Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

“Here, the majority invokes (though without naming) the so-called Purcell principle.”

Funny how the Supreme Court makes bad law under the shadow of the emergency docket, the district courts endeavor to apply it, and the majority blithely ignores that their actions have consequences.

Cite as: 607 U.S._
_ (2025)
KagaN, J., dissenting
15
Nor does the majority have any warrant to stay the District Court's order for "alter[ing] the election rules on the eve of an election." Ante, at 2. Here, the majority invokes (though without naming) the so-called Purcell principle.
See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006) (per cu-riam). Under that decision, courts deciding whether to enjoin an election rule or map in the lead-up to an election must consider, among other relevant equitable factors, the order's potential for causing "voter confusion." Ibid. It is an important caution. And it is one the District Court took seriously, considering how everything this Court has said on the subject applied to the facts at hand. See App. 140-
156. In then going ahead, the court was right.
Texas is not on "the eve of an election," as was true in the case the majority cites. Republican National Committee v.
Democratic National Committee, 589 U. S. 423, 424 2020) (per curiam); see ante, at 2. The election there was five days after the injunction. Similarly, the election in Purcell was
"just weeks" away. 549 U.S., at 4. Here, Election Day is eleven months from now. Even the primary election (which Texas could change) is in March. The District Court carefully listed the various "election preparations" underway to switch to the 2025 map. App. 144. On the other hand, the court noted how the 2021 map—which the injunction rein-stated—was, in a real sense, the status quo. See id., at 145.
Officials, candidates, and voters are all familiar with it from the last two election cycles. Until late last summer, everyone expected that map to govern 2026 too. And indeed, it will be used in a special runoff election in the State's largest county on January 31, 2026. So, the District Court properly concluded, "[a]n injunction in this case would not cause significant disruption." Id., at 144. Except to the extent all of us live in election season all the time, the 2026 congressional el…

December 5, 2025 at 2:01 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

I really think it’s important to keep an image of Ross Douthat in one’s mind when considering his work.

December 4, 2025 at 9:50 PM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Any Lucia Lopez Belloza is a 19yr old freshman at Babson College.

She was arrested (kidnapped) at Boston’s Logan Intl Airport as she was on her way home to Texas for Thanksgiving.

Instead, she ended up shackled on a flight to Honduras. No notice. No due process.

A 19 year old college woman.

December 4, 2025 at 2:10 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

⚖️ NEW: State of Missouri, et al. v. FDA, No. #4:25-cv-01580 (E.D. Mo.) — the #FDA filed a response to the intervenor states’ motion by suggesting it owes no reply at all until the Court (Cristian Stevens) decides the govt’s pending motion to dismiss.

thus the state of repro rights 🤷🏻‍♀️
#abortion #mife

Case: 4:25-cv-01580-CMS Doc. #: 278 Filed: 12/03/25
140
Page: 1 of 3 PagelD #:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
THE STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
Intervenor Plaintiff,
No. 4:25-cv-01580-CMS
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Federal Defendants,
and
DANCO LABORATORIES, et al.,
Intervenor Defendants.
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
On November 19, 2025, Intervenor Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 277. The proposed supplemental complaint asserts two claims challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's September 30, 2025 approval of a new generic mifepristone drug product. ECF No. 277-
1. Intervenor Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to plead to the
supplemental complaint within a specified time. ECF No. 277, at 1.
Without waiving any defense they might assert in a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading, Federal Defendants do not oppose Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Supplement the Amended Complaint, but Federal Defendants do not

