Debra Johnson

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, "lost mail" and "intentionally withheld mail" are basically the same thing for sovereign immunity purposes under the Federal Tort Claims Act

So if racists won't deliver your mail, you can't sue the govt for FTCA damages

ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/posta...

Do missing Epstein documents show Trump is covering up sexual assault? It sure looks like it OPINION: It is surreal to say the president of the United States is an accused pedophile — and that the DOJ, together with the Republican Party, seems intent on killing that story.

I've got an op-ed up in the SF Chronicle about the (latest) cover-up in the Epstein files, & how Trump's abuse of DOJ & law enforcement is an outgrowth of SCOTUS's immunity opinion that gave Trump free rein at DOJ: www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/open...

Supreme Court rulings prove partisan panic is misguided | Opinion The Supreme Court's decision against tariffs is more proof the court's conservative majority isn't a monolith that bends to Trump's will.

In seeking to buttress the Supreme Court, this piece mistakenly says the court used the major questions doctrine against Trump the same way it did against Biden even though only three justices actually signed on to that part of the tariffs ruling.

www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...

"The Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt—again and again and again—to force the United States government to comply with court orders," he writes.

In back and forth over migrant detention case, U.S. District Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz in MN (a Bush appointee) unloads on the government, noting that ICE has violated over 100 court orders. "One way or another, ICE will comply with this Court’s orders," the he writes, threatening contempt. 🧵

Attached to this order as Appendix A is the result of the Court's attempt to verify the accuracy of the assertions made in the January 28 order. Appendix A includes only cases that appeared in the appendix to the January 28 order. The Court did in fact find -3- CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM • Doc. 12 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 6 some mistakes— mistakes that cut both ways. But the bottom line is that ICE violated 97 orders in 66 of the cases referred to in the January 28 order. The January 28 order had identified "96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases." ECF No. 10 at 2. Obviously, the January 28 order was not "beyond the pale of accuracy," as claimed by Rosen.

Finally, in his February 9 email, Rosen said: For our part, we commit to the court that we will redouble our efforts to achieve compliance by our client across the board. The truth is that efforts we have already been undertaking for weeks have led to considerable improvement - efforts which have apparently gone unrecognized by some on the bench, even though the numbers prove them out. We will continue to try to find the ways to improve. This, too, appears to be untrue. Attached as Appendix B is a list of additional cases in which ICE has violated court orders, most of which violations occurred after entry of the January 28 order. Despite Rosen's assurance of "redoubled]" efforts that have "led to considerable improvement," Appendix B documents 113 additional orders that ICE has violated in 77 additional cases - again, above and beyond the 97 orders that ICE violated in the 66 cases identified in Appendix A.

In addition to reviewing his prior cited cases, Schiltz presents more than 100 additional instances of noncompliance.

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

As noted, Rosen asserted in his email that "[t]he lawyers in my civil division didn't deserve" the supposedly inaccurate January 28 order. Putting aside the fact that the January 28 order was not inaccurate, Rosen failed to mention that this Court said the following in the show-cause order that preceded the January 28 order: The Court expresses its appreciation to attorney Ana Voss and her colleagues [in the civil division], who have struggled mightily to ensure that respondents comply with court orders despite the fact that respondents have failed to provide them with adequate resources. ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1. The judges of this District have been extraordinarily patient with the government attorneys, recognizing that they have been put in an impossible position by Rosen and his superiors in the Department of Justice (leading many of those attorneys- including, unfortunately, Ana Voss- to resign). What those attorneys "didn't deserve" was the Administration sending 3000 ICE agents to Minnesota to detain people without making any provision for handling the hundreds of lawsuits that were sure to follow.

If anything is "beyond the pale," it is ICE's continued violation of the orders of this Court. Increasingly, this Court has had to resort to using the threat of civil contempt to force ICE to comply with orders. The Court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt -again and again and again - to force the United States government to comply with court orders. -5- CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM Doc. 12 Filed 02/26/26 Page 6 of 6 This Court will continue to do whatever is required to protect the rule of law, including, if necessary, moving to the use of criminal contempt. One way or another, ICE will comply with this Court's orders. Dated: February 26, 2026 (s/ Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court

BREAKING: Judge Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota threatens criminal contempt, if necessary, to address ICE noncompliance in an order calling out U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen's response to Schiltz's earlier questions about noncompliance with court orders.

"ICE will comply with this Court's orders."

looking forward to the scene where majors looks directly at the camera and recites quotes from thomas sowell

Israeli settlers torch and deface a West Bank mosque during Ramadan Palestinian Authority officials say Israeli settlers have attacked a West Bank mosque. They set a small fire and spray-painted anti-Islamic insults.

Category: what starts wars.
apnews.com/article/isra...

The world order we’re leaving behind may be replaced by no order at all | Eduardo Porter In the world being ushered in by Trump, power will prevail over cooperation. We will come to rue having taken this path

We will come to rue having taken this path. History seems pretty clear that a world of roaming great powers is not particularly safe nor prosperous.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i...

Homeland Security suspends TSA PreCheck and Global Entry airport security programs The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is suspending the TSA PreCheck and Global Entry airport security programs as a partial government shutdown continues.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is suspending the TSA PreCheck and Global Entry airport security programs as a partial government shutdown continues.

‘We want to rebuild trust’: fired CDC workers form group to combat Trump’s war on science Former employees stepped up to create the National Public Health Coalition to advocate for public health after Trump’s cuts to the agency

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...

