Mark Joseph Stern

As explained further below, however, your status as an inferior officer under Article II of the Constitution renders you an “at-will” employee, and your removal is beyond the purview of Title VII. Regarding your client’s claim that her employment as an Immigration Judge was terminated, this decision was a lawful exercise of the Attorney General’s authority under Article II of the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution allows the President and heads of departments exercising his power to remove inferior officers without cause, subject to only narrow exceptions that do not apply to your former position. No statute provides otherwise, and even if it did, the statute would run afoul of Article II.

DOJ says immigration judges, as "inferior officers," may be fired on the basis of sex, religion, race, or national origin. Leaving aside the law, it's *politically* remarkable they're taking this position.
washingtonlitigationgroup.org/news/former-...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

There’s Always Been an Official Story About One of America’s Most Notorious Murders. One Man Knew Otherwise. He Finally Told Me Everything. Just before he died, a 94-year-old career criminal had one last confession.

This is a crazy story—the FBI may have had advance warning of a credible conspiracy to kill MLK ... and did nothing to stop it. The man at the center of the plot broke his silence this year, just before he died.
slate.com/news-and-pol...

Arguments usually don't start until a few minutes after 10 am because the court is doing the morning's bar admissions!

It's been a persistent problem for as long as I've done this work and the New York Times is an especially egregious offender. Whatever the reason, it is incredibly simple to simply hyperlink the opinion somewhere in the piece! No excuse!

Appeals Court Says Alina Habba Is Unlawful U.S. Attorney

Sorry to be a broken record but it's nuts to me that the New York Times would write an entire article summarizing a court ruling and refuse to provide a link to said ruling. This is a disservice to readers. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/n...

Here's the ruling: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Trump’s Border Chief Framed Protesters for Violence. Then the Bodycam Footage Came Out. The Trump administration faced back-to-back rebukes in a pair of cases that challenged the president’s efforts to intimidate or terrorize deep-blue cities.

Will be on @velshimsnow.bsky.social shortly to talk about Border Patrol (1) framing peaceful protesters for violence, (2) brutally assaulting them, then (3) getting caught by courts thanks to bodycam footage that tells the whole sordid story. slate.com/news-and-pol...

Conservative Justice Uses Fake Quote to Justify Wisconsin Republican Gerrymander It is not clear how Ziegler’s misquotation wound up in the published opinion of a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice.

Nestled within this bizarre story is the important news that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken the first steps toward striking down its state’s GOP congressional gerrymander, a move that could net Democrats 2-3 more seats in the House of Representatives. slate.com/news-and-pol...

Because the Library and Copyright Office form part of the Executive Branch, respondent’s removal was lawful. First, the FVRA authorized the President to designate Blanche as Acting Librarian, and the Acting Librarian undisputedly has the power to remove the Register. Alternatively, if the President lacked the power to designate an Acting Librarian, Article II allowed him to remove Perlmutter directly.

The Justice Department also argues that the president has independent Article II authority to fire Perlmutter. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

(ORDER LIST: 607 U.S.) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2025 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 25A478 BLANCHE, TODD, ET AL. V. PERLMUTTER, SHIRA The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, and Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312. Justice Thomas would grant the application.

NEW: The Supreme Court *delays action* on Trump's request to fire Shia Perlmutter, the register of copyrights at the Library of Congress, pending the court's decision in two upcoming cases about the president's authority to fire federal officials. Thomas would let Trump fire Perlmutter now.

Update: bsky.app/profile/mjsd...

NEW: Justice Ziegler has corrected her misquotation of Moore v. Harper. However, her new summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Moore does not, in my view, accurately reflect the holding. The sentence she quotes doesn't match the "exceedingly limited" paraphrase. www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/D...

To the contrary: In Moore v. Harper, the majority acknowledged that state courts may play a legitimate, meaningful role in congressional redistricting. Ziegler seems to have made up a quote that (a) doesn't appear in the opinion and (b) contradicts its holding. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22p...

Question about the dissent by (the far-right) Justice Ziegler: Does this quote actually appear in Moore v. Harper? Did Moore say that state courts' role in congressional redistricting is "exceedingly limited"? I don't think it did! vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media...

The four began their first term together by firing the Director of State Courts, retired Judge Randy Koschnick, signaling to court employees that failure to obey them would be met with termination. The court of four violated the Wisconsin Constitution by appointing a sitting circuit court judge as the Director of State Courts.3 As the term progressed, the interests of the People took a back seat to the interests of the progressive majority's political benefactors, as the four fast-tracked political cases to advance their partisan objectives while decimating the law. The court's case load plummeted to a historic low of 14 decisions on the merits (at least the damage to the law was minimized) with the court of four voting in agreement in every single case. Such "bloc cohesion" may be found in the legislative branch——a political body——but never in recorded history has the same majority of justices demonstrated unwavering uniformity in deciding every

matter.4 Justices are supposed to decide cases with independent minds and not as a political bloc. Attorneys should note the lack of law development by this new majority as its members have chosen to prioritize their political pet issues while brushing aside actual legal questions. ¶4 Capping their first term as a progressive majority, the four stripped retired Justice David T. Prosser's name from the State Law Library, a petty act of political retribution. Justice Prosser died months later. Since they took control, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become a national embarrassment. Their dishonorable conduct deserves condemnation.

