Sam J. Merchant

That generation lived through multiple immediate existential threats (wars included) and knew that some basic level of competency was important. We, luxuriously, really haven’t.

I could also see this court dragging its feet for 3.5 years (no standing; remand to apply this test; etc.) and just waiting until the next president inevitably unwinds the tariffs. The Trump Avoidance Doctrine.

The courts’ delays lead to normalization/rationalization, then SCOTUS will be reluctant to unwind all of this.
(Same theory for a lot of this Admin’s policies.)

🤨

The fact remains that recidivism like this is very rare. (Totally different nature of these offenses.) Unless he has a history of DV and hasn’t been caught.
Hopefully this event doesn’t overshadow the data, but unfortunately the notoriety he’s built probably means that it will.

Wow.

Rico breakdown:

bsky.app/profile/samm...

That would pair well with this year’s Esteras opinion, saying supervised release isn’t about retribution (backward looking), it’s about rehabilitation, public safety, and deterrence.
(I would personally add that the minor drug possession is a state issue, not a federal one.)

Judge gave her an additional 16mo prison. This tolling rule is judge-made. I think a majority of SCOTUS will say that courts lose jurisdiction after the initial term of supervised release, they can’t just pretend that the term is extended (unless Congress says, which it hasn’t). SA and CT dissent.

SCOTUS grants cert in another crim case involving supervised release (RICO v. US). D served her time, was on supervised release, but stops checking in (absconds). Terms of SR expire in 2021. She possesses drugs in 2022, which would violate SR terms. Is SR tolled? www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

As I law student and associate attny, I remember looking up profs, seeing the Fed Soc profile, and assuming there was some kind of formal affiliation. “This person must have filled out an information form and agreed to be on the website.”
Certainly not “spoke on a panel one time.” Misleading IMO.

I turned down two events for fear of this happening.
I wonder if it would take sending a demand letter with a draft lawsuit attached.

Yes. There is something odd about the Left complaining about this lawless Court, then holding out hope for new, creative *legal* arguments.
It seems obvious that the answer is somewhere else, not Art. 3/ “the law.” The obsession should be winning elections for the next 10yrs.

List below (tentative):

bsky.app/profile/samm...

Digging in a little bit more, I see SG Prelogar raising the issue in:
Garland v. TX
AZ v. Myorkas
Murthy v. MO
Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom
Becerra v. Braidwood
Dept. of Ed. v. Colleges of TX
Biden v. TX
FDA v. Alliance for Hipp. Med.
TX v. Cook County, IL

SG Prelogar also teed up the constitutionality of universal injunctions when NDTX was enjoining Biden left and right, and SCOTUS passed.

It’s dismissive because they are outcome-oriented. But they also ran out of time in the term.

Thank you. And yep, that makes the Court look much worse.

Completely agree that they should have just addressed the (very easy, prob. 7-2) merits. But oral arg told us that wasn’t happening.
I think they’re afraid to hand Trump a major merits loss this year. Which is, of course, a problem.

I was also immediately dubious of the persuasive force of “but the pilots!” To me, another admission that he thinks his base doesn’t need strong arguments, just give them something.

(I also can’t help it: the pilots were flying, invisibly, at 50k ft. w/ Iranian defenses down. They were fine.)

Possibly a good case to look at when teaching purposes of punishment.

Esteras v. United States Answers Half the Question Presented This week marks the end of the U.S.

I know that there are new shiny objects to analyze, but for Crim people this is a good primer breaking down Esteras v. US.
I agree that the Court punted on the only real issue: considering “retribution” when revoking a federal offender’s supervised release.

open.substack.com/pub/sentenci...

A huge amount of tech regulation is about to get done through child protection law. And, unlike in the 90s, when age verification was very difficult to do, it's a lot more feasible to do even through automated means. This is going to be a huge change for the tech industry.

Your take was my initial take, but now I’m wondering… did the Biden Admin ever tee up the issue of these injunctions, the way the Trump Admin did?
Sure, the Court could have ruled on them anyway, but I’m not sure the issue was directly teed up in a QP.

What's really going on? Yet another case where SCOTUS (at least, a majority) thinks that these firearms enhancements/ mandatory minimums are absurd (and Congress never pushes back, I think tacitly agreeing). 3/3

Upon resent.'ing post-FSA, CA5: "you don't get the benefit of the FSA changes."
SCOTUS: "Wrong; your old sentences were wiped out, so you're sentenced under current law."
Alito dissents (w/ CT and ACB): "It's the law when he was first sentenced. KBJ is using SCOTUS to enact sentencing reform!" 2/3

I haven't seen much unpacking of Hewitt, so here it is in layman's terms:
Sentenced in 2009, under *bonkers* sentencing enhancements (300+ years for bank robberies with a gun). Sentences get vacated for various reasons. Now it's 2025 and the First Step Act does away with the bonkers enhancements.1/3

🎯

Perceived (or actual?) message received from SCOTUS: “just find a way, any way, to get the issue before us.”