Some interesting Supreme Court history I stumbled upon wasting time on Wikipedia:
On April 21, 1844, Justice Henry Baldwin died while in office. President Tyler had a little over ten months left in his Presidential term. Tyler tried to fill the seat, but was unsuccessful.
On June 5, 1844, President Tyler nominated Edward King to fill the seat. But Tyler had little support in Congress, and the Senate voted to table the King's nomination and not consider it on the merits. govtrack.us/congress/votes…
President Tyler withdrew the nomination, and then nominated John Read for the seat. The Senate ignored that nomination. President Tyler's Presidency ended with the seat still vacant in March 1845.
President Polk took office in March 1845 and had trouble filling the seat. It didn't happen until August 1846, after Polk had been in office for 17 months, with confirmation of Robert Grier. Grier was nominated August 3, 1846, and unanimously confirmed the next day.
If I follow the history, the seat was vacant for over two years. Anyway, I didn't know this, seemed interesting. (No, I don't have a grand normative lesson. It just seemed interesting.) /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.