Gabriel Malor

This was the third time that Judge Xinis had ordered DOJ to produce someone who could actually testify to support its claims, and it was the third time DOJ failed to produce someone who could actually testify to support its claims.

The official position of the United States government is that swastikas aren't hate symbols and displaying a Pride flag is a fireable offense.

This is not ambiguous signaling.

State-sponsored discrimination encourages private discrimination.

That's the argument they ultimately need the judge to agree with: that there's no problem because the GJ true billed those counts when they no-billed the original Count One.

The problem is . . it doesn't appear that the second two-count indictment was presented, which is a constitutional requirmt.

They're implying that the grand jury didn't need to vote again on the repackaged two-count indictment bc they voted on those counts when it was the original three-count indictment. But they're not even coming right out and making the argument. They just keep implying it.

But they're even fucking up that part. Here they insist "Counts Two and Three were true-billed."

BUT the operative indictment is the two-count indictment (repackaged Counts One and Two), WHICH STILL APPEARS TO HAVE NEVER BEEN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY.

If a federal judge wrote in a decision that I was a lying liar who lied in testimony, I would be pretty fucking nervous.

4 On November 20, the government filed a notice purporting to correct the record and asserting that, according to the transcript of the grand jury return proceeding, the two-count indictment was presented to the grand jury. ECF No. 206. That notice contradicts numerous other representations to this Court. The cited exchange in the grand jury proceeding does not support the government’s new account and to the extent the two-count indictment was presented to the grand jury, there is no record of that presentment. Contra Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(1).

Comey also points out that the government's new notice "correcting the record" regarding whether the two-count indictment was ever presented to the grand jury is contradicted by the grand jury transcript itself.

Tucked into a separate filing from Comey today is a footnote notifying the district court that "The absence of a valid charging instrument will be the basis of a forthcoming motion to dismiss."

9 The Court also notes that, in at least one instance, an agent asked ChatGPT to compile a narrative for a report based off of a brief sentence about an encounter and several images. Axon_Body_4_Video_2025- 10-03_0949_D01A2556T at 00:00–00:42. To the extent that agents use ChatGPT to create their use of force reports, this further undermines their credibility and may explain the inaccuracy of these reports when viewed in light of the BWC footage.

Of course one of these morons used ChatGPT to write a use of force report. Of. Course.

But also venue isn't jurisdictional, so sometimes PFRs get heard in unusual places. for reasons.

This is not actually the law for venue in the 4th Cir. (But there is a circuit split on this and the BIA has its own contrary precedent too.)

In the 4th Cir., the physical location of the IJ controls where venue lies in a subsequent petition for review. Herrera-Alcala v. Garland.

The shadow docket fails again Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives. […]

Lawgeeks, here's a good one on SCOTUS' unreasoned stay order in the trans and nonbinary passport case.

www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/the-...

This is like when the doctor asks how often you drink, and you can see them doubling or tripling whatever lie you told her.

Yeah, yeah. She's a sweet little old Catholic lady who somehow had no fun at all in the 70s.

My ma is doing the online check-in for a doctor's appointment tomorrow, and it includes this question about recreational drug use, which is unskippable, but does not include a "no" answer.

When she clicks "Next" it says "you must select an answer to proceed." Idiots.

(N.M. Ct. App. 2010). If I were a statewide elected official in Mississippi, and I was told to drop whatever else the people of that good State tasked me to do, to focus instead on interpreting a “uniform” law that apparently has fewer adopters than Bluesky, and to decide whether to follow an intermediate appellate decision from New Mexico at the behest of federal judges in New Orleans, I can tell you this much: I would not think the exercise beneficial to federalis

Judge Oldham's call for the end of certifying questions from CA5 to state Supreme Courts includes this somewhat inexplicable shot at this here website.

www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

Scott Bessent saying that beef prices were high because migrants brought screwworm to the US by bringing cows with them all the way up from South America may take the cake for the most ridiculous statement by any Trump admin official yet.

