Mike Sacks

Protrust

Also, OFUUPOS

Make Psychopaths Political Liabilities Again

Trump supporters have repeatedly made terrorist threats to Republican state senators in Indiana who oppose Trump’s scheme to rig elections.

Where we are as a country

So you’re saying he’s the known known for our under-21s

This is wild

CA11 throws out lower court order blocking Georgia's ban on giving food and water to people waiting in line to vote, says lower court has to run the analysis again based on intervening SCOTUS precedent.

Unanimous, bipartisan panel (Obama/Trump/GWB)
storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/12/...

CA9 grants en banc rehearing, vacates panel decision, eliminates circuit split with CA2, and will likely agree that CA's background check requirement for ammunition purchases doesn't implicate/violate the 2nd Amendment

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

24-2481-cv Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. James United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2024 (Argued: June 24, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025) No. 24-2481-cv NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, GIANNA'S HOUSE, INC., CHOOSE LIFE OF JAMESTOWN, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS OPTIONS CARE CENTER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, - V.- LETITIA JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.* Before: BIANCO, LEE, and NATHAN, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant New York State Attorney General Letitia James (the "Attorney General") appeals an order, entered on August 22, 2024, by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (John L. Sinatra, Jr., Judge), granting the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiffs-

Appellees National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna's House, Inc., and Choose Life of Jamestown, Inc., doing business as Options Care Center. The NIFLA plaintiffs are non-profit, faith-based organizations that have made, and seek to continue to make, statements regarding abortion pill reversal, a protocol meant to counteract the effects of an abortion induced via oral medication. The NIFLA plaintiffs allege that, because the Attorney General has initiated a civil enforcement action in New York state court against entities not involved in this lawsuit for making statements that are the same as, or substantially similar to, statements the NIFLA plaintiffs have made, or wish to make, the NIFLA plaintiffs face a threat of sanctions if they continue to engage in this speech, and thus, have stopped doing so to avoid any liability. To prevent the Attorney General from regulating their speech, the NIFLA plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the regulation of their APR-related statements violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, the district court first addressed the Attorney General's threshold argument that it should abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction over this case pursuant to, among other doctrines, the abstention doctrine enumerated in Younger v. Harris. The district court concluded that abstention was not warranted under Younger because the issues in the instant case are not inextricably intertwined with the issues in the Attorney General's state civil enforcement action, and the federal case would not interfere with that state proceeding. With respect to the merits, the district court first determined that the NIFLA plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim because their APR-related statements are noncommercial speech,

and the Attorney General has not satisfied her burden to show that the efforts by the NY to restrict the speech would survive strict scrutiny. The district court then concluded that, among other reasons, because the NIFLA plaintiffs have likely suffered a constitutional injury, the other preliminary injunction requirements were satisfied. As an initial matter, we conclude that abstention under the Younger doctrine is not warranted because, as the district court correctly determined, the NIFLA plaintiffs' claims in the instant action are not inextricably intertwined with the claims at issue in the Attorney General's enforcement action, and the NIFLA plaintiffs' federal case does not interfere with that state proceeding. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. Specifically, we agree with the district court that the NIFLA plaintiffs have demonstrated, at this juncture and on this record, that they are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because their APR-related statements are noncommercial speech, and the Attorney General has not met her burden to demonstrate the State's regulatory conduct can survive strict scrutiny. The district court correctly determined that the speech at issue is noncommercial because, based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record, the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the NIFLA plaintiffs receive no remuneration or other financial benefit for engaging in it, and, as the NIFLA plaintiffs do not provide APR themselves, the speech serves only to provide the public with information about APR and access to third-party providers that can offer APR. We also discern no error in the district court's determination that, given that the NIFLA plaintiffs will likely establish that they have suffered a constitutional injury, the remaining preliminary injunction requirements have been met. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

CA2 affirms lower court order blocking NYAG from enforcing state fraud laws against religious pregnancy crisis centers that provide information about “abortion pill reversal” treatments.

Unanimous, bipartisan panel (Trump/Biden/Biden)

storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2025/12/...

HabbaOpn120125

BREAKING: 1st appeals court decision on controversial temporary US Attorney installations goes against Trump, 3-0. 3rd Circuit rejects bid to make Trump lawyer Alina Habba acting US attorney. Restrepo/ Smith/Fisher (Obama/GWB/GWB) Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

It was only a matter of time after SCOTUS split 4-4 on the constitutionality of religious charter schools in May until we got the next test case. Per this story, there are actually two cases in the works.

Barrett likely the deciding vote, so 1st Amend. church-public school separation in jeopardy.

And now Trump is claiming an FDR-style mandate to serve the New Deal’s villains.

Doing my part

Billboards and banner ads and social reels

Jefferson said 19 years!

Just gonna keep throwing this back in the replies

After I got laid off from HuffPost Live in Spring 2014, I pitched this multiplatform mock constitutional convention event at every broadcast meeting I took that summer, which is probably one of the reasons I ended up back in print by the fall. I still think it woulda been a hit, and very helpful.

I mean

IOW

…but they’re gonna keep trying

(And that’s even assuming the people he’s murdering on the high seas are who he says they are, which is not an assumption we should be making)

Consistent with his pro-boss / anti-worker position across the board

(TM @timdickinson.bsky.social)

This is how Hagueseth happens.

Choose your waveriders.

When he’s in office people hate him and his enablers.

Remember that 2018 and 2020 elections happened, and the chaos, corruption, criming, cruelty, and incompetence are orders of magnitude worse now.

Their only hope to retain power is to mess with our elections. We won’t let them, and we will win.

Monday Night Oversight’s January 2027 premiere is gonna beat MNF and RAW across every viewership metric

Beyond depraved: "Hours after her detainment, court documents obtained by ABC News show that a federal judge ordered the government not to remove the 19-year-old from the U.S. and not to transfer her outside of Massachusetts. But Lopez Belloza was deported to Honduras the next day."