Share this page!

Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
Twitter logo
21 Sep, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Judge Willett brings some good-natured 🔥🔥🔥 in a dissent from a decision granting qualified immunity - an officer arrested a man for refusing to identify himself. 1/
Here is the opinion:
Again we see what is now a clear fault line in CA5: a group of judges who believe inroads against QI unfairly subject police officers to undue scrutiny, and a group are skeptical about QI entirely, and in any event don't see much value in not allowing cases to be tried.
I think Judge Engelhardt, who wrote the majority here, is usually (thought not always) in the first group.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Raffi Melkonian

Raffi Melkonian 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 @RMFifthCircuit

Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
22 Sep
I didn't believe this summary was correct, but in fact yes. The prosecutor moonlighted as a judicial clerk for the very judge who sentenced the man to death - even worse, he WROTE THE ORDER DENYING THE HABEAS RELIEF HE OPPOSED AS THE PROSECUTOR.
Sorry, one minor correction. He worked for the post-conviction judge, I can't tell if it was the same judge for the trial. But that's pretty irrelevant. He was both the prosecutor and the law clerk on the same case.
I'm not joking, people. Image
Read 5 tweets
Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
2 Sep
I wanted to note something about Texas SB8 that's been my hobbyhorse since this law was proposed, and should give pause *even* to people who want abortion banned. Look at the text of the bill. 1/ Image
So it creates this cause of action for doing the abortion and aiding and abetting the abortion. Already a huge problem *even if you want abortion banned*. As @jadler1969 has said, imagine this same structure applied to gun rights or the first amendment or whatever else. /2
OK, but look at the part I've drawn a square around. You can be sued if you *intend to* (but have not) aided or abetted the abortion. That's *bananas* when applied to constitutional rights.

Let's say someone passes a version of this that bans supporting Trump online. /3 Image
Read 7 tweets
Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
2 Sep
This is just a dumb situation we are in.
A bunch of dummies dumbed around and here we are, everything is dumb again.
The notion that getting people vaccinated so they don’t die and we can stand up the country again and run businesses and make money is *left wing* is also one of the dumbest things that anyone has ever dumbed.
Read 4 tweets
Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
2 Sep
Ok. Let’s focus on where this litigation goes now, since I add no value on the Scotus analysis at this point. As y’all know, this case is currently pending in a Texas district court and CA5, which is sitting on a motion that would let the district judge proceed. 1/
Assuming the Fifth Circuit remands the case to the district court (not a done deal) can that judge issue a injunction against the law? Maybe. But this sentence in the Court’s opinion, such as it is, is difficult. Is that also a finding that the burden can’t be met below? /2
I don’t really know the answer to that question. But at least it would worry me if I were a district judge inclined to grant an injunction. And SCOTUS goes on to say that it envisions challenges in state court. Which again makes me think the majority is waiting for /3
Read 8 tweets
Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
1 Sep
On a call with a person seeking advice on becoming an appellate lawyer, the person mentioned that the path to appeals is a bit of a black box.

That's very true. There are people trying to open up that box systemically (@AppellateProj), but that's one reason I am on here too.
I feel like I'd have skipped a lot of pointless messing around if someone could have explained the career path to me. So anyway, let's crack open the box a little.

It's still going to have a lot of hurdles and checkpoints and luck and whatnot. But maybe fewer.
I will say, pre-social-media, there was almost no way to figure anything out. I happened on a blog post 12 years ago(?), which is how I found out the profession even existed.
Read 5 tweets
Raffi Melkonian Profile picture
1 Sep
There's a thread I'm in where a junior lawyer who was in the ER last night is asking whether they should tell their boss and take the day off.

Listen. The answer is "yes." I have seen too many medical emergencies at the office where people did not tell anyone they are sick.
Unless you are working for barbarians, they will immediately try to figure out how to make a day off or a few days off happen. If you are working for barbarians, well, now you know.
If you are working for barbarians, you need to figure out how to stop doing that relatively soon.

But bottom line: responsible mid-level and senior lawyers WANT TO KNOW if you are sick.
Read 10 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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @RMFifthCircuit has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @RMFifthCircuit!

Read all threads by @RMFifthCircuit

:(