It might simultaneously be true that Republicans should wait to fill RBG’s seat because the election is near; that it is an act of stunning hypocrisy to fill it after refusing to act on Garland; and that, if the politics were reversed, Democrats would have done the same thing.
I should add, in response to comments, that by "Democrats would have done the same thing," I was referring to pushing forward now with a nominee with so little time before the election. /1
I don't have a strong sense of what Dems would have done with the 2016 equivalent of Garland -- would they have just voted him down, vs. not held a vote, for example. (But I also don't see a lot of difference between those two options.) /2
The flipped hypo would be something like this. Imagine Justice Scalia had died 45 days before the 2016 election, and the Senate was Democratic. All the polls suggest a Republican will be elected in 45 days, and the Senate may flip R. /3
All the big legal issues that your side cares most about -- abortion rights, affirmative action, LGBT rights, the environment -- are all up for grabs. Do you push forward a nominee now, ensuring those rights? Or do you risk them and let the next Prez (likely an R) fill the seat?
I think the proper thing to do, so close to the election, is to risk it and let the next Prez fill the seat, even if it means all those rights are lost. But I tend to be doubtful that is what would actually happen in that scenario. My sense, at least. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Several notable 4th Amendment rulings in this 5th Circuit opinion today. Most importantly: People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in stored online contents—here, the contents of a Dropbox account. (Per Oldham, J., w/Richman & Ramirez)
Plaintiffs, Heidi Group, is a pro-life group that briefly had a contract with the Texas state government. A former employee named Morgan went to state investigators and said she had access to Heidi Group's documents b/c she was still given access to their Dropbox account.
A state investigator, Dacus, encourages Morgan to look through Heidi Group's files for evidence what Heidi Group did when it was a state contractor. Morgan does. Heidi Group realizes someone is accessing its files, eventually sues state officials for violating its 4A rights.
First off, the conservative/GOP bona fides of Bill Burck and Robert Hur have been covered elsewhere. telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/0…
But as @WilliamBaude notes, Lehotsky Keller Cohn is on the brief, with name partners Steve Lehotsky (Scalia clerk, former Bush-era OLC); Scott Keller (former Texas SG, Ted Cruz Chief of Staff, Kennedy clerk), and Jonathan Cohn (Thomas clerk).
DC Circuit denies the motion for an emergency stay in the Boasberg case 2-1, with a brief order and 92 pages of concurrences (one by Henderson, one by Millett) and a dissent (Walker).
I'm going to scan through the opinions and select out key parts. 🧵
Magistrate judge in the 5th Circuit, asked to sign off on warrants for routine "tower dumps," declines to do, writing an opinion concluding that all tower dumps are likewise unconstitutional in light of the 5th Circuit's recent geofencing opinion. 🧵
#N storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Other courts have broadly ruled that tower dumps are not searches at all. I think this is wrong, as it's based on the erroneous mosaic theory. I explain why that's wrong in my new book. So I don't have a problem with the search holding, holding that a search will occur.
As for the idea that a warrant can't be used in this setting, I think it's bananas. But then it's based on the 5th Circuit's bananas geofence warrant ruling, so hey, if bananas is Fifth Circuit law, you're going to get a lot of bananas.
The Acting US Attorney of the SDNY resigned today, and she sent this letter yesterday to the Attorney General explaining why she refused to drop the charges against NYC's mayor. Read the whole thing, but the last two pages are in the screenshots. static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…
The Deputy AG replies— among other things, putting all the AUSAs who were "principally responsible" for the Adams prosecution on administrative leave and referring them to OPR. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Also, the SDNY is taken off the case, which is given to main Justice so the motion wanted will be filed.
Sorry if this is nitpicky, but headline writers, it's maybe worth noting: Smith's report argues that the evidence would have been *legally sufficient* to convict. It does not claim, as your headlines say, that a jury *would have convicted.* Smith is a lawyer, not a soothsayer.
et tu, WSJ? Sheesh.
ABC News is getting this headline right, at least.