4 The “Pottery Barn rule” refers to the notion that if “‘[y]ou break it, you own it.’” James Warren, On Donald Trump and the “Pottery Barn Rule”, Vanity Fair, Nov. 21, 2016 [Perma | On Donald Trump and the “Pottery Barn Rule” | Vanity Fair]. As it turns out, though, the rule is not Pottery Barn’s policy. Id. Rather, Pottery Barn’s corporate policy provides “that if you break it accidentally, then you don’t have to pay for it.” Id. The phrase “the Pottery Barn rule” has been attributed to Tom Friedman of The New York Times. Id. As we explain below, Smothers presented evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the county both broke and bought (both literally and figuratively) the Jail’s medical care.

11th Cir. revives § 1983 case against an Alabama county jail which allegedly knowingly contracted with a healthcare company that employed no physicians and was incompetent, causing the deaths of several inmates.

Held: the so-called Pottery Barn rule applies.

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

Rather than resolve the appeal based on circuit precedent as determined by the district court and urged by the government, the majority conjures up its own argument. The assertion is that the definition of machine gun under § 922(o) includes “(1) the Mark 38 machine gun system that is mounted on warships; (2) the M230 machine gun mounted on military helicopters; and (3) the M2 machine gun, which the military has mounted on armored vehicles.” The majority then rejects Charles’s facial challenge to the statute because an individual cannot “carry” these mounted weapon systems, so the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess them. The majority cites no authority and identifies no case in which the United States has asserted that § 922(o) encompasses the enumerated weapon systems or prosecuted anyone on that theory.

Judge Colloton, concurring in the judgment, but not the reasoning of the maj. op., argues that the circuit has already upheld the machine gun possession ban and disagrees with the maj. op.'s "unsound" reasoning.

The plain meaning of the word “bear” in the Second Amendment is to “carry,” and, when used in conjunction with the word “arms,” it means “carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584; see also Rahimi, 602 at 691 (discussing the limits on the Second Amendment’s right to “carry” weapons and firearms). As a threshold matter, an individual must be able to “carry” the firearm under the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (the individual must be able to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket . . . .”) (cleaned up and citation omitted). Each of the above

machine gun examples requires mounting to a heavy support structure. An individual is unable to “carry” any of these machine guns. Because there are machine guns, including the Mark 38, the M230, and the M2, that are not bearable weapons, the regulation of at least those weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment. Because § 922(o) is constitutional in some of its applications, this facial challenge fails. Rahimi, 502 U.S. at 693.

8th Cir., 2-1, holds that because some machine guns are physically incapable of being carried by a person (bc they are vehicle-mounted weapons) a facial challenge to the federal machine gun possession ban must fail.

ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/11...

CDC has switched sides in the war on infectious disease, now taking the side of the diseases

Two weeks ago Sen. Cruz told the Federalist Society conference "It is not both sides. It is only one side saying: 'Silence my critics.'...It's only one side that is calling for silencing those they disagree with." He was talking about Democrats, of course.

Amazing. Dude is just winking at Cassidy and telling him what a schmuck he is while he kills children.

🙏🏼 Preliminary injunction granted. The rescission of a deferred-action program for young persons with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS-DA”) is stayed.

The govt is also enjoined from removing the Individual Plaintiffs from the continental U.S. during the pendency of this litigation.

I get that divorce happens for a lot of reasons, but this guy was writing a "book" about how unfair all this was to him, and that trope was over and done with back in 2004.

Trial Tr. vol. 2, 42–43. He continued: If I am made to pay her every month for the rest of my life for the support-based things she brought to the marriage, then what is she going to be required to give me for the rest of my life? Is she going to come clean my house? Mow my lawn? Give me a blow job? What the fuck is she going to be required to pay for the rest of her miserable, fucking, lying life for putting my life on the line so she could eat and have clothes and shelter over her lying, cheating, cocksucking head?

And over in the 11th Cir., we have the case of a fellow who hired his brother to kill his ex-wife, who seems confused about whether he is in favor of blow jobs.

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

Also, correcting myself, this was in the 8th Cir., not the 6th. I promise to punish myself severely for this error.

Yes, less than courteous, but also the Purcell concerns are valid. And he's seriously overplaying the claim that his dissent is diminished because people have to click a separate link to read it. C'mon, man.

The screengrab below is nuts. "This officer was so indiscriminate about shooting protesters that plaintiff, as a matter of law, cannot demonstrate he was targeted in retaliation for his First Amendment activity."

DO WE NOT SEE THE PROBLEM HERE