Tyler Bishop

“In the United States of America, the President does not get to dictate the rules of our elections.”

Proud to represent clients who are not backing down. I’m not either.

Breaking news headline over an image of the United States Capitol building that reads: 'Democrats File Lawsuit to Block Trump's Illegal Voter Suppression Executive Order.'

We’re suing the Trump administration.

Along with @demgovs.org, @electdemocrats.bsky.social, the DSCC, @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social, and @chuckschumer.com, we filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s illegal executive order that attacks the rights of married women, the military, and people voting by mail.

Public opinion is not with the Trump Administration. There is no “mandate” for what’s happening. Far from it.

Keep speaking up and fighting lawless action. Convince Republicans who are vulnerable in 2026 to moderate.

Our system is being tested and we can’t give up.

1. Remove officials who prevent conflicts of interest/corruption.

2. Replace with loyalists who promise allegiance.

3. Hand contracts to the billionaires who you put in charge.

4. Silence anyone who calls it out.

Oligarchy playbook, and it’s happening in broad daylight.

mark my words: this is the turning point in this mess. idc if you’re a republican, a democrat, an independent, or a billionaire crony of the sitting president. we have a constitution and laws passed by congress. hands off unless you’re following them.

9-0.

Yes, even that one.

And it begins.

FBI class action lawsuit against the retaliatory purge.

First Amendment
Violation of Due Process
Rights to Privacy

www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...

Oligarchy doesn’t even begin to describe what this is

“The president signaled [in a dinner with Zuckerberg] that the litigation had to be resolved before Zuckerberg could be ‘brought into the tent.’”

giving someone a windfall $$ in order to be “brought into the tent” is the definition of corruption. “bound to lose” is an understatement.

The Judge (Reagan appointee) just like the rest of us had difficulty “understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional.”

Q: “Why did you pardon a man who drove a stun gun into the neck of a police officer?”

Trump deflects to murderers in LA who he says don’t get charged. (which is not true)

agree but we've only really seen some of the signature executive actions he wanted, much of which is obviously unconstitutional and simply cannot be drafted in a non-sloppy way

no cause for any sigh of relief imo

he included the violent ones

don’t we think someone who made an awkward gesture that was not meant to be a “nazi salute” would immediately and unequivocally say as much?

bffr

Bonus 112: Birthright Citizenship, "Invasions," and the Supreme Court President Trump has vowed to go after birthright citizenship on his first day in office. He's going to lose, but in a way that may well provide cover for other controversial immigration measures

Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship by executive order is (1) unlawful; (2) predicated on conflating two entirely distinct legal arguments; and (3) doomed to fail in (even these) courts.

My “One First” explainer:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-112-...

trump is ranting about needing to restrict voting.

every state has procedures to ensure integrity. audits and legal challenges have repeatedly showed no fraud.

what we do know is that trump’s party wants to keep likely dems from voting.

when asked by Justice Barrett in 2021, they admitted it ⬇️