Case: 4:25-cv-01580-CMS Doc. #: 278 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
141
believe that any response to the Supplemental Complaint is necessary until after the
Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss this case on threshold grounds.
Before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Federal
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 217) on several
grounds. ECF No. 219. In addition to challenging venue, id. at 3-7, Federal Defendants
argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, id. at 7-12, Intervenor Plaintiffs
failed to administratively exhaust their claims, id. at 12-14, and certain claims were
barred by the statute of limitations, id. at 14-15. Although the Northern District of Texas
granted Federal Defendants' alternative request to transfer the case, ECF No. 273, at 1,
27, that court did not rule on whether the Amended Complaint should be dismissed based on non-venue grounds, including for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, see id. at
8-10 (concluding that the court could rule on venue without addressing subject matter
jurisdiction). Federal Defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and
exhaustion would also pertain to the Supplemental Complaint.
Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss therefore remains pending. Indeed, while
the Northern District of Texas determined that some pending motions should be denied as moot due to the pending transfer, id. at 1, 27, the court did not deny (as moot or
otherwise) Federal Defendants' motion insofar as it requested dismissal. It would be
premature for Federal Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Supplemental Complaint before the Court has resolved threshold grounds for dismissal of this entire
case.
If, however, this Court determines that the motions to dismiss are no longer
2

Case: 4:25-cv-01580-CMS Doc. #: 278
Filed: 12/03/25
142
Page: 3 of 3 PagelD #:
pending (or should be refiled for any other reason, Federal Defendants respectfully request that the Court permit Federal Defendants to file a consolidated response to the
Amended Complaint and Supplemental Complaint at least 60 days after the
Supplemental Complaint is docketed.
December 3, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JAMES W. HARLOW
Acting Assistant Director
/s/ Noah T. Katzen
NOAH T. KATZEN
Trial Attorney
Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 386
Washington, DC 20044-0386
202-305-2428
Noah.T.Katzen@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Federal Defendants

December 3, 2025 at 8:27 PM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

it’s the armpit of America, but New Jersey really is fighting the fascists. go #NJ ✌️

(this is the blue states’ case against HHS challenging section 71113 of the BBB as violative of the spending clause — judge Talwani is finally able to grant plaintiff states’ motion for a preliminary injunction).

Dec 2, 2025
Judge Indira Talwani: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. Please see attached.For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 60] is GRANTED.It is hereby ORDERED that:1. Defendants, their agents, employees, appointees, successors, and anyone acting in concert or participation with Defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or otherwise applying the provisions of Section 71113 of "An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title Il of H.
Con. Res. 14," against the Plaintiff States.2. Defendants, their agents, employees, appointees, successors, and anyone acting in concert or participation with Defendants shall take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Plaintiff States to reimburse claims without regard to whether the claims were filed by entities that may be "prohibited entities" as of October 1, 2025, under Section
71113.3. Defendants shall provide a copy of this Order to all personnel within the Department of Health and Human Services and all state agencies involved with the disbursement of Medicaid funding.4. Plaintiff States shall within seven days post a nominal $100 bond, to be held by the court as the bond in this matter.IT IS SO ORDERED.
(SEC) (Entered: 12/02/2025)

Case 1:25-cv-12118-IT Document 84|
Filed 12/02/25
Page 1 of 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-12118-IT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
December 2, 2025
TALWANI, D.J.
This is one of two actions filed in this court against Defendants United States Department
of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), Secretary of HHS Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS"), and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz' challenging
Section 71113 of An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title Il of H. Con. Res. 14, Pub. L. No. 119-21, 139 Stat. 72, 300-01 (July 4, 2025) ("Section 71113" of the "Budget Reconciliation Act"). Section 71113 prohibits Medicaid funding for Medicaid-covered services to "prohibited entities."
In the first action, discussed further below, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. ("Planned Parenthood Federation") and two Planned Parenthood members (collectively, the Planned Parenthood Plaintiffs") claimed that Section 71113 specifically targeted entities associated with Planned Parenthood Federation, in violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause of, and the First and Fifth Amendments to, the United States Constitution. Planned Parenthood
' The individual Defendants are sued in their official capacity only.
Case 1:25-cv-12118-IT
Document 84
Filed 12/02/25
Page 2 of 45
Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Kennedy, Civil Action 1:25-cv-11913 (the "Planned Parenthood
litigation"). In the action now before the court, twenty-two States? and the District of Columbia (the "Plaintiff States") claim, inter alia, that Section 71113 failed to provide clear notice to States that participate in the joint Federal / State Medicaid program, as required by the Spending Clause
of the United States Constitution.

