P. Andrew Torrez

I would think the prime would also raise legal impossibility as an affirmative defense. It's not a perfect fit but it wouldn't require impleading the gov't.

I make this look GOOD

He’s not wrong (except for the use of the word “unprecedented” to describe a thing that’s been going on for 14 months)

This is a really good show! I’m so proud of what we do.

⬇️

Law and Chaos Government Podcast · Updated Weekly · Ignorance of the law is no excuse! That's true for a traffic stop, and it's true if you want to participate in whatever's left of American democracy. If the event...

Is it UGG boots or ugh boots? Can a big company attempt to monopolize a market through cutthroat litigation tactics?

Find out! Plus all the Trump news that’s fit to pod!

With @lizdye.bsky.social

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...

OpenAl and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) today announced a multi-year strategic partnership to accelerate Al innovation for enterprises, startups, and end consumers around the world. Amazon will also invest $50 billion in OpenAl, starting with an initial $15 billion investment and followed by another $35 billion in the coming months when certain conditions are met.

OpenAI announcing “$110 billion” in new funding, leaving out that $35 billion of Amazon’s $50 billion is contingent on an IPO, and the $30 billion each from SoftBank and NVIDIA is paid in installments. Anyone reporting this as fully closed is wrong. It’ll happen anyway.
openai.com/index/scalin...

As noted, Rosen asserted in his email that “[t]he lawyers in my civil division didnʹt deserve” the supposedly inaccurate January 28 order. Putting aside the fact that the January 28 order was not inaccurate, Rosen failed to mention that this Court said the following in the show‐cause order that preceded the January 28 order: The Court expresses its appreciation to attorney Ana Voss and her colleagues [in the civil division], who have struggled mightily to ensure that respondents comply with court orders despite the fact that respondents have failed to provide them with adequate resources. ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1. The judges of this District have been extraordinarily patient with the government attorneys, recognizing that they have been put in an impossible position by Rosen and his superiors in the Department of Justice (leading many of those attorneys—including, unfortunately, Ana Voss—to resign). What those attorneys “didn’t deserve” was the Administration sending 3000 ICE agents to Minnesota to detain people without making any provision for handling the hundreds of lawsuits that were sure to follow

Finally, in his February 9 email, Rosen said: For our part, we commit to the court that we will redouble our efforts to achieve compliance by our client across the board. The truth is that efforts we have already been undertaking for weeks have led to considerable improvement—efforts which have apparently gone unrecognized by some on the bench, even though the numbers prove them out. We will continue to try to find the ways to improve. This, too, appears to be untrue. Attached as Appendix B is a list of additional cases in which ICE has violated court orders, most of which violations occurred after entry of the January 28 order. Despite Rosen’s assurance of “redouble[d]” efforts that have “led to considerable improvement,” Appendix B documents 113 additional orders that ICE has violated in 77 additional cases—again, above and beyond the 97 orders that ICE violated in the 66 cases identified in Appendix A. If anything is “beyond the pale,” it is ICE’s continued violation of the orders of this Court. Increasingly, this Court has had to resort to using the threat of civil contempt to force ICE to comply with orders. The Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt—again and again and again—to force the United States government to comply with court orders.

MN USAtty Daniel Rosen got shitty with Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz over that list of 96 orders violated in Jan.

Rosen: My staff don't deserve it

Judge: Your staff don't deserve to be hung out to dry over stupid politics, asshole [the asshole is implied]

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

YouTube video by LegalEagle Trump's FCC Censorship Backfires

If the Dems retake the Senate in November, we might owe FCC Chair Brendan Carr a big thank you.

@lizdye.bsky.social weaves the tale from the defunct Fairness Doctrine to Trump's bullying of CBS to Senate candidate James Talaraico & more in the latest @legaleagle.tv

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AdV...

Invalidating ID cards based on gender is literally a key plot point in The Handmaid’s Tale. This is horrifying.

Remember when Bill Clinton fired Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders because she mentioned masturbation

With all the of the destroying this country the Trump family is doing, sometimes you can forget that they’re also grifting on a scale never before seen in human history.

But you can trust
@lizdye.bsky.social to keep her eye on the ball in her latest must-read:

lol thank you. I didn’t make that mistake on the show, thankfully.

I hope you’re right but fear you’re wrong.

Also thank you so much!!

It’s the same service either way but the Patreon message is the best way to reach us with questions….