"Since they took control, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become a national embarrassment. Their dishonorable conduct deserves condemnation." Shameless stuff from partisan Republican jurists who literally tried to overturn the 2020 election results in their state. www.wicourts.gov/sc/rulhear/D...

What a temper tantrum by the Wisconsin Supreme Court's chief justice tells us • Wisconsin Examiner Chief Justice Annette Ziegler accuses the Wisconsin Supreme Court's new majority of a 'coup' but it's the right seeking illegitimate power

FYI the conservative justices' complaints are, by and large, petty, self-serving, and absurd wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/08/10/w...

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.(dissenting). "Power, like a desolating pestilence, Pollutes whate'er it touches." Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab III (1813). ¶2 Upon assuming office in 2023, Janet Protasiewicz formed a political bloc with Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Frank Dallet, and Jill Karofsky. Despite holding the office of "Justice," the members of this new majority acted like partisans at every opportunity, laying waste to the constitution and the rule of law. They began the 2023-24 term as a court of four,1 revamping supreme court rules and internal operating procedures ("IOPs") and excluding their colleagues from the process. Historically, changes to these rules and procedures are made over time, with thoughtful consideration of ways the court may better serve the People. Not this time.2 The four invoked their tired buzzwords of "transparency" and "inclusiveness" to cover their real purposes: unconstitutionally divesting the chief justice of power; 1 The court of four met separately, made decisions, and then presented the matter to the remaining three for "discussion." The outcome was a foregone conclusion. The four discussed and drafted revisions to the IOPs and then tried to rope the excluded justices into their charade of "discussing" them. This is not how any collegial court in the country operates. The court of four attempted to cloak its misdeeds with constitutional cover, but the quorum clause of the Wisconsin Constitution merely ensures cases may be decided notwithstanding multiple recusals. Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4. It is not a license to exclude three members of the court from every administrative decision. 2 Jack Kelly & Matthew DeFour, Wisconsin Supreme Court Emails Detail Chaotic First Week of Liberal Control, Wis. Watch (Aug. 29, 2023), https://wisconsinwatch.org/2023/08/wisconsin-supremecourt-emails-detail-chaotic-first-week-of-liberal-control/.

If you like juicy, backstabbing drama between warring ideological factions on an appellate court, you need to read this spate of opinions www.wicourts.gov/sc/rulhear/D...

BRIAN HAGEDORN, J. (concurring). The Wisconsin Supreme Court is composed of seven justices who are supposed to be members of the same team. Unlike trial courts, when we act, we do so collectively. To accomplish this, over the last 175 years, this court has established various practices and traditions, both formal and informal. These practices ensure all voices are heard, create clear lines of decision-making authority, and establish consistent and neutral processes to govern our case-deciding and administrative work. Some of these are reflected in formally adopted Supreme Court Rules, and some in our Internal Operating Procedures. But the true currency of a court like ours is trust. When trust is broken like it has been here, every aspect of our work suffers. ¶2 This all began in the summer of 2023 when four justices wished to make significant changes to how this court functions. Fair enough. These modifications could have been pursued through a process built on collegiality and mutual respect. Instead, my colleagues pursued a more destructive path. ¶3 The morning our then-newest justice was sworn into office——August 1, 2023——my four colleagues at that time set off to reshape our court and the operation of the court system. They had apparently engaged in significant discussions in the months prior and decided to force through these changes during our summer recess, and to do so via email with or without the input of their other colleagues. They issued a press release triumphantly announcing that these changes were all about transparency, accountability, and inclusivity. This was true in the same way

Pearl Harbor was a strike for peace in the Pacific. I will not rehash every detail (Justice Ziegler's excellent writing recounts much of the history), but the reader deserves a taste. ¶4 The first shot sounded when my four colleagues fired the Director of State Courts, who functions as the CEO of administrative matters for the entire judicial branch. Without following any established process, one of my colleagues sent an email proposing that we fire our Director and install a new, preselected interim Director in his place. This happened through email, over the course of two business days, while the Director was out of town on state business, during our summer recess. He never received a performance review indicating concerns; he was simply told his employment was over. This came just months after some of these same colleagues emphasized the importance of having all justices participate in hiring key staff. ¶5 Later that same week, my colleagues proposed dramatic changes via email affecting both our case-deciding and administrative responsibilities. The email invited justices to attend a new, unscheduled meeting of the court later that week to discuss the proposals. One justice said she could not be there; another objected to the meeting as outside our court calendar. The meeting would go forward no matter what, we were told. I implored my colleagues to reconsider, to treat their fellow colleagues with the respect they would want if circumstances were reversed. They refused. The meeting went on as expected, and with only four members present, they voted to fundamentally remake our court.