December 3, 2025 at 3:03 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

For example, Schiff voted yes to Bill Lewis (first pic) and yes to Harold Mooty (second pic) but what I’m more interested in is that it’s generally the same group of senators who always vote yes together. I’m esp interested when I see members of the SJC like Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar & Schiff.

December 2, 2025 at 8:03 PM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

it’s me, wondering about this weird coalition, again.

does anyone have any idea what’s going on with these dems?? there must be some strategy behind these votes (aside from the fact that they’re also the ones who ended the shutdown).

Durbin
Hassan
Kaine
King
Peters
Rosen
Shaheen
Whitehouse

December 2, 2025 at 7:31 PM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

I imagined Judge Krause slapping away Erin Hawley and ADF like annoying little gnats when I first read this.

I remember my perspective started to shift when I read it; these are not good people. These are not upstanding members of the bar. They’re after something else.

Just wanted to share.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 24-1111
FIRST CHOICE WOMAN'S RESOURCE CENTERS INC,
Appellant
V.
ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY
(D.N.J. No. 3-23-cv-23076)
Present: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
1. Motion by Appellant to Expedite Briefing, Argument, and Ruling with proposed briefing schedule as follows:
Appellant's Opening Brief due March 22, 2024
Appellee's Response Brief due April 19, 2024
Appellant's Reply Brief due April 29, 2024
Argument before May 9, 2024
Ruling by May 16, 2024;
2. Response by Appellee in opposition to Motion;
3. Reply by Appellant in support of Motion.
CCO-078-E
Respectfully, Clerk/amr
ORDER
Appellant's motion to expedite this appeal is DENIED. The basis for the motion is Appellant's concerns (which Appellant previously stated in its emergency motion for injunction pending appeal that, "absent a prompt decision by this Court..., First Choice's federal claims will soon become precluded by a parallel state-court enforcement action..." Mot. at 1. We are mindful of those concerns. Indeed, because of them, our order denying Appellant's emergency motion for injunction was without prejudice to the filing of a motion to expedite this appeal. See Order, Feb. 15, 2024.
But Appellant did not promptly file a motion to expedite. It did not file the instant

motion until February 29, 2024. And when it did, it did not inform this Court that-three days earlier-through the same counsel representing it in this appeal-Appellant had filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Supreme Court. Pet. for Mandamus, In re First Choice Women's Res. Ctrs., Inc., No. 23-941, 2024 WL 865946 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2024).
In that petition, Appellant asked the Supreme Court to "direct the district court to take jurisdiction and rule on First Choice's motion for TRO and preliminary injunction in a manner that will preserve this Court's appellate review." Id. at 5. Yet that is essentially the same relief Appellant seeks from this Court on an expedited basis. But Appellant did not advise us it was seeking that relief in the Supreme Court. Nor did Appellant advise the Supreme Court that it was filing a motion to expedite in this Court. Instead, it represented to the Supreme Court that it lacked any effective recourse... in the Third Circuit" such that "[n]othing other than mandamus will provide First Choice adequate relief." Id. at 27-28. Appellant also disavowed in the Supreme Court any need for that Court to resolve its petition on an emergency basis.
This Court will not expedite Appellant's appeal while Appellant is simultaneously pursuing extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court and representing to that Court that expedited treatment is not necessary. Moreover, Appellant's counsel are cautioned that they must exercise complete candor in all future filings in this Court. See Wharton v.
Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney's Office, No. 22-2839, --- F.4d --.,
2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642, at *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 8, 2024) ("Courts rely on lawyers' honesty; lawyers may not mislead them."). Failure to do so may result in sanctions.
By the Court,
s/Cheryl Ann Krause
Circuit Judge
Dated: March 11, 2024
CJG/cc:
Erin M. Hawley, Esq.
Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq.

December 2, 2025 at 6:52 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

As a NJ citizen and lawyer, I hope the Third Circuit’s opinion today, affirming the district court’s ruling disqualifying Alina Habba, provides “the clarity and stability” noted by Judge Fischer.

