It is such a sweet book…
www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/03/chri...
It is such a sweet book…
www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/03/chri...
Has anyone else pointed out that Mel on the Pitt and Ted on Schitt’s Creek are basically twins—especially when they tell jokes?
05.03.2026 16:40 — 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0*redistricting
05.03.2026 16:03 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0That’s not typical boilerplate saying the court isn’t expressing an opinion on the merits. It’s more like expressing an opinion on the merits but saying that still doesn’t provide a basis to enjoin the election in advance.
05.03.2026 16:01 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0
“It would be a perilous mistake to infer from our application of Scott that these holdings and claims fail any aspect of the “likelihood of success” criterion in Rule 3:26(d)(i). In the absence of Scott, the de facto preliminary injunction may have survived our review solely under Rule 3:26(d).”
This SCOVA decision allowing the districting referendum seems to forecast pretty strongly that the court will ultimately invalidate the redirecting if it passes.
www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/u...
JUST IN: A federal judge has barred Gov DeSantis from designating CAIR as a terrorist organization and punish those who associate with the group.
“Once again, Florida chooses political posturing over the First Amendment,” Judge Walker writes.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
1.Internal emails from Liberty University Law School, obtained by Popular Information, reveal how the Trump admin hires interns.
Students were informed about "exciting" legal internships at Labor Department.
“You MUST be aligned politically with President Trump… GPA is not a strong factor.”
Even putting aside the implications for the laws of war, someone who describes mass killing in this way is not well, nor is the society that empowers that person to kill.
04.03.2026 13:56 — 👍 424 🔁 132 💬 14 📌 4
Oof. The facts of this case.
bsky.app/profile/gabr...
![Along with Virginia, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), would have placed reasonable persons in the positions of Principal Anderson, Superintendent Lockhart, and the Board members on notice that the sex-segregation policy was unconstitutional.7 The question presented in Brown was: “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?” Id. at 493. The Supreme Court held “it does,” id. at 493,“conclud[ing] that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” because “[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” id. at 495.8 This landmark](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreibgy5vuj5hmcls2jdw7xwaxvnraccnqqleglunjugb7vhcmtbeqxy@jpeg)
Along with Virginia, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), would have placed reasonable persons in the positions of Principal Anderson, Superintendent Lockhart, and the Board members on notice that the sex-segregation policy was unconstitutional.7 The question presented in Brown was: “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?” Id. at 493. The Supreme Court held “it does,” id. at 493,“conclud[ing] that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place” because “[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” id. at 495.8 This landmark
10th Cir.: it was clearly established law that public school district could not sex-segregate male and female fifth-graders based on outdated stereotypes.
Says the school's separate-but-equal argument would put them on the wrong side of Brown v. Board. 😱
www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...
Truly pathetic.
03.03.2026 17:52 — 👍 6 🔁 2 💬 0 📌 0Very stable genius strikes again.
03.03.2026 16:56 — 👍 90 🔁 16 💬 2 📌 0
'UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY': Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointeee from NY, thrashes DHS' treatment of a man who came to the US at 9 as an abuse/neglect victim, has no criminal record and became a college grad.
"The laws of decency condemn such villainy." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Contrast this with Justice Alito’s dissent in AARP arguing that the habeas petitioners should have waited longer for the district court to rule on their emergency motions.
03.03.2026 14:15 — 👍 5 🔁 4 💬 1 📌 0Scenes from a personalist regime
03.03.2026 13:45 — 👍 2524 🔁 859 💬 93 📌 136In any event, folks should remember this the next time someone goes around accusing civil rights orgs of attempting to “evade” CASA’s promotion on facial injunctions with 23(b)(2) classes. If this isn’t an evasion of CASA, then nothing is.
03.03.2026 04:47 — 👍 10 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0All the Court says is they have standing because they are the object of the regulation—but that just goes to traceability and redressability. I doesn’t show a concrete and non-speculative imminent injury in fact.
03.03.2026 04:45 — 👍 14 🔁 0 💬 2 📌 0Would genuinely like to hear SCOTUS’s explanation for why parents in Mirabelli who do not have non-hypothetical kids whose gender identity is currently being concealed have standing for injunctive relief under Clapper.
03.03.2026 04:43 — 👍 16 🔁 4 💬 1 📌 0
Wait there’s more! The Court has had a bunch of chances to consider this exact issue “the regular way“, via a full merits case, Kagan writes. But it chooses to weigh in prematurely via the shadow docket on a subtle and super controversial question.
03.03.2026 00:15 — 👍 278 🔁 66 💬 3 📌 4
Kagan: “A mere decade ago, this Court would never have granted relief in this posture. (Indeed, I am confident that the plaintiffs would never have thought to ask, at this stage, for the Court’s involvement.)”
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
Kagan correctly notes the contrast with how the Court treated the substantive due process rights of parents supporting their trans kids in Skrmetti
03.03.2026 00:10 — 👍 17 🔁 5 💬 1 📌 0
This is an issue the court has repeatedly declined to grant cert on and on which every court of appeals has come out the other way.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
Aaaaand more from SCOTUS tonight: bsky.app/profile/lawr...
02.03.2026 23:37 — 👍 76 🔁 23 💬 2 📌 1
