Reply With Quote
Kavanaugh, aware to the hit to his reputation and his legacy in the wake of his shadow docket opinion authorizing racial profiling in immigration stops, points out that DHS has been doing it wrong all along
Kavanaugh less sure than before that shadow docket rulings should carry the weight of precedent
Kavanaugh, aware to the hit to his reputation and his legacy in the wake of his shadow docket opinion authorizing racial profiling in immigration stops, points out that DHS has been doing it wrong all along
Alito in dissent echoes a point that Sotomayor has made many times in hers
argument turned on the definition of "regular forces"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...s.msl.1021.pdfThe reason @martylederman.bsky.social
’s brief was so effective is because it gave Roberts and Barrett (and Kav) a way to vote against Trump without calling him a ing liar, which is what the lower courts based their decisions on
As the Solicitor General acknowledges (App. 18), in order to obtain the requested stay the Applicants must, at a minimum, demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Those merits turn largely on the proper meaning of the phrase “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3)—the statutory precondition the President invoked as the basis for his order “call[ing] into Federal service members and units of the National Guard … in such numbers as he considers necessary to … execute those laws” in Illinois. The parties sharply contest the meaning of the word “unable” in § 12406(3) and whether the proper test was satisfied on the facts of this case. The principal function of this amicus brief, by contrast, is to explain why it is unnecessary for the Court to address those questions because the applicants are not likely to succeed on the merits for an independent reason—namely, that both the President and the Solicitor General have mistakenly assumed that the term “the regular forces” in § 12406(3) refers 1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amicus made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. to civilian law enforcement personnel (in this case, to actors in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers). That is incorrect. “[T]he regular forces” to which § 12406(3) refers are the regular, or “standing,” military personnel serving in the United States Armed Services.
from the Steve Vladeck rundown of Trump v Illinois
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/199-f...m-the-nationalthe Justice Department’s own position has long been that the Insurrection Act requires much more than even the Trump administration’s (deeply contestable) view of the facts on the ground in these three jurisdictions. As I noted back in November, under a 1964 memorandum by then-Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach, the federal government has only used the Insurrection Act over state objections historically when “those engaging in violence are either acting with the approval of state authorities or have, like the Klan in the 1870s, taken over effective control of the area involved.” Even if the political constraints on invoking the statute would be less applicable to President Trump than they have been to his predecessors, and even if courts (or, at least, the Supreme Court) would give significant deference to factual findings relating to these criteria, the criteria are still meaningful—and are a likely reason why the Trump administration, which has not exactly been shy about dubious interpretations of old statutes, has yet to try this one.
Wine Ho....I havent posted on here in awhile....but yet, here you are still talking to yourself relentlessly in every thread. You and Chump and I dont even know if your 3rd Amigo Flake still posts or did she finally get a life?.....anyway, keep up the good work. Youre changing so many peoples lives.
if nothing else a bulletin board is like a notebook -- a place one keeps one's notes and thoughts
Happy New Year, BadMotorscooter
You care.Wine Ho....I havent posted on here in awhile....but yet, here you are still talking to yourself relentlessly in every thread. You and Chump and I dont even know if your 3rd Amigo Flake still posts or did she finally get a life?.....anyway, keep up the good work. Youre changing so many peoples lives.
FIFA Peace Prize quid pro quo
www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...The Supreme Court sets aside lower court decisions upholding convictions for bribery related to the FIFA scandal because the Trump administration decided to dismiss those criminal cases "in the interests of justice." The FIFA prosecution ends in a whimper.
SCOTUS once again temporizes for Trump, goes into recess for four weeks after today, punting the decision on the legality of IEEPA tariffs to at least February
why so keen to hide from the public?
www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/u...
last time trump took a swipe at Leonard Leo he was afraid SCOTUS was going to rule his tariffs are illegalLeonard Leo spent $1 billion plus for the current SCOTUS (R) majority
(the last time a majority of Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democrats was July, 14, 1969)
who knows what it is now
(wouldn't be surprised to see some good old fashioned anti-popery as a result of this)
in somewhat of a surprise, SCOTUS defends the US cons ution against Donald Trump and declares IEEPA tariffs illegal
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1287_4gcj.pdf
SCOTUS fractured on Major Questions
This is Neil Gorsuch
lol Trump is gonna pack the court
not sure Trump can do that without a law expanding the court, but I'd like to see him try
Trump's likely to fail at that too
"the very unfortunate ruling"
sovereign immunity for racial animus
https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/p...opinion-recap/Lebene Konan, a realtor and landlord in Euless, Texas, alleges that United States Postal Service employees have subjected her to a yearslong campaign of racial harassment. In a federal lawsuit she filed in 2022, Konan says that two postal workers “did not like the fact” that she, a Black woman, owned multiple properties and rented them out to white people. And so, beginning in May 2020, the USPS employees refused to deliver mail to her and her tenants. They changed the locks on her mailbox. They marked her mail undeliverable and returned it to the sender. They blocked her and her tenants from receiving doctor’s bills, medications, credit card statements, and more.
Frustrated, several tenants moved away, and took their rental income with them. In 2022, Konan sued the USPS under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging, among other things, tortious interference with prospective business relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
But on Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court ruled that Konan’s case cannot move forward. “The United States enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued without its consent,” said Justice Clarence Thomas for the five-justice majority.
In dissent, the liberal appointees and Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the United States did give its consent— in 1946, when Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act. That law broadly waived sovereign immunity to allow people to sue the government if they’re injured by government employees.
One of the FTCA’s exceptions prohibits people from suing for claims “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” This carveout shields postal workers from liability if, for example, they accidentally drop a box containing glassware or misplace some correspondence from a pen pal. Yet in Postal Service v. Konan, Thomas used it to protect postal workers from tort lawsuits if they deny government services on the basis of race by intentionally withholding Black people’s mail..
SCOTUS ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...4-351_7648.pdf
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