Law and Chaos Government Podcast · Updated Weekly · Ignorance of the law is no excuse! That's true for a traffic stop, and it's true if you want to participate in whatever's left of American democracy. If the event...

What’s next for Trump’s tariffs? What did the Supreme Court actually decide in the Learning Resources case? And why is Justice Jackson’s dissent one for the ages?

All this and five minutes of crying laughter with @lizdye.bsky.social

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...

You Do Not, Under Any Circumstances, Gotta Hand It To Chief Justice Roberts Ditto for Barrett and Gorsuch.

You can miss me with those love poems glazing Chief Justice Roberts for standing up to Trump after letting him steal from Americans for an entire year

www.lawandchaospod.com/p/you-do-not...

Tomorrow's show! But the short answer is that it goes back to the lower court

I was hoping you were going to tell me I'm being waaaaay too pessimistic!

Excellent point & I sure hope that's the case here.

The pessimist in me worries: Roberts himself said in Seila Law (2020) that laws preventing the President from firing heads of multi-member executive branch agencies are valid. Trump got cute & fired a bunch anyway & Roberts said "ok, fine."

🤷

4/ I don't think the Supreme Court would welcome Trump essentially ignoring their opinion through ONE WEIRD TRICK.

And in the few other areas where SCOTUS has pushed back (Alien Enemies Act, Federal Reserve, federalizing the National Guard), Trump hasn't tried an end-around. We'll see.

—————— 4The principal dissent surmises that the President could impose “most if not all” of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA. Post, at 62 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.). The cited statutes contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize. See supra, at 8–9; post, at 62–63. We do not speculate on hypothetical cases not before us.

3/ The majority also cast major shade at Kavanaugh's suggestion that Trump can evade the effect of this opinion through other means. "We do not speculate on hypothetical cases," notes Roberts in a footnote, but those other statues have different requirements & preconditions.

Turning to this Court’s precedents, the Government first relies on Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548 (1976). There, we held that Section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the President to “adjust the imports” of particular goods to protect national security, includes the power to impose “license fees.” Id., at 561. But that holding bears little on the meaning of IEEPA. As a textual matter, Section 232(b) authorizes the President not only to “adjust . . . imports,” but (as the Government emphasized in Algonquin) to “take such action . . . as he deems necessary” to adjust the imports of a good. Brief for Petitioners 26 (emphasis in original) and Tr. of Oral Arg. 6–7, in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., O. T. 1975, No. 75–382. IEEPA does not contain such sweeping, discretion-conferring language. As for context, Section 232(a) states that “[n]o action shall be taken” to “decrease or eliminate” an existing “duty or other import restriction” if doing so would threaten national security. 19 U. S. C. §1862(a) (1970 ed.). This explicit reference to duties preceding Section 232(b) renders it natural for Section 232(b) itself to authorize duties. Thus, we decline to extend Algonquin’s expressly “limited” holding any further. 426 U. S., at 571.

2/ For one, a major portion of the government's argument in this case was premised on the notion that tariffs are the equivalent of license fees, relying on a 1976 case called Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc.

SCOTUS rejected that argument with respect to IEEPA.

1/ I'm 99% certain this is a reference to footnote 13 of Kavanaugh's dissent, which says that 50 USC 1702(a)(1) permits the President to prescribe "licenses" with respect to imports or exports, and Kav sycophantically suggests that licenses may require fees "equivalent to tariffs."

That's not true.

SCOTUS absolutely could have reinstated the CIT injunction pending appeal. We'll be talking about the procedural shenanigans in detail on tomorrow's podcast.

This is not the day that Chief Justice Roberts became a real jurist. This is three conservative justices who invited the president to pick consumers’ pockets for a full year before eventually telling him to knock it off — once they’d ensured that the chaotic fallout would persist for the rest of his term. We will not be applauding like trained seals because the person who left the bath running and flooded our collective house eventually wandered back and turned off the taps.

"We will not be applauding like trained seals because the person who left the bath running and flooded our collective house eventually wandered back and turned off the taps."

What the Supreme Court's tariff decision REALLY means from @lizdye.bsky.social

www.lawandchaospod.com/p/you-do-not...

I think John Roberts is very invested in having people proclaim that John Roberts is a real jurist just calling balls and strikes. I think many right-wing ideologues are similarly invested, if for different reasons.

I do not understand why so many on our side of the aisle are willing to play along.

The floor plan for the planned ICE concentration camp in Social Circle, Georgia: