I know less than zero about international law, but I happened on this opinion granting a preliminary injunction in Armenia v Azerbaijan that I found of interest. 1/
A lot of it is familiar to me as an American lawyer. The factors are almost the same as what we would think about. But the subject matter is so different — is the destruction of cultural patrimony irreparable harm, for example? /2
Have to say I loved this part of the injunction! I wish you could just order people not to be a pain in the butt.
Also thought it was interesting that counsel was a mix of international law profs, US biglaw, and UK Barristers.
So this anti-racial discrimination agreement the suit is based on is pretty interesting, but I have a feeling the United States is not a signatory to this provision
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ok, this story is amazing. He went to the Sun and Sand Hotel pool in Bombay with some Indian friends. They were going to let him in, but they said the Indians couldn’t come in because it was whites only. Dad started shouting.
There are way better people to follow this morning for Dobbs analysis (I.e., everyone). Just a little note for the non-lawyers about process, though.
In many arguments, the lawyers are trying to persuade the Supreme Court about the law in some way. Argument, right? 1/
But that’s not really what is going on this morning. There’s no argument even Elizabeth Prelogar can make that’s going to blow someone’s mind. They all know the arguments. So what’s the point? /2
Well, it’s the first time the Justices engage with each other on this case. So they’re really talking to each other through the lawyers. That’s true of every argument to some extent, but *really* true of this one. /3
I’m going to do a “live-read” of the SCOTUS transcript in today’s Cummings case. @adams_hurta and I wrote an amicus in this matter, and I’m interested. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
1/
The question presented is, basically, can you recover emotional distress damages in some kinds of civil rights cases – for complicated reasons, some of these cases are analyzed by whether the remedy sought would have been available in contract law. /2
Justice Thomas comes out of the gate with that question - if we don’t think you could get emotional distress damages under traditional contract common law, do you have some other argument? /3