Russell Steinthal

FWIW, I thought it was done reasonably well in the edit (and as you say, I don't see how they could have avoided it), but did think the cliffhanger/teaser for her medical status when it had been publicly reported before US primetime seemed wrong.

The Biden Administration, for all its faults, did a good job appointing judges other than "people Dems would normally appoint," but probably not in the way Republicans would appreciate.

Sí, yo también.

Oy. Yeah.

Steve Cohen tweet from 2021: Anyway back to the Mets

Folks, let's say it together: it's baseball season.

I would find it hilarious but not shocking to learn that somewhere in the black budget there was funding for training an AI model trained specifically to mimic Trump tweets.

The NYC Schools Chancellor, Kamar Samuels.

(Plus admiralty cases, US-as-party cases under the common law or state law, ATS suits under the law of nations depending on how you understand the hypothetical, etc.)

It's a bit over-determined, since if there literally were no statutes there wouldn't even be inferior courts, but if there were say the Judiciary Act but no substantive law, the fed courts would still have had diversity cases. As you know, they didn't even have federal question jx at the Founding.

But I don't think that we generally think that the USMJ has "command" of the sheriff/LEO in that context, and ultimately, it's up to the elected leadership of the (state/federal) executive branch to assign priorities, decide which warrants to enforce first, etc (at least until specifically ordered)?

Without any context other than the text (or research), I associated this as being tied to the court's (inherent?) authority to call for the execution of its orders. So just as an arrest warrant directs any authorized LEO to arrest the subject and present him/her to the USMJ, so too the militia here.

Ultimately, the governor may like the federal court cover (just as Eisenhower did in Little Rock). But I don't see how they get out of still being responsible for the orders. After all, other than calling forth, what other authority does Congress have to transfer command of the NG to the courts?

That's the problem flagged earlier, however. If this is a "calling forth" statute that authorizes federalization, then the C-in-C Clause requires POTUS to authorize the enforcement action. If it's a Title 32 or SAD mission, then doesn't the NG have to be operating under the command of the Gov/AG?

(Interestingly, there's existing NY law requiring a police officer to be on duty & present at every polling place in NYC throughout Election Day. I'd be curious to know what instructions, if any, the Mamdani Administration will give them about the possibility of armed federal agents being on site.)

Also, we shouldn't sugar-coat it: if it were ever to come to that (governors ordering the National Guard to arrest federal officers), we'd probably be closer to either civil war or true Insurrection Act territory than we've been since the 1860s-1870s. Even if they'd be in the right.

If the NG is Title 32, then the PCA doesn't apply at all, does it? In which case the exception isn't doing any work, except perhaps to provide a bit of federal judicial cover for the Supremacy Clause immunity fight that would inevitably arise from a state NG trying to arrest federal officers.

To build on your metaphor, the tinest string of this tiniest violin filing is the excuse that "AUSAs are appearing daily for hearings on contempt motions." The solution to that problem is right there for the taking: don't act contumaciously, and you won't get called in for contempt hearings...

As applied to the "regular forces," it seems hard to believe that statute is constitutional under modern doctrine? (Delegating authority to use the land or naval forces to someone other than the President and officers accountable to him.)

Although "depend entirely on" is a harder call given modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Perhaps Amtrak or Fannie Mae?

Establishing a certain "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States"?

Something to be discussed in #LegalEthics classes to be sure.

This is a remarkable doc in so many ways, from the seemingly casual non-compliance w/ release orders, to the lack of resources/process at the USAO to deal w/ habeas petitions, to the gov't atty's candid statement that she shares the court's concerns b/c she "is not white" & her family is at risk.

Good questions for consideration. But if you're doing that, it might be that limiting the Westfall Act would be more efficacious than the FTCA: I don't think Trump or others like him would be particularly deterred by the possibility of a judgment against the US (as opposed to personal liability).

It seemed fully stocked in December, but others have probably been there more recently (and it was I think only my second visit so I have limited comparators).

So in theory, the Clerk (chosen by the GOP in this Congress) could refuse to recognize certificates of election from Reps-Elect in the new Congress, but that would only be upheld if a majority of all the people there with certificates (from their states) saying they are Reps-Elecr agree.

The Clerk from the prior term is the only holdover, presiding over the House until a Speaker is elected by majority vote of the whole House. Only once that happens are Reps formally sworn in. But the Clerk's role is ministerial and subject to override by the Reps-Elect as a body.

That's correct - the House reconstitutes itself from scratch after each election - swearing in members, electing a Speaker and other officers, adopting its rules on a clean slate, etc. On the first day of the term, there are no Representatives, just Representatives-Elect.

That's a good point. I don't think that the language itself is reversible error. But if CA5 wanted to reverse, the absence of any real reasoning in the opinion justifying the grant of the writ is potentially problematic. But that's without comparing it to other immigration habeas grants.

(In that thread, @masbackward.bsky.social had suggested that it might be common law unjust enrichment. The constitutional argument potentially complements/strengthens that.)