So *why* has it left me feeling so unsettled? Maybe it’s the administration’s silence 12 hrs later? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Case: 25-2635
Document: 81 Page: 5
Date Filed: 12/01/2025
OPINION OF THE COURT
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
The United States Attorneys' offices are some of the most critical agencies in the Federal Government. They play an important role in the criminal and civil justice systems and are vital in keeping our communities safe. The U.S. Attorney leading each office is an officer whose appointment requires Senate confirmation. Where a vacancy exists, Congress has shown a strong preference that an acting officer be someone with a breadth of experience to properly lead the office. It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place. Its efforts to elevate its preferred candidate for U.S.
Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Alina Habba, to the role of Acting U.S. Attorney demonstrate the difficulties it has faced-yet the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney's Office deserve some clarity and stability.
Congress has crafted various means through which agency authority is exercised absent a Senate-confirmed officer. When a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer resigns, the generally applicable Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) authorizes certain people to perform that officer's duties in an acting capacity subject to time limitations.
In addition to the FVRA, other statutes expressly authorize the President, a court, or the head of an agency to designate
5

December 2, 2025 at 2:02 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Just in case you thought the white male gerontocracy was a problem only at the federal level, allow me to introduce you to NJ State Senator James Beach, who is 79 years old.

This is a man who absolutely cannot stand that Andy Kim is a “real” Senator.

December 2, 2025 at 12:53 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Thinking of that, and looking at the map, makes me all the happier that @drkbrandi.bsky.social is planning to
open her clinic #Luminosas in Hudson County next year!

The second observation: NO WAY did 5/5 of these fake clinics legitimately receive Google ratings of 4.9 of 5 stars; so fraudulent.

Screenshot of Google Maps location of the 5 first choice women’s resource centers locations at the heart of the SCOTUS case on Tuesday with definitely fraudulent ratings of 4.9 out of 5 starts on all 5 of them.

If you didn’t think they needed subpoenaing before, you better believe they need subpoenaing now. This is bullshit.

Closed
First Choice
first choice women's resourc...
First Choice Women's Resource Centers
4.9
(627)
Women's health clinic • 35 Halsey St - Closed • Opens 9 AM Mon
• Directions
Call
Share
newark
S
First Choice Women's Resource Centers
4.9
(600)
monlular
Women's health clinic • 180 Bloomfield Ave • Closed • Opens 9 AM Mon
• Directions
Call
Share
S
First Choice Women's Resource Centers
4.9
• (609)
Women's health clinic • 10 Paterson St • Closed • Opens 8 AM Mon
• Directions
Call
凸
Share
jersey city
S
First Choice Women's Resource Centers
4.9
**** (172)
Women's health clinic • 116 New St • di
Closed • Opens 9 AM Thu
• Directions
Call
new brunswick
Share
S
First Choice Women's Resource Centers
4.9
• (115)
Women's health clinic • 82 Speedwell Ave •
marristown
Closed • Opens 7 AM Mon

November 29, 2025 at 5:47 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

The first is that there are quite a few CPC’s in Hoboken / JC but no PP. Idk if that’s a recent occurrence, but _ugh_ I suddenly remembered the panic I felt living in Hoboken when I needed an abortion and discovering there was nowhere near me to go. I attributed it to Chris Christie at the time. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I am pro-life, I believe in exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. That's my position, take it or leave it.
— Chris Christie -
AZ QUOTES

November 29, 2025 at 5:47 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

As you know, I spend my time bemoaning that ADF wormed its fraudulent little way up to SCOTUS with their bogus, unripe claim in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin. In prep for an article about Tues’s arguments, I went back to reexamine the locations of the CPCs. Two things struck me.

24-781 FIRST CHOICE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC. V. PLATKIN DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5088105
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3124
QUESTION PRESENTED:
New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice
Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges.
The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.
The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would
have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.
The question presented is:
Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably
objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?
CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025

November 29, 2025 at 5:47 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

My 10mo old niece arrived in Jan in time to enjoy a few days of democracy. I won’t let her forget her democratic roots; I read to her from the Constitution (she’s a big fan) & joke that babies need “know your rights” board books.

