Matthew Segal

This bill is unworkable and likely unconstitutional for many of the same reasons that would arise if a legislature tried to ban Magic 8 Balls

This is a kind of echo of J. Gorsuch's remarks in the tariffs case about how once a president gets some power from Congress, it's very hard for Congress to reassert power over it even for another president

I agree that the text of the Constitution arguably doesn't resolve this question in either direction. But courts take normative considerations into account all the time when they decide how to interpret text.

One reason why the U.S. Constitution might be construed to require Congressional authorization *before* starting a war is that a war, once unilaterally initiated by the President, may be hard to un-start.

Yes, but some people are interpreting Justice Jackson's use of this phrasing, but seemingly not Justice Alito's, as an expression of genuine confusion. Which is not what's happening.

Generally speaking, when a judge says “I don’t understand,” what they mean is “I understand perfectly well and I think what you said is bananas.”

This is especially true with Justice Jackson, and those suggesting otherwise are doing their readers a disservice.

True, but "it's all fun and games until LLMs research, reason, strategize, and write better than the median lawyer" was less punchy.

It's all fun and games until we reach the point when LLMs write better than the median lawyer

Ironically, in the law firm EO litigation, the govt has identified yet another law firm whose work it won't abide: its own law firm's work from yesterday!

A photo of the exterior of the Warren E. Burger Federal Building

I'm here at the federal courthouse in St. Paul for the clown car contempt hearing ordered by Judge Jeffrey Bryan over the federal government's conduct in 28 separate habeas cases. He ordered the government to show cause over failure to comply with orders requiring the accounting for of property

Ideally, to address various important questions facing the nation, there should be some sort of national legislature.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A914 NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY No. 25A915 PETER KOSINSKI, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [March 2, 2026] The applications for stay presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court are granted. The January 21, 2026 order entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 164002/2025, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting from grant of stay. The Court's 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: "Rules for thee, but not for me." Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an elec-tion. Today, the Court says: except for this one, except for this one, and except for this one. Ignoring every limit on federal courts' authority, the Court takes the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court's decision in a re-districting dispute on matters of state law without giving the State's highest court a chance to act. Because that order violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism, and equity, I respectfully dissent.

BREAKING: SCOTUS blocks New York state court redistricting order, over the strong dissent of the Democratic appointees.

As much as I was looking forward to seeing Elizabeth Prelogar, Don Verrilli, and Paul Clement take turns dunking on these orders in front of a D.C. Circuit panel, this is good news.

Being able to drive as ourselves and use the correct bathroom are essential to basic everyday life — they aren't privileges afforded to only people who aren't transgender.

We're suing the state of Kansas.

Doe v. Kansas complaint, page 1

Doe v. Kansas complaint, page 2

COMPLAINT: assets.aclu.org/live/uploads...

Congrats to my colleagues on filing this important case.

Investigative Post obtained this video of Border Patrol abandoning Nurul Shah Alam, the nearly blind Burmese refugee who was found dead

www.investigativepost.org/2026/02/26/t...

The Conference of Catholic Bishops is... not playing around in this brief.

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

Judge Bryan in Minnesota has scheduled a combined contempt hearing in morethan two dozen immigration cases for what he says has been widespread defiance of his orders to ensure released detainees are given their confiscated property. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency Activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a draft executive order that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.

Among the many problems with SCOTUS's decision in Trump v. Anderson are that the Court did not bother to state plainly (1) what Trump did, and (2) that it was extremey bad.

That failure helped pave the way for nonsense like this: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Order on Motion for Order – #74 in CENTER FOR TAXPAYER RIGHTS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (D.D.C., 1:25-cv-00457) – CourtListener.com Order on Motion for Order

More information and devestating rebukes from the court in ongoing litigation over the IRS sharing taxpayer data with ICE

"The IRS violated the [Internal Revenue Code] approximately 42,695 times by disclosing last known taxpayer addresses to ICE"

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

🚨NEW REPORT from @brennancenter.org: Countering Originalism: A Guide for Litigators.

What’s inside?

⚖️ Practical strategies to respond to originalist arguments
📚 Case law + scholarship
📝 Real examples from court filings
🏛️ Lessons from our SCOTUS practice
🌐 Tips for both fed + state courts

Blind refugee abandoned by Border Patrol dies in Buffalo. A nearly blind refugee abandoned by Border Patrol miles from his home dies in Buffalo after having been missing for nearly a week.

Here's a story about his death www.investigativepost.org/2026/02/25/b...

Arkansas Constitution: Section 1: Elective offices - Exceptions Vacancies in the office of United States Senator, and in all elective state, district, circuit, county, and township offices except those of Lieutenant Governor, Member of the General Assembly and Representative in the Congress of the United States, shall be filled by appointment by the Governor. Section 2: Ineligible persons - Nepotism The Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor shall be ineligible for appointment to fill any vacancies occurring or any office or position created, and resignation shall not remove such ineligibility. Husbands and wives of such officers, and relatives of such officers, or of their husbands and wives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, shall likewise be ineligible. No person appointed under Section 1 shall be eligible for appointment or election to succeed himself.

Article Text: Two months later, in February 2025, she signed into law a bill that made it more likely that her two appointees would succeed at staying on the bench over the long term. House Bill 1223 allowed interim judges to use their new title on the ballot when they face voters for the first time. As a result, voters next month will see the word “justice” next to Bronni and Hiland’s names, marking them as the incumbents. Incumbency typically brings important advantages. In Arkansas, no sitting justice has lost a reelection bid since at least the 1930s, including just recently when a conservative challenger lost to a justice known for her moderate politics.

House Bill 1223 Title: To Allow A Candidate For The Office Of Justice Of The Supreme Court Or Judge Of The Court Of Appeals Who Is Serving In That Position As An Appointee To Use The Title Of That Position As A Prefix On The Ballot.

So:

1. AR Constitution says "[n]o person" apptd by gov is eligible for "election to succeed himself"

2. Apptd justices are running for each other's seats, on theory that seats are *different*

3. Bill allows justices to call selves "justice" on ballot, on theory that seats are *interchangeable*

What

1. I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

2. Got photo from UCLA report. There were swastikas, but I won't post them.

3. I took your initial posts to imply that behaviors shouldn't be seen as discriminatory if members of the targeted group engaged in them. But if you're not saying that, great.

Sign: "israelis Are Native 2 HELL"

It does not. This case seems unlikely to hinge on a student's testimony about what they didn't hear. And while juries might (improperly) consider someone's race or ethnicity in assessing credibility, courts generally don't.

Besides, as you know, there is non-oral evidence, e.g. swastikas, signs.

Can you clarify why you think that is relevant to the legal claims?

If the DOJ alleges that a police dept has engaged in a pattern-or-practice of discrimination based on race, e.g., example through racial profiling, does the law care whether some officers were themselves Black?

JUST IMAGINE.

(The whole thread, summarizing his article which is gift-linked at the end of the thread, is worth your time.)

The motions are “unopposed” because Trump now sits on both sides of the case—as the defendant and as the glowering visage who looks out from tall banners on the walls of a subjugated DOJ—and Judge Cannon did not allow any of the third parties who sought to intervene to argue for disclosure.