A group of physicians secured a legal victory against the Trump administration when a judge ordered several government agencies to restore public health webpages that had been removed. The lawsuit, filed on February 4, challenged the removal of critical health-related data and information relied upon by medical professionals and researchers. Shortly after, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order to force the restoration of these webpages and datasets.
A judge in Washington, D.C., granted the restraining order, rejecting a government argument that dismissed concerns over the missing information. The Department of Justice had argued that since some of the removed webpages were still accessible through the Wayback Machine, there was no real harm. They contended that doctors could still access archived copies by bookmarking links from the complaint.
The physicians countered that the Wayback Machine is not an adequate substitute for actively maintained public health resources. Unlike live websites, archived pages do not appear in search results, making them difficult to find unless a user already knows the exact URL. Additionally, not all removed content is guaranteed to be archived, and information on the Wayback Machine may be outdated or incomplete.
The judge’s ruling acknowledged these points, emphasizing that the removal of these webpages had caused significant harm to doctors relying on them for patient care. Two physicians, in particular, had spent considerable time and effort trying to navigate the absence of these resources, making their jobs more difficult and their medical treatment less effective. This was sufficient to establish actual harm, as the lost time and effort directly impacted their ability to provide care.
Rejecting the government’s defense, the judge noted that reliance on an external archival website did not address the harm caused by the removal of vital medical information. Since archived pages are not indexed by search engines, they are not easily accessible unless someone already knows where to look. The ruling concluded that the physicians had demonstrated they would suffer irreparable harm if the removed pages were not restored.
Following the court’s decision, a high-profile government official criticized the judge’s ruling, arguing that the judiciary should not interfere with website content decisions. The official’s remarks called for action against the judge, further fueling the debate over the role of courts in administrative decisions.
The government has been given a strict deadline to comply with the order, with a requirement to restore the specific webpages mentioned in the lawsuit. Additionally, by February 14, officials must collaborate with the plaintiffs to reinstate any other removed or modified pages that the doctors rely on for medical care.
