I do wonder how much of the awful writing emanating from Trump judges' chambers can be attributed to age—many of these people are in their 30s and 40s, and may see themselves as stylistic mavericks on the forefront of a revolution in judicial writing. But the execution is 🥶.
While I am here I would like to call attention to a recent opinion by Trump Judge VanDyke, one of the worst offenders in this arena. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Supreme Court has released its first and ONLY opinion of the day in Van Buren v. U.S. No blockbusters today! supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Fascinating (and unprecedented) breakdown: Opinion by Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissent by Thomas, joined by Roberts and Alito. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
SCOTUS holds that an individual “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer that are off-limits to him. This is the @OrinKerr bat signal.
NEW: I spoke with Nick Wallace, the student who is not allowed to graduate from Stanford Law next week because a top member of the school's Federalist Society chapter issued a formal complaint against him for making fun of FedSoc. slate.com/news-and-polit…@Slate
Here is the flyer that led Stanford to place a hold on Wallace's diploma following a complaint by a Stanford Federalist Society leader.
I want to highlight the fact that Stanford hasn't *just* placed a hold on Wallace's diploma. It has also forced him to undergo a disciplinary investigation in the middle of finals. And by withholding his degree, it is preventing him from taking the bar. slate.com/news-and-polit…
The first Supreme Court opinion of the day is a unanimous decision by Gorsuch in Garland v. Ming Dai. There will more opinions. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circuit's rule that "a reviewing court must treat the noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true absent an explicit adverse credibility determination." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Because the Supreme Court issues opinions in reverse seniority, the next opinion(s) could come from any justice except Kavanaugh or Barrett.
The Supreme Court takes up just one new case, Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, involving a copyright dispute. Full orders here: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Kavanaugh says: Hey, we may have abolished the "community caretaking" exception to warrantless searches of the home, but police (and courts) can still justify warrantless searches of the home in other ways! supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court let a rare *denial* of qualified immunity stand! That may be our best SCOTUS news of the day.
The Supreme Court turns away an appeal from Ernest Johnson, who alleges that his imminent execution by lethal injection will inflict torturous pain because a brain tumor operation. All three liberals dissent; Sotomayor and Breyer write. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
An operation left Ernest Johnson with scarred brain tissue and epilepsy; he alleges that lethal injection will trigger a massive, violent, uncontrollable, immensely painful seizure as he slowly dies. The Supreme Court's conservative majority doesn't care. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
This case, and others like it, are why South Carolina recently reauthorized execution by electric chair or firing squad: Lethal injection often poses a serious risk of torture, and odd as it may sound, traditional forms of execution may be more "humane." npr.org/2021/05/20/998…
By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that its recent decision requiring unanimity in jury verdicts does NOT apply retroactively, dashing the hopes of thousands of people convicted by split verdicts. Opinion by Kavanaugh; all three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Big news here: The Supreme Court OVERTURNS the precedent that a "watershed" rule of criminal procedure may apply retroactively. That's a major change to retroactivity precedent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
This is a very aggressive decision by the Supreme Court's conservatives—not only allowing earlier non-unanimous convictions to stand, but also abruptly overturning a major precedent that applied "watershed" rules of criminal procedure retroactively. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…