Mike Sacks

Tyrants all the way down

And now, deja vu?

In which SCOTUS Republicans created the conditions for their political allies to negate our multiracial democracy and perpetuate their power:

Rucho v Common Cause (2019)
Abbott v Perez (2018)
Alexander v SC NAACP (2024)
Shelby County v Holder (2013)
Louisiana v Callais (likely 2026)

Extreme partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but federal courts cannot police them.

Racist gerrymanders are unconstitutional, but they’re really just partisan gerrymanders.

Anyway the Voting Rights Act’s remedies for racist gerrymanders are unconstitutional.

The Roberts Court did this.

KAGAN, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 18-422, 18-726 ROBERT A. RUCHO, ET AL., APPELLANTS 18-422 U. COMMON CAUSE, ET AL.; AND ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA LINDA H. LAMONE, ET AL., APPELLANTS 18-726 U. 0. JOHN BENISEK, ET AL. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND [June 27, 2019] JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting. For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people. These gerrymanders enabled politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters' preferences. They promoted parti-

sanship above respect for the popular will. They encouraged a politics of polarization and dysfunction. If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government. And checking them is not beyond the courts. The majority's abdication comes just when courts across the country, including those below, have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. Those standards satisfy the majority's own benchmarks. They do not require-indeed, they do not permit-courts to rely on their own ideas of electoral fairness, whether proportional representation or any other. And they limit courts to correcting only egregious gerrymanders, so judges do not become omnipresent players in the political process. But yes, the standards used here do allow—as well they should-judicial intervention in the worst-of-the-worst cases of democratic subversion, causing blatant constitutional harms. In other words, they allow courts to undo partisan gerrymanders of the kind we face today from North Carolina and Maryland. In giving such gerrymanders a pass from judicial review, the majority goes tragically wrong.

And gerrymandering is, as so many Justices have emphasized before, anti-democratic in the most profound sense. See supra, at 7-8. In our government, "all political power flows from the people." Arizona State Legislature, 576 U.S., at _ _ (slip op., at 35). And that means, as Alexander Hamilton once said, "that the people should choose whom they please to govern them." 2 Debates on the Constitution 257 (J. Elliot ed. 1891). But in Maryland and North Carolina they cannot do so. In Maryland, election in and election out, there are 7 Democrats and 1 Republican in the congressional delegation. In North Carolina, however the political winds blow, there are 10

Republicans and 3 Democrats. Is it conceivable that someday voters will be able to break out of that prefabricated box? Sure. But everything possible has been done to make that hard. To create a world in which power does not flow from the people because they do not choose their governors. Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent.

PS Mike turns somethingsomething years old today and I encourage you to give his campaign a Happy Birthday Mike Donation 🤗

43!

CA9 panel refuses to stay lower court order blocking Trump’s “Operation At Large” in LA OF roving patrols of armed federal immigration personnel stopping and terrifying people without reasonable suspicion of undocumented status other than, well, racism.

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

As with the case in TX, standing will be the ballgame, especially on the stupid taxing clause argument.

And the plaintiffs’ theory of injury is that they’re snowflakes afraid of background checks.

Looks like the NRA didn’t want to get left out of the action, and filed a similar suit in Missouri, adding a 2nd Amendment argument against the National Firearm Law of 1934’s restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles for good measure storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Looks like the NRA didn’t want to get left out of the action, and filed a similar suit in Missouri, adding a 2nd Amendment argument against the National Firearm Law of 1934’s restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles for good measure storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

They’re late to the show storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, BLACKROCK, INC., STATE STREET CORPORATION, VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Defendants. con cos cos con con cos con con con con! Case No. 6:24-cv-437-JDK MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS "Federal antitrust law is a central safeguard for the Nation's free market structures." North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. 494, 502 (2015). Indeed, antitrust laws "are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms." United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 610 (1972). Thus, antitrust law does not yield to the prevailing social policy of the day. See NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69, 94-95 (2021); United States v. Phila. Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 371 (1963). This case brings these principles into focus. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants BlackRock, Inc.; State Street Corporation; and Vanguard Group, Inc., "acquired substantial stockholdings in every significant publicly held coal producer in the United States" and agreed to use their holdings to influence these companies and

artificially depress the output of coal. Docket No. 50 11 1, 3-4. Defendants allegedly did so in the name of "environmental stewardship" and "concern for the climate." Id. 17. The result, Plaintiffs assert, is that "Defendants have reaped the rewards of higher returns, higher fees, and higher profits, while American consumers have paid the price in higher utility bills and higher costs." Id. 1 1. Plaintiffs allege violations of both state and federal antitrust laws, id. 11 250-309, and they seek damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution, among other forms of relief. Id. at 107-10. Plaintiffs further allege that BlackRock separately violated state consumer protection laws by advertising certain funds as not following an "ESG investment strategy" while using the funds to pursue an ESG agenda through engagements and proxy voting. See id. 11 197-207, 310-42. Defendants move to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket Nos. 64; 66; 67. Defendants argue that they are mere passive investors that cannot be liable under the Clayton Act based on their acquisition of stock. Docket No. 64 at 8-9. They further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege any plausible agreement among Defendants to unlawfully harm competition in violation of the Sherman Act. Id. at 8. And they argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege any plausible harm to competition, as necessary under both statutes. Id. at 8-9. BlackRock also separately moves to dismiss the consumer protection claims, contending that the governing statutes exempt securities transactions and that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim in any event. Docket No. 65.