But maybe it’s not a joke? Look at this #BabyOlivia board book!🤮

From liveaction.org an ad for a free children’s board book depicting the prolife version of fetal development using the fake pictures/computer generated and doctored imagery of a fake fetus they’ve dubbed “baby Olivia.”

The picture shows an adult with two young children reading from the baby Olivia book - the covers show a fetus and say “I’m a baby.”

Text:
liveaction.org

I'm a baby!
Get Live
Action's new fetal
development board book for kids!
Receive a FREE "Baby Olivia" children's board book when you give a one-time gift of $30 or more, or begin a new monthly gift of $15 or more.*
GET YOUR FREE
BOARD
BOOK

November 29, 2025 at 4:25 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Oh good. I’m not the only one who received an unsolicited fundraising text from the astronaut today.

Being an astronaut stopped being cool a long time ago, Mark. And I’m not a registered member of your moderate party anymore, Mark.

“Important mission” - like what am I, a 5 year old boy? God.

November 26, 2025 at 6:21 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Last week, the House Republicans wrote their most unhinged letter yet to Kennedy and Makary at the HHS/FDA.

The letter relies, again, on their own fake data about mifepristone.

This time, they call it “baby poison.”
Mature; reasoned; scientific.

Note: MTG ✍️

chrissmith.house.gov/news/documen...

November 26, 2025 at 3:20 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Re: Halligan, a lot of people seem to think she’s out of a job. I don’t think it’s that simple.

Note: I haven’t seen any charges re-filed. I haven’t seen any appeals.

But I think it’s a mistake to say Halligan is out at the EDVA-USAO. I’m also thinking about the special atty designation. Sigh.

November 26, 2025 at 1:15 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Every year, on this day, my uncle sends me a text or an email or sometimes just picks up the phone and calls me to commemorate Doug Flutie’s 1984 Hail Mary pass.

Nope, I don’t have any particular obsession; nor do I remember when it became ‘normal.’

But it’s sweet so I thought I’d share. 😊

November 24, 2025 at 4:09 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Turns out META and PornHub have the
same exact policy. META (Instagram, Facebook) doesn’t review material on its sites that’s been flagged as violative of its policy (including child sex abuse material) until it’s been flagged AT LEAST 15 TIMES. Just like Pornhub ⤵️.
dcp.utah.gov/wp-content/u...

November 23, 2025 at 9:17 PM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Note: this is the case I mentioned a few days ago that’s now hitting the timeline. It’s not a *new* lawsuit; Missouri, Kansas and Idaho are seeking to supplement their amended complaint in Missouri v. FDA with an additional pleading pursuant to FRCP 15(d).

We shall see!

November 21, 2025 at 7:37 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

Did you see who’s on the list?

THEOLOGY

November 21, 2025 at 6:22 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

New Jersey Visibility Brigade - Route 4

“Stop Piggy Billionaires!”

@visibilitybrigade.bsky.social
@atnj.org
@sferrara.bsky.social

🤣 #NJ

November 21, 2025 at 12:56 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

RE: State of Texas v. HHS, No. 5:24-cv-00204 (N.D. Tex), the parties just filed a joint stipulation of dismissal w/o prejudice.
I’m hesitant to read into it, tho. TX filed suit last Sept under Biden. Now HHS is under RFK & repped by this DOJ. It’s not a win, but it’s a non-loss. We didn’t lose more.

Case 5:24-cv-00204-H|
Document 71 Filed 11/20/25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
Page 1 of 3
PagelD 55457
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
V.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION No. 5:24-CV-00204-H
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX:
The Parties respectfully submit this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a) (1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims in the complaint (Dkt. 1) against Defendants without prejudice. Each party will bear its own fees and costs. The Parties respectfully request that
the Court close this case.
Dated: November 20, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General
RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
AMY SNOW HILTON
Chief, Healthcare Program Enforcement Division

November 21, 2025 at 12:32 AM

juststeller.bsky.social

@juststeller.bsky.social

I’m looking at Epstein’s JP Morgan’s bank statements from 2012-2014 and as a young woman (at the time) who lived, shopped and received beauty treatments in NYC at those places at that time, I can confirm the charges are *very* out of a place for an older single childfree sex offender like Epstein.