Jamal Greene

AP and others *have* been on the ground and interviewing families and telling their stories, and the people on the boats appear to the mostly working class low-level people smuggling cocaine, not hardened cartel operatives bringing in fentanyl as the admin repeatedly has suggested.

Strangling the world-beating export industry which cross-subsidizes higher education for Americans. The White House says that's good news!

In light of how Purcell has been applied in election litigation, issuing a PI in a redistricting case before the dissent is filed seems to me not just a duty but a responsibility.

The Crimson is genuinely independent media, and based on historical trends, a typical Crimson masthead has an astounding amount of journalistic talent.

Indeed. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised.

I didn't say it would be relevant! But I imagine the theory would be (a) Callais could make 15th Am law, and (b) the impetus for the TX map is bound up in a (pretextual) DOJ letter threatening enforcement actions for alleged VRA violations, among other things.

Wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS stays this PI until it decides Callais, then blocks a new PI under Purcell. (IOW: don't get too excited.)

I think that didn't make it in. lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalys...

Snark aside, Bessent's statement is wildly, comically wrong.

I'm suddenly confused as to why the ACA was called "Obamacare."

The SG has filed his reply letter brief in the Chicago case involving the National Guard. I've already filed two briefs in the case that address the vast majority of what the SG writes here, but perhaps it's worthwhile to respond to a few discrete things. [1]

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

It seems like this shouldn’t be possible in a legal system in which principles of estoppel are pervasive.

This last point is what I’m thinking. Trump is trying to set up an Article II defense to releasing files to Congress.

I disagree with but was not surprised by the standing opinion. I think the UC AAUP case shows these are winnable and the Columbia AAUP case shows they are losable.

John Roberts was in private practice during Bush II until his appointment to the DC Circuit.

I have no inside info on the school’s willingness to litigate or its internal deliberations. I do think it had red lines, and I do think its leadership was less sanguine about likelihood of success in court than the consensus on this site (as I was as well, despite my own views about legality).

Eg, I don’t think Judge Vyskocil could write the same opinion (which was technically on standing but had much dicta about the merits) if schools were suing for breach of these agreements.

Yes, I get that. I’m saying the schools are in a different legal position in the face of such a hypothetical withholding than they were before these agreements, so (depending on specifics of the breach) their lawyers’ advice as to the likelihood of victory may differ. You may disagree.

I don’t think “resolve” is the only relevant variable. As a general matter, I would not assess the risk of losing on breach of these agreements anywhere near the same as losing on funding withdrawals or refusals to deal in their absence (much as I think those withdrawals were illegal).

The Cornell and Columbia ones both expire of their own force before the end of the Trump presidency. (Haven’t examined the others.)

Memorandum & Opinion – #148 in American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y., 1:25-cv-02429) – CourtListener.com OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING FOR LACK OF STANDING re: 24 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . filed by American Federation of Teachers, American Associatio...

FWIW, a parallel AAUP lawsuit was filed in Columbia’s case and it was dismissed in a very hostile opinion by a Trump appointee. Whatever we think of what these schools should have done, the legal risk is not imaginary. www.courtlistener.com/docket/69784...

Eldridge Cleaver wouldn’t have signed the Constitution either.

Not criticizing the story, just the headline framing, which makes it sound like he once put America first but some people think he doesn’t anymore, rather than some people think he once put America first and they have changed their mind.

NY Times headline: America First? Some Trump Supporters Worry That’s No Longer the Case

I’m slower than many others on here to rail against the Times, which I still think is the worst paper except for all the other ones, but man, some of these headlines.

Justice Dept. Struggled to Find Lawyers to Handle Maurene Comey Suit

DOJ, according to 3 people with knowledge of the matter, has struggled to determine which of its offices and lawyers will handle Ms. Comey’s lawsuit, leading to the highly unusual lapse. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal DOJ affairs.

New twist on "I'm your favorite player's favorite player."

Cliff Clavin from Cheers final jeopardy response: Who are 3 people who've never been in my kitchen?

For some reason, reminded today of Cliff Clavin's classic Final Jeopardy question: "Who are 3 people who've never been in my kitchen?"

A reminder that it's not the job of Justice Department lawyers to go after the President's political opponents.

The apotheosis of the "judiciary must defer to the POTUS" argument (?):

In the case involving the National Guard in Chicago, I've argued--and now Illinois/Chicago do, too--that b/c "the regular forces" in 10 USC 12406 means the standing armed forces (esp. the Army), ... [1]

@justsecurity.org

Lawsuit against House Oversight Dems incoming.