Denmark Rejects Trump’s Plan to Send Hospital Boat to Greenland

'Denmark Rejects Trump’s Plan to Send Hospital Boat to Greenland'

Send it to Gaza, FFS. Or Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/22/u...

Why does Trump do anything? Because he can and there are no consequences until we take back the Senate and the House.

Myth, monsters and making sense of a disenchanted world: why everyone is reading fantasy I have made the leap from literary fiction to fantasy – for those who think it’s mere wish-fulfilment, here’s why we need that thing with the dragons

"we’re hopelessly metaphorical creatures, who find meaning by tying together patterns of resemblance that might as well be spells. That knows there are some struggles where the stakes really are overwhelming, and good and evil in something like their pure forms really do pivot on human choices."

Did Trump list removing Black professionals from their positions in his Black History month speech?

Trump warns Netflix of ‘consequences’ unless it pulls top Democrat from board US president calls for removal of Susan Rice as streaming platform pursues takeover of Warner Bros Discovery

Trump warns Netflix of ‘consequences’ unless it pulls top Democrat from board

US president calls for removal of Susan Rice as streaming platform pursues takeover of Warner Bros Discovery www.theguardian.com/media/2026/f...

The Supreme Court tariffs ruling is basically Chief Justice John Roberts saying the Trump Economy is too fucked up to be legal

ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/trump...

Hudson was appointed to the court by Dem Governor Dayton a decade; she faces mandatory retirement in early 2027.

White House, Minnesota Supreme Court chief justice quietly negotiated deal over ICE enforcement in courts Four days later, chaos unfolded inside the Hennepin County Government Center.

! Trump’s administration struck a secret deal with Minnesota’s Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. It was followed by chaotic scenes days later as ICE detained folks. www.startribune.com/white-house-...

Screenshot of post that says: "Now, with some distance from Friday, I watched the press conference. This might be one of the most important presidential remarks about the Supreme Court since FDR's Court-Packing address. Of course, it is done in Trump's inimitable style with dripping vitriol, but as Trump often does, he says the things we all think but are simply unsayable in polite company. People need to focus less on how Trump says things and more on what he actually says."

It's time for another episode of "which law professor wrote this latest nonsense"?

Varad Mehta ‹ @varadmehta X.com John Roberts upholding Barack Obama's signature policy achievement but striking down Donald Trump's is the kind of thing that gets remembered. And not, I imagine, in any way that over the long term will be good for the Supreme Court.

I try to avoid petty insults. But anyone who equates a new federal statute duly enacted through bicameralism and present pursuant to Article I, Section 7 (Obamacare) with an executive order that unilaterally implements a president’s whims with no congressional input (IEEPA tariffs) is an idiot.

Texas Primaries are open. If you really want change, try voting for the Black woman, Jasmine Crockett, who is running on helping working ppl instead of her religion. You know her record.
You know his and you know he doesn't want to rebalance SCOTUS.

The Tariffs Case Is a Preview of Bigger Supreme Court Fights to Come The conservative justices spent four years using the major questions doctrine to thwart a Democratic president. They are carefully reserving the power to do it again.

"Trump went on to praise Kavanaugh, who wrote the principal dissent in Learning Resources, for his 'genius' and 'great ability,' which is instantly, effortlessly ruder to Kavanaugh than anything I have ever said about him."

@jaywillis.net, on yesterday's SCOTUS and POTUS happenings.

Supreme Court Declares Trump Economy Too Fucked Up to Be Legal The conservative justices will tolerate a lot of lawbreaking from the Trump administration. But not when it affects their wallets.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act let's presidents “regulate” imports in order to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat," which Trump thought meant stuff like drug trafficking, trade deficits, and women being insufficiently polite to him

ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/trump...

Utah Supreme Court Dismisses Utah Legislature's Appeal of Ruling That the Legislature Could Not Overturn Fair Redistricting Enacted by Utah Voters #ELB You can find the order dismissing on technical grounds at this link.

Utah Supreme Court Dismisses Utah Legislature’s Appeal of Ruling That the Legislature Could Not Overturn Fair Redistricting Enacted by Utah Voters electionlawblog.org?p=154441

In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court's decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others. As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a "mess. " Tr. of Oral Arg. 153-155. In addition, according to the Government, the IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more. The Court's decision could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements.

So the Court's decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. But the Court's decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds. Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a "mess," as was acknowledged at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 153-155. A second issue is the decision's effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court's decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult.

Kind of weird how Kavanaugh repeats himself at the beginning and end of his tariff dissent—these two passages are remarkably similar, almost like AI rewrote one of them with some minimal variation. (Not saying that happened! Just odd.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Supreme Court, on a 6-3 vote, blocks Trump's IEEPA tariffs Chief Justice John Roberts found that there actually are structural limits on the president's powers.

More on the ruling: www.lawdork.com/p/supreme-co...

Of course, that’s not tariff policy. It’s not good. And it’s a shitty way to run a country.

But, that is the problem those tariffs are meant to solve: Trump’s loss, a domestic political problem.

Justin is right, but the problem they are to solve is right there.

Trump doesn’t want to lose. The problem this was meant to solve is that he lost.

So, whether something is effective or lasting is irrelevant. Trump was able to claim, on Friday, a win — show that he was not stymied by SCOTUS.