The Free State of Florida, where women who don’t want a C-Section will be dragged into a court proceeding *while in labor* to defend their choice.
Opening the opinion with quotes from Trump basically admitting that this investigation was pretext to pressure Powell into cutting rates? Power move.
Other judges auditioning for Alito's seat seem to tell Trump they'd be loyal to him on the Supreme Court.
This one seems to say he will BE Trump on the bench—aping the vulgar version of Trump from the Access Hollywood tape to prove he is totally incapable of shame. slate.com/news-and-pol...
YAY💫
Today at noon I'll be on a panel with the great @nateraymond.bsky.social about how we cover federal courts today. It'll be followed by a panel on state courts and then a panel of judges! Should be a great event—anyone can sign up here and submit questions: tinyurl.com/covering-cou...
Today at noon I'll be on a panel with the great @nateraymond.bsky.social about how we cover federal courts today. It'll be followed by a panel on state courts and then a panel of judges! Should be a great event—anyone can sign up here and submit questions: tinyurl.com/covering-cou...
This is a fantastic development and long overdue. Wonderful news!
A shocking number of people responding to this video clearly did not watch the video. David is extremely opposed to the Trump administration's terrorization of immigrant communities. He is describing serious problems with the current laws which make accountability difficult.
BREAKING: Former military lawyers say use of JAG lawyers in Minnesota violates the Posse Comitatus Act.
Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases.
New, at Law Dork:
Another reason why Bondi is trying to block state bars from investigating DOJ attorneys accused of ethics violations (which is itself illegal): slate.com/news-and-pol...
LINK!
Jordan Fox, the special attorney who admitted that her office violated a ton of court orders, was in fact serving illegally the whole time ... slate.com/news-and-pol...
His opinion was pretty mild in comparison to the others though, with the message of letting bygones be bygones
There is a very good chance that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will have a 6–1 Democratic majority by 2027.
At that point, the one remaining conservative justice would be Brian Hagedorn. He is a good guy and genuinely principled jurist; I'm not convinced Democrats should even try to oust him.
Justice Ziegler just announced that she won't run for re-election next year. With no incumbent, Democrats may have an easier time scooping up this seat. www.wkow.com/news/top-sto...
Some justices are afraid of applying the Sixth Amendment to supervised release violations because it would render these no-jury, no-reasonable-doubt trials unconstitutional. SCOTUS came one vote away from doing so with full force in US v. Haymond. Gorsuch is still pushing for it, rightfully so IMO.
![Bypassing juries, trials, and the reasonable doubt standard in this way may hold some obvious advantages for prosecutors. But whether this arrangement can be squared
with the Constitution is another thing. Under the Sixth
Amendment, this Court has held, “[o]ther than the fact of a
prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a
crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be
submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 (2000) (emphasis added); see also Erlinger v. United States, 602 U. S. 821,
833 (2024); United States v. Haymond, 588 U. S. 634, 644
(2019) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases). The Court’s
failure to grant review to address whether what happened
to Mr. Burnett complies with that Sixth Amendment rule is
unfortunate. I can only hope we will take up another case
like his soon—and that, in the meantime, lower courts will
more carefully consider the Sixth Amendment’s application
in this context. Respectfully, I dissent](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiepnaurpafoja6ygfye5iqqyipoxc7qgzghd7pgeudgalaaiu2ao4)
Gorsuch dissents from the Supreme Court's refusal to consider whether a judge (not a jury) can extend a person's prison sentence by finding, by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt), that he violated supervised release. (I agree with Gorsuch.) www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
The Supreme Court takes up one new case today, a challenge to the Air Force's disposal of toxic waste on a beach that's vital to Guam's endangered wildlife and local population. SCOTUS will review a lower court ruling against the Air Force.
www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
Or how about the secretary of state hanging out with a guy convicted of seditious conspiracy against the US?
A US submarine sinking a lonely, dinky Iranian surface ship an ocean away from the theater of the main conflict—and 9000
miles from North America—makes it pretty clear the US is fighting a general war, without the declaration required by the Constitution. www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...
(And for the record, I do have concerns about the NY court's order in the Malliotakis on the merits. I'm not at all convinced it's correct. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court can concoct jurisdiction out of thin air to intervene prematurely when that authority plainly does not exist.)
I would feel the same way if the Supreme Court issued a "liberal" shadow docket decision halting a conservative lower court order when it clearly lacked authority to do so. This is pretty basic stuff—it's hard to say SCOTUS is still functioning as a court when it acts without jurisdiction.
I agree, quite apart from the merits of the case. Alito could only defend the Supreme Court's authority to intervene by grievously misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that there's no plausible argument SCOTUS had the power to do what it did. Why didn't that matter to six justices?
NJ argued that NJ Transit was entitled to "interstate sovereign immunity" and could not be sued in other state courts. Today SCOTUS unanimously says no, NJ Transit isn't part of the state, so it can't claim that immunity, and CAN be sued in other state's courts. Big win for plaintiffs.
The second, final Supreme Court decision is Galette v. NJ Transit. Per Sotomayor's unanimous opinion, NJ Transit is NOT an arm of NJ and thus NOT entitled to sovereign immunity.
This is a very good ruling that allows civil suits against NJ Transit! I'm surprised www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
This is a win for the government and a loss for the immigrants, though certainly a very technical case. There will be more opinion(s)!
The Supreme Court's first decision is Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Per KBJ's unanimous opinion, the INA requires application
of the substantial-evidence standard to the BIA's conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.
'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...
2022: We worry that substantive due process lets judges impose their policy preferences under the guise of “fundamental rights” that don’t appear in the Constitution
2026: Surprise! The due process clause requires schools to out trans students to their parents. We found it hidden there all along!
