence: personal jurisdiction, venue, Younger abstention, and anti-suit injunction principles. Yet the Court granted anyway. There are several independent bases for Seventh Circuit reversal. 
How could the federal court have personal jurisdiction over Florida's AG, overseeing an investigation in Florida? Well, they *served* AAP. Serving a defendant cannot be enough to create specific personal jurisdiction. Nor can press releases about the action. I'm skeptical 
Indeed, the Court goes at length about binding Seventh Circuit cases finding that service alone is not enough. But he interprets that to say that service+ is. I do not think that is the best reading of those cases. 
Is scope of relief enough to create general jurisdiction? Here, the Court explains Florida wants to stop AAP "nationwide." So, he reasons, that justifies personal jurisdiction against Florida nationwide. That turns specific personal jurisdiction on its head. I am skeptical indeed 
The Court also finds venue, although his opening paragraph explaining AG Uthmeier's argument seems like a hornbook/black letter explanation of correctly explaining the lack of venue. 
Perhaps most troubling, though, is the Younger abstention issues. Courts *must* abstain over state criminal and quasi-criminal enforcement actions. Here, the Court finds the Florida enforcement to be a sham and thus bad faith. What happens when the Florida court denies the MTD? 
Here, Attorney General Uthmeier raised serious public concerns about AAP's cavalier attitude toward child safety. Good! Those standards are scientifically bunk. According to the Judge, such public remarks justify an out-of-state anti-suit injunction. I am *highly* skeptical. 
This opinion should trouble anyone that values Federalism and longstanding doctrines that prevent perpetrators from running to a home state's courts when they violate laws out-of-state. I am confident Florida and its SG @david_dewhirst will file a persuasive appeal.
Read the full opinion here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This out-of-state anti-suit injunction violates several vital principles of jurisprudence: personal jurisdiction, venue, Younger abstention, and anti-suit injunction principles. Yet the Court granted anyway. There are several independent bases for Seventh Circuit reversal.
How could the federal court have personal jurisdiction over Florida's AG, overseeing an investigation in Florida? Well, they *served* AAP. Serving a defendant cannot be enough to create specific personal jurisdiction. Nor can press releases about the action. I'm skeptical
Indeed, the Court goes at length about binding Seventh Circuit cases finding that service alone is not enough. But he interprets that to say that service+ is. I do not think that is the best reading of those cases.
Is scope of relief enough to create general jurisdiction? Here, the Court explains Florida wants to stop AAP "nationwide." So, he reasons, that justifies personal jurisdiction against Florida nationwide. That turns specific personal jurisdiction on its head. I am skeptical indeed
The Court also finds venue, although his opening paragraph explaining AG Uthmeier's argument seems like a hornbook/black letter explanation of correctly explaining the lack of venue.
Perhaps most troubling, though, is the Younger abstention issues. Courts *must* abstain over state criminal and quasi-criminal enforcement actions. Here, the Court finds the Florida enforcement to be a sham and thus bad faith. What happens when the Florida court denies the MTD?
Here, Attorney General Uthmeier raised serious public concerns about AAP's cavalier attitude toward child safety. Good! Those standards are scientifically bunk. According to the Judge, such public remarks justify an out-of-state anti-suit injunction. I am *highly* skeptical.
This opinion should trouble anyone that values Federalism and longstanding doctrines that prevent perpetrators from running to a home state's courts when they violate laws out-of-state. I am confident Florida and its SG @david_dewhirst will file a persuasive appeal.
Read the full opinion here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…