Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
@chrisgeidner
Aug 20, 2019 • 9 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
Reporter covering North Carolina's #HB370 — which looks like it's coming up for a vote today — found a way not to mention the Fourth Amendment until the seventh paragraph of a story whose headline ignores the existence of significant constitutional questions. Not good!
NC Gov. @RoyCooperNC has said the bill is unconstitutional. How do you write a story about this fed'l power grab that would be forced on local sheriffs by state gov't (essentially an unfunded mandate, due to the likely lawsuits that would result) w/out highlighting that reality?
Here we go. NC #HB370 is coming to a vote today:
Follow Ann for the latest —>
The story in NC is actually that, when told that newly elected sheriffs were going to require constitutionally adequate process be put in place before they detained people, ICE ignored them and instead urged the GOP to change state law and force those sheriffs to comply. #HB370
NC legislature is back in session. #HB370 could be voted on shortly. —>
Bloop.
So, @BrendenJonesNC just coming right out and saying he doesn’t care if North Carolina officials violate the US Constitution. Interesting strategy.
Update: #HB370 passed the North Carolina legislature. Now Gov. @RoyCooperNC, who has called the bill unconstitutional, needs to act on that and veto this.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Chris “Law Dork” Geidner

Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @chrisgeidner

Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Jul 3
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court holds that a district court cannot enforce its remedy order providing due process to the 8 people the Trump admin sent out of the U.S. (who are now in Djibouti) in violation of the injunction in the third country removals case, which the Supreme Court later stayed.The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court's stay order "divest[s]" the district court "order of enforceability"). Even if we accepted respondents' characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to "coerce" the Government into "compliance" and would be unenforceable given our stay o...
The apparent 7-2 vote — with Kagan joining the Republican appointees on the procedural question of the district court's power — is appalling abdication of its role in our constitutional republic.

The short of it is seven justices said Trump can send these 8 people to South Sudan with no process.
Here is the "clarification" order, as well as Kagan's concurrence and Sotomayor's dissent for her and Jackson: supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…JUSTICE KAGAN, concurring. I voted to deny the Government’s previous stay applica- tion in this case, and I continue to believe that this Court should not have stayed the District Court’s April 18 order enjoining the Government from deporting non-citizens to third countries without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See DHS v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 9–18). But a majority of this Court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an or- der that this Court has stayed. See Unite...
Read 6 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Apr 10
BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds district court order that the Trump administration "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was improperly sent to El Salvador.

More to come at Law Dork: lawdork.comThe application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government's emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court's order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure th...
A part of the government's request to vacate the original order is "effectively granted" b/c the deadline passed, SCOTUS holds, but the rest of the order stands. As to the requirement to "effectuate" Abrego Garcia's return, the district court should "clarify" that, w/ deference to executive.
Here is the full order, including a statement from Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson: supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
Read 6 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Apr 4
BREAKING: On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court allows the Education Dep't to halt payment of grants.

A district court issued a TRO blocking the cancelation of the grants in a suit brought by eight states. The appeals court refused a stay pending appeal.

Today, SCOTUS stayed the TRO—blocking payments.Image
Image
Thomas, Alito and the three Trump appointees formed the five-justice majority who issued the unsigned per curiam opinion.

Roberts wrote nothing but noted he would have denied the application.

Kagan and Jackson wrote dissents. Sotomayor joined Jackson's dissent, which does not hold back:Image
Here is the opinion: supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
Read 4 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Mar 15
BREAKING: Chief Judge Boasberg issues a classwide, nationwide temporary restraining order, blocking removal of any noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to today's AEA order for the next 14 days.

With planes leaving, he says, "I am required to act immediately."
Boasberg adds that planes in the air are to be turned around, says clients need to be informed "immediately."

Planes that have landed, with people discharged, he says, he cannot act on.
The next hearing before Boasberg is set for 2:30p March 21.
Read 5 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Mar 15
BREAKING: A federal judge this morning issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport several Venezuelan nationals with no process.

Subscribe to Law Dork for more: lawdork.comMINUTE ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Given the exigent circumstances that it has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 3 4 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; ...
The judge has now also set a hearing for 5p today to consider certifying a class to protect all who would be subject to the administration's effort. Date Filed # Docket Text 03/15/2025 MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the parties shall appear for Motion for Class Certification on March 25,20 2s. ring 0 pa. The hearing oil for Cla sy Cidiconie ence or the parties and by telephone for members of the public. Toll free number: 833-990-9400. Meeting ID: 049550816. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/15/2025. (Icjebl) (Entered: 03/15/2025)
The lawsuit — J.G.G. v. Trump — was filed this morning in D.C. by the ACLU and Democracy Forward.

Complaint: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…Image
Read 6 tweets
Chris “Law Dork” Geidner Profile picture
Jan 9
BREAKING: A federal district court judge in Kentucky vacates the Biden administration's Title IX rule, challenged largely for its transgender protections, a decision with nationwide effect.

Law Dork's extensive coverage of challenges to the rule can be found here: lawdork.com/t/title-ix-ruleHaving determined that the challenged portions of the Final Rule are invalid, the Court considers the appropriate remedy. While the Department argues in favor of severance, the Court remains persuaded that the three challenged provisions fatally taint the entire rule. As the Court has explained, the definition of discrimination “on the basis of sex” lies at the heart of Title IX and permeates virtually every provision of the law. While not directly challenged in this proceeding, the Final Rule brings new requirements for handling grievances, training, recordkeeping, and processing complaint...
The rule had been blocked in over half over the country as a result of several different challenges, but there had been no nationwide ruling — and appeals are pending in several appeals courts.

U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves's ruling: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Here is Reeves's judgment in the case: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…2. The Final Rule entitled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance”, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474 (Apr. 29, 2024) is unlawful because: (a) Title IX’s prohibition on “sex” discrimination does not include the bases or conduct covered by § 106.02’s hostile-environment harassment definition, § 106.10, or § 106.31(a)’s regulation of sex-segregated facilities and programs; (b) it violates the Spending Clause and the First Amendment; (c) it is arbitrary and capricious; and, therefore, (d) the Plaintiff States, their political subdivis...
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(