As explained below, the Court largely denies Defendants' motions. At this stage in the proceeding, the Court must assume that Plaintiffs' allegations are true. See Neiman v. Bulmahn, 854 F.3d 741, 746 (5th Cir. 2017). And here, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants acquired significant amounts of stock in coal companies and then used their market power to pressure the companies to decrease coal production. Plaintiffs' allegations, moreover, are not vague and conclusory but include dozens of specific examples of Defendants' conduct supporting their theory. For example, Defendants allegedly joined certain "climate initiatives" in which they publicly committed to use their stock to "take necessary action on climate change" and "reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Docket No. 50 1 117. These commitments allegedly included striving for "all assets under management to achieve net zero emissions" —meaning "coal production declines towards zero"—and "immediately ceasing all financial or other support to coal companies [l" expanding production. Id. 11 115, 120, 131. Defendants allegedly affirmed these commitments through public statements, such as BlackRock's "asking companies to set short-, medium-, and long-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions," Vanguard's asking companies with significant coal exposure how they "set targets in alignment" with the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Pact, and State Street's creating ESG scores for companies and telling them that their score "will soon effectively be as important as (their] credit rating." Id. 11 139, 166, 168. Defendants then allegedly followed through on those commitments by voting against directors at the coal

companies for failing to have "adequate climate risk disclosures" or through engagements with coal company leadership. Id. 11 157-58, 160, 168-72, 174, 177. All of that adequately states a violation of the Clayton Act. Defendants claim that they are entitled to the statutory safe harbor for passive investors. But the safe harbor is unavailable to investors who, as Defendants allegedly did, use their stock through proxy voting or otherwise to bring about or attempt to bring about the substantial lessening of competition. Plaintiffs have also plausibly stated claims under the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs have identified enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Defendants agreed to collectively pressure coal companies to reduce the output of coal in the relevant markets and disclose future output information. Defendants allegedly engaged in parallel conduct, such as BlackRock's and Vanguard's joining one of the climate initiatives on the exact same day, with State Street's joining just a few weeks later. Id. 11 132, 137, 143. And Plaintiffs allege plus factors suggestive of an agreement, such as Defendants' shared moral imperative to combat climate change. See id. 11 7, 115-51. Plaintiffs further claim that Defendants' actions decreased output and increased prices in the relevant coal markets between 2019 and 2022. Indeed, the relevant coal companies collectively decreased output by about 18-19% while the average market price increased by about 21-25%. See id. 11 228-29. Finally, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged consumer protection claims against BlackRock under the laws of Texas, Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska. The remaining state laws do not apply, and those claims are thus dismissed. Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss Counts I-XVII and XXI are DENIED. The motions are GRANTED as to Counts XVIII, XIX, and XX, which are DISMISSED.

Trump judge says Texas can move forward with its “ESG investing violates federal antitrust laws” lawsuit with other Republican states because of course he does

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

As I was saying

As I was saying

As predicted

The Roberts Majority is going to kill off what remains of the Voting Rights Act before the 2026 Midterms www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

When Republicans hold power, they hurt people, tank the economy, and then distort our democracy to preserve their power because hurting people and tanking the economy is unpopular.

WOW. Internal emails obtained by @haleaziz.bsky.social reveal how the State Department scrambled to figure out a PR strategy after they realized the implications of having gotten a triple murderer released from prison decades early.

He is current living free in the U.S. thanks to the Trump admin.

Another challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship-stripping EO heading back towards SCOTUS:

The other cases heading back towards SCOTUS could each present the Roberts majority with more excuses to delay reaching the merits by first tackling threshold questions that Trump v. CASA left open

Today's CA1 appeal comes up from the one district court that did not enter a universal injunction against Trump.

That makes this case a much cleaner vehicle for SCOTUS to address the merits and issue a ruling that binds all lower courts.

Unless, of course, they say plaintiffs don't have standing.

CA1's live audio stream begins at 3pm: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bibc...

Narrowly, this is a straightforward case of statutory interpretation and agency rationality. Neither the applicable statutes nor principles of reasoned decision-making authorizes the challenged agency actions. More broadly, this case presents a question of fair play. Plaintiffs’ members, and hundreds of thousands of others like them, fled oppressive regimes and perilous conditions in their home countries. They arrived for inspection at the United States border pursuant to procedures created and advocated by the U.S. Government. They were paroled into this country under those procedures and given the chance to prove their claims for asylum or other relief authorized by our laws. In a world of bad options, they played by the rules. Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so. This case’s underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules. Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that—as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers

🚨🚨🚨Fed. judge holds that DHS' expansion of the use of expedited removal to sweep up noncitizens in ordinary removal proceedings likely violates the APA and is stayed (that is, blocked) for all people who have been, at any time, paroled into the United States at a point of entry.

Mike Sacks for Congress Mike Sacks is running for Congress to bring honest, accountable leadership to Washington. Learn more about his vision for bold, people-first policies and his commitment to fighting for working familie...

Get yourself a Congressperson who won’t let the President steal your money.

The Republican-controlled Congress coulda stepped up to defend the judges who vindicated its power of the purse…

As Judge McConnell wrote, “The Executive put itself above Congress.”

All because dude dared unfreeze illegally frozen federal funds that went towards helping people