Jared

YouTube video by Guardian News 'You’ve got no rights’: teenage US citizen records violent arrest by immigration officers

Would love to know what triggers the $30k bonuses:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX7I...

Finally, some good news.

I live down the street from O’Melvney and could go for you. But I’ll only be in town Aug 11-19 this month. If that works for you just dm me for my address

1 REPLY This Petition presents one purely legal question: Is the Seventh Amendment's civil-jury right incorporated against the states? As Petitioners explained, Seventh Amendment incorporation is an issue of national importance that has been foreclosed by precedent since before this Court recognized the incorporation of any protections in the Bill of Rights. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). In response, Humboldt County does not dispute the issue's national importance. It does not dispute that Bombolis was wrongly decided. And it does not dispute that, given Bombolis, only this Court can decide whether the civil-jury right is incorporated. Regardless of the answer, the Question Presented is a compelling candidate for review. Unable to undermine the issue's importance, the County makes two moves. First, it slips in a second question presented (BIO i): the merits of Petitioners' Seventh Amendment claim, which the courts below could not consider under Bombolis. It then offers reasons not to resolve the very question it impermissibly added. Second, the County urges this Court to simply wait and incorporate the civil-jury right later. And it's no wonder. For places like Humboldt, juryless enforcement actions are big business. The longer the Court waits to decide the incorporation question, the longer these governments can profit from their deprivation of a fundamental right.

Remarkably, the County also suggests (BIO 42) that juries are bad for the accused. Compared to the sophisticated parties in Jarkesy, the County frets, residents in Humboldt County are generally too "poor" and "unsophisticated" for jury trials. It warns that providing a jury would force "[f)ixed-income retirees such as the Thomases" to hire a lawyer. Of course, 12 incorporating the Seventh Amendment would in no way require defendants to demand a jury. Moreover, the County's claim of benevolent paternalism ignores that people fined millions of dollars (including Peti-tioners) will feel pressure to lawyer up regardless of whether there's a jury. Culpability. Finally, the County suggests (BIO 36-37, 45) this case is a bad vehicle because the government has already determined that Petitioners are bad actors making "feverish" claims that the district court found "implausible." See also BIO 27 (detailing the district court's since-reversed treatment of Petitioners' other claims). Faced with similar arguments, the Ninth Circuit viewed "the district court's dismissive-ness of Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations" as "cause for concern." Pet. App. 16a. More to the point: The County's insistence that "Petitioners are culpable" and "directly responsible" for the alleged violations (BIO 7, 20, 36) highlights the importance of the civil jury as "an especially vital shield for liberty in *** suits between private citizens and the government."

We filed our reply in Thomas v. Humboldt County, asking the Court to incorporate the Seventh Amendment.

The County argued our clients were too poor, unsophisticated, and guilty to need a jury.

www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-f...

1 REPLY This Petition presents one purely legal question: Is the Seventh Amendment's civil-jury right incorporated against the states? As Petitioners explained, Seventh Amendment incorporation is an issue of national importance that has been foreclosed by precedent since before this Court recognized the incorporation of any protections in the Bill of Rights. See Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916). In response, Humboldt County does not dispute the issue's national importance. It does not dispute that Bombolis was wrongly decided. And it does not dispute that, given Bombolis, only this Court can decide whether the civil-jury right is incorporated. Regardless of the answer, the Question Presented is a compelling candidate for review. Unable to undermine the issue's importance, the County makes two moves. First, it slips in a second question presented (BIO i): the merits of Petitioners' Seventh Amendment claim, which the courts below could not consider under Bombolis. It then offers reasons not to resolve the very question it impermissibly added. Second, the County urges this Court to simply wait and incorporate the civil-jury right later. And it's no wonder. For places like Humboldt, juryless enforcement actions are big business. The longer the Court waits to decide the incorporation question, the longer these governments can profit from their deprivation of a fundamental right.