¶7 Among their changes, my colleagues radically altered the role of the chief justice. They created a new, three-person administrative committee (on which the chief justice would ostensibly sit) to take over nearly all of the chief justice's most important administrative duties. And they did so in the face of serious objections that these changes violated the Wisconsin Constitution, which says the chief justice "shall be the administrative head of the judicial system." Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4. One justice who in the past championed the constitutional role of the chief justice suddenly changed course. Again, these actions stripping the chief justice of powers she had exercised for as long as anyone could remember were proposed via email, and were voted on a few days later during an unscheduled meeting of just four justices during our summer recess. Not exactly transparent, accountable, and inclusive. ¶8 Another significant series of amendments to our internal rules involved modifying the way we consider certain kinds of cases, essentially making it much easier for this court to expedite cases coming to us outside the normal appeals process. Why the change? As everyone understood, my colleagues had the not-sosecret goal of swiftly hearing particular politically charged cases. This was all by design. ¶9 And how did this experiment go? Not well. Administratively, it was not clear who was in charge. We experienced significant breakdowns in communication amidst a lack of clarity about who was doing what. Our staff was often caught in the middle of a court that did not have established lines of

communication and authority. And when the Director of State Courts was unceremoniously fired for what many perceived as political reasons, it sent a shockwave through the system. Furthermore, my colleagues' changes were not one and done. Throughout the past two years, they continued to modify the court's procedures in a similar ad-hoc fashion, often after realizing problems with their earlier ill-considered changes. This only added to the confusion. ¶10 Finally, at one of the court's internal conferences this past June, my colleagues shifted course. One of the four announced she was "withdrawing" her prior votes from the past two years (which, by the way, is not a thing) with the idea that every disputed change was now, all of a sudden, reversed. What changed? Again, it was no mystery. My colleagues wanted to take power away from then-Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. Such a move ensured that my colleagues would run the court through the administrative committee. Following the April 2025 election, they concluded they would have the votes to elect a chief justice of their choosing and have a block of votes to support her, so they no longer needed to seize those powers. This is not a cynical take. It is exactly what happened. ¶11 What's past is past, however. I have no desire to hold this against my colleagues, and I am grateful they have changed course. In fact, I was happy to work collaboratively on many operational changes reflected in this order, most of which I

When liberals secured a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2023, they changed internal procedures—over the objection of the conservative chief justice, who claimed they were taking away her power. Today the justices released MESSY details about the affair...
www.wicourts.gov/sc/rulhear/D...

The Trump administration made erroneous claims to the Supreme Court, mischaracterizing the responsiveness of local police and the actions of protesters in a filing asking the justices to sign off on the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops to Chicago, a New York Times investigation found. The emergency request, filed by the solicitor general, D. John Sauer, which draws heavily from court declarations made by two Homeland Security officials, misstates what happened in the aftermath of a car crash and shooting on Oct. 4 in Chicago that involved Border Patrol agents. A Times analysis of hours of police radio and hundreds of videos posted to social media refutes the federal government’s claims that the Chicago Police Department didn’t respond quickly to the scene, leaving federal agents to fend for themselves during what they called a riot.

This is the same playbook the Trump administration ran in Portland, where DHS officials falsely accused local police of failing to help them (or not arriving quickly enough). Strikes me as a problem that the government lies so freely to the Supreme Court now. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/u...

Screenshot of legal filing in J.G.G. v. Trump, listing, among other people, Emil Bove. They include: 1. Former Acting Deputy Director of OIL Erez Reuveni1 2. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign 3. Former Acting Director of OIL August Flentje 4. Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General James McHenry 5. Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul Perkins 6. Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security James Percival 7. Acting General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security Joseph Mazzara 8. Former Acting Assistant Attorney General (now Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General) Yaakov Roth 9. Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove

The lawyers in the Alien Enemies Act pending before Judge James Boasberg, who is proceeding with his contempt inquiry against the Trump administration, have recommended that he consider a number of "potential witnesses."

They include now-Judge Emil Bove.

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

It Turns Out Lindsey Halligan Was a Fake Prosecutor All Along This fight is not over.

Worth reiterating that what Trump tried to pull off with Halligan would, if successful, neutralize the Constitution’s appointments clause and allow him to install an endless series of insane and unqualified prosecutors without a single Senate vote. slate.com/news-and-pol...

Yes. 18 U.S.C. § 3288 should probably be repealed.

I agree bsky.app/profile/mjsd...

The language in the footnote refers to judicial tolling of the statute of limitations that is separate from § 3288 (but the discussion is not a model of clarity)

I agree ... although I anticipate some FVRA trickery to come

The footnote describes judicial tolling of the statute of limitations that is separate from the six-month grace period in § 3288.

I'm not sure if I totally buy that argument but I really love it

If the federal government brings an indictment within the statute of limitations, and that indictment is thrown out as defective, the government gets a six-month grace period (AFTER the statute of limitations has run) to bring a new, valid indictment.

Exactly right: bsky.app/profile/brad...

Put differently: The judge says Bondi couldn't ratify Halligan's invalid indictment after the statute of limitations had run.

The judge did NOT say that a future U.S. Attorney is prohibited from bringing a new, valid indictment within the six-month grace period prescribed by law.

As a practical matter, it may be that no validly appointed U.S. Attorney will be willing to indict Comey—that's why Trump installed Halligan in the first place. But nothing in today's decision, as I read it, bars them from trying.