Twenty years of Law Dork — lawdork.com/p/twenty-years… — and I could not be more proud of the work I'm putting out now.
On Thursday, I wrote about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in the big labor case at #SCOTUS, Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters: lawdork.com/p/jackson-diss…
Then, late Friday night (technically, early Saturday morning), I was the first to report on the ruling against Tennessee's anti-drag law: lawdork.com/p/tennessee-an…
A little more than eleven months ago, I launched the third iteration of Law Dork: The newsletter era! Thanks so much to the more than 14,000 people who have signed up — there are paid and free options! — since then. I so appreciate it. lawdork.com
If you've held off on signing up, now's the time, as SCOTUS is front and center. If you've been reading, consider a paid subscription to support my independent journalism. I love doing this, it's my full-time gig, and your support makes it possible. lawdork.com/subscribe
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK, all! I am so appreciative of the support that you have shown me in launching Law Dork. Now, in the last 15 days of my first year, I need your help. lawdork.com
My original goal when launching was 10,000 total subscribers in the first year, and 1,000 paid subscribers. The total subscribers is well above the goal — headed toward 15,000! lawdork.com
But, as you can see, I still need 100 more paid subscribers before June 21 to meet that goal. If you've been reading my work and are able to afford it, please consider a paid subscription today. It's just $6/mo or $60/year. Thank you! lawdork.com/subscribe
BREAKING: Federal judge rules Florida bans on gender-affirming care for minors is likely unconstitutional, issues injunction halting enforcement of the bans against the plaintiffs who challenged the regulatory and statutory bans. More to come at Law Dork: lawdork.com
"Wait, I wasn't supposed to drain the pool *into* the server room?! Oops!"
This is actually the perfect Trump story: 1. People were investigating. 2. Something was done that could harm the investigation. 3. Unclear if the act was intentional or incompetence. 4. Suspicious act didn't ultimately harm the investigation. 5. It did cause more investigation.
What's most revealing about this is that this is the first time in the history of the @nytimes that it has not taken credit for its "impact" journalism.
In any other situation, that's all we'd be hearing about: How the NYT's reporting led to action. Here, the reporter acts like this is happening in a vacuum. Reporting isn't mentioned. This is "a Republican movement to regulate the lives of transgender youth."
It's sickening to see the failure of accountability at the @nytimes. No, they're not alone. No, they're not the worst. But, as I've said before, you don't get to say you're "the paper of record" & claim how powerful your reporting is at every moment except when you empower hate.
NEWS: #SCOTUS will not stop Tuesday's scheduled execution of Michael Tisius in Missouri. There are no noted dissents.
This is one of two executions scheduled for this month, as I covered last week at Law Dork: lawdork.com/i/124897339/up…
UPDATE: #SCOTUS rejects the two remaining requests for a stay of execution that were pending for Michael Tisius, who Missouri is seeking to execute this evening.