Remarkably, the County also suggests (BIO 42) that juries are bad for the accused. Compared to the sophisticated parties in Jarkesy, the County frets, residents in Humboldt County are generally too "poor" and "unsophisticated" for jury trials. It warns that providing a jury would force "[f)ixed-income retirees such as the Thomases" to hire a lawyer. Of course, 12 incorporating the Seventh Amendment would in no way require defendants to demand a jury. Moreover, the County's claim of benevolent paternalism ignores that people fined millions of dollars (including Peti-tioners) will feel pressure to lawyer up regardless of whether there's a jury. Culpability. Finally, the County suggests (BIO 36-37, 45) this case is a bad vehicle because the government has already determined that Petitioners are bad actors making "feverish" claims that the district court found "implausible." See also BIO 27 (detailing the district court's since-reversed treatment of Petitioners' other claims). Faced with similar arguments, the Ninth Circuit viewed "the district court's dismissive-ness of Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations" as "cause for concern." Pet. App. 16a. More to the point: The County's insistence that "Petitioners are culpable" and "directly responsible" for the alleged violations (BIO 7, 20, 36) highlights the importance of the civil jury as "an especially vital shield for liberty in *** suits between private citizens and the government."

We filed our reply in Thomas v. Humboldt County, asking the Court to incorporate the Seventh Amendment.

The County argued our clients were too poor, unsophisticated, and guilty to need a jury.

www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-f...

I was in Alabama last week talking to construction workers about ICE raids.

Legal status is a start but won’t stop the raids, because ICE is arresting brown workers regardless of their legal status or citizenship.

Literally climbing through open windows at construction sites without warrants.

But have you blogged in defense of Merrick Garland?

Congrats!

Migrants at Ice jail in Miami made to kneel to eat ‘like dogs’, report alleges Incident in which migrants were shackled with hands tied of one succession of alleged abuses at jails in Florida

Migrants at a Miami immigration jail were shackled with their hands tied behind their backs and made to kneel to eat food from styrofoam plates “like dogs”, per a report from Human Rights Watch

Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing convinced me to tone down my verbs

There’s at least 3 parts: grammar/usage, conveying complex issues clearly, & style.

1st is straightforward; 2d Garner’s “deep issue” is useful.

3d goes to the “read good writers.” Look for sentence length, unnecessary words, colloquial vs formalist, dependence on adjectives, use of conjunctions

'Alligator Alcatraz' detainees say in new lawsuit they're being denied access to their attorneys The lawsuit says attorneys have been repeatedly turned away from the detention camp and had virtual meetings mysteriously canceled.

Wrote this week about Florida's prison camp:

Group Says Billboards Opposing 'Alligator Alcatraz' Taken Down Under Political Pressure reason.com/2025/07/16/i...

Squalid Conditions, Lack of Legal Access reason.com/2025/07/16/l...

Lawsuit Filed Over Legal Access reason.com/2025/07/17/a...

The rules
orbooks.com/catalog/we-h...

We’re doing our best to track them internally as we try to find clients, build cases.

There’s a fairly thorough but incomplete Wikipedia page, too:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detenti...

YouTube video by Institute for Justice ARRESTED for Telling Trespasser to Get Off Porch (BOGUS Warrant)

I sat down to discuss how @ij.org is working to put the Oath and Affirmation back into the Fourth Amendments' Oath or Affirmation Clause:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hTQ...

I would not have been able to go to law school under these caps, and that was 20 years ago.

They're wealth-gating a profession, and you know who that helps.

ICE can go around arresting any brown person they see without a warrant because SCOTUS got rid of Bivens and the exclusionary rule in removal cases.

The Constitution is useless if the Court won’t let us enforce it.

tempted to ask how we got here but we all saw it. we were cooked long before we started debating whether it's okay for militarized cops to summarily execute people in the street. we got so comfortable demanding compliance that compliance became our nature. this is a global disgrace.

@ij.org puts all our briefs on the webpage for each case. You can also browse by looking at the page for attorney and issue area.

There’s a lot of polished writers with a wide range of styles.

The decision didn’t just shift power from lower courts to the exec; it also shifted more power to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS ensured it’s the only court that can grant emergency nat’l relief against the exec.

And it’ll do so through its discretionary, often unreasoned shadow docket. That’s the threat.

It’s also the insistence that the Constitution imported British judicial practices that were designed alongside tyrannical rule.

There’s also a refusal to see how all these rulings work together.

For every bad decision there’s a liberal law prof minimizing the effects of one specific doctrine without regard for how it advances the court’s longterm project.

law professors have been unable to understand why people are actually concerned about this case. it’s not about nationwide injunctions per se, it’s about a court that waited until the issue hurt the GOP, and then intervened on behalf of one of the most egregious constitutional violations we’ve seen

This all puts an incredible amount of faith in the Court not restricting the alternatives.

The majority is also hostile to class actions; Thomas just invited challenges to associational standing; and courts deny nationwide prelim relief in APA cases, despite the vacatur provision.

And given the case (and moment) the Court chose to eliminate nationwide relief.

This same court is vacating more limited PIs against the admin on an emergency basis.

Maybe look up all the scholarship on what the Notwithstanding Clause means and how it undermines the restrictions the Court has put on civil-right suits.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

www.californialawreview.org/print/qualif...

www.cato.org/blog/judge-w...

2 MEDINA v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC THOMAS, J., concurring ceeded its original limits. Section 1983 originated as a nar-row, Reconstruction era statute. Congress enacted §1983 as §1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13. The 1871 Act was designed "to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," ibid., "in response to an ongoing pattern of violence and intimidation" against former slaves, W. Baude, J. Goldsmith, J. Manning, J. Pfander, & A. Tyler, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1279 (8th ed. 2025) (Hart & Wechsler). In its original form, §1983 provided a means by which private plaintiffs could obtain redress from state and local officials for certain constitutional violations: "Be it enacted... That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be sub-jected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunitio * secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall ... be liable to the party injured in any action at law tin equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ' 17 Stat. 13. In 1874, Congress extended §1983's reach to some statutory violations, amending the language on "rights, privi-leges, or immunities" to encompass "rights ... secured by the Constitution and laws." Rev. Stat. §1979 (emphasis added). Congress made this change as part of a general 1874 revision that aimed to "simplify, organize, and consolidate all federal statutes" into a single volume. Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U. S. 600, 624 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring). In undertaking this revi-sion, Congress "did not intend... to alter the content of federal statutory law," id., at 625, but only to "reproduc[e]" the "existing laws," with "such additions ... as shall give to

FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. C. 22. 1871. 13 CHAP. XXII. - An Act to enfurce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the April 20, 1871. Constitution of the United Stales, and for other Purposes. Any person Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United any law, &c. of States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who, under any State, de-color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any oriviy rint, er. State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person within the secured by the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privi. Constitution of the United leges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, States, made the Sate oh lawraiy we, ordinance gee isle cute party injured ligio to the pare Proceedings to in, any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for be in the courts redress; such proceeding to be prosecuted in the several district or cir- of the United cuit courts of the United States, with and subject to the same rights of states, 1866, ch. 31. appeal, review upon error, and other remedies provided in like cases in Penalty Po. 27. such courts, under the provisions of the act of the ninth of April, eigh conspiring by teen hundred and sixty-six, entitled " An act to protect all persons in the force to put United States in their civil rights, and to furnish the means of tifeir vin- dent th gover-dication"; and the other remedial laws of the United States which are United States, in their nature applicable in such cases.

Yesterday in Medina, Justice Thomas argued that the Court interprets civil “rights” too broadly.

But he deleted the part of the law that shows the opposite is true.

Is it originalism or textualism that lets you omit original text that undermines your policy presence?

Indistinguishable from an occupying army