Tweet

More from @lawofruby

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Sep 15

NEW: For more than a week, we've known the government filed a motion in the D.C. case that concerns Trump's "extrajudicial statements." But because of a dispute over its sealing, we had not yet seen its contents or understood what relief it seeks. Enter Tanya Chutkan. 1/

She has now ordered the clerk to file a public version that redacts "the names and other identifying information of certain individuals whom, it asserts, Defendant targeted with inflammatory public statements and who were subsequently subjected to threats and harassment," & "excerpts from witness interview transcripts describing the threats and harassment they received." 2/

Chutkan also reveals some of the government's argument in that as-yet-unfiled redacted brief: Trump "will continue to make similar personal attacks, knowing that they may prompt similar harassment." 3/

Read 4 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Sep 13

Judge Aileen Cannon did not enter any protective orders governing the disclosure of classified material in the Mar-a-Lago documents case until today. But on July 27, the government told her there were only two issues in dispute between the parties. 1/

Specifically, in its renewed motion for a CISA protective order, the government explained, those remaining issues were: "(1) Defendant Nauta objects to language that limits his personal access to classified information, as opposed to access by his cleared counsel; and (2) Defendant Trump requests that he be permitted to discuss classified information with his counsel outside SCIFs." 2/

When Trump's team responded, they narrowed the dispute even further, saying, Trump's only beef was that he wanted "to discuss the relevant purportedly classified material inside an appropriate secure facility at or near his personal residence." 3/

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Read 4 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Sep 12

My absolute favorite subject in law school was statutory interpretation/legislation. And the appeals court order today asking for further briefing on Meadows’s stay request reminds me why. 1/

There are a series of rules for interpreting statutes, some of which have funny, sometimes Latin names. Exclusio unius is a key example. It is the principle that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. 2/

blacks_law.en-academic.com/9960/expressio…

And that’s where today’s order comes in: The 11th Circuit is asking Meadows and Fulton County to file briefs by 5 pm tomorrow on whether the federal officer removal statute, 28 USC 1442(a), applies to former federal officers. 3/

Read 6 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Sep 12

In Trump’s motion to recuse Judge Chutkan, he doesn’t just stretch her statements during the sentencing hearings of other, prior 1/6 defendants. He also stretches the law. 1/

Of the limited case law Trump’s team cites, even fewer occurred within the D.C. Circuit. And those cases are not analogous to this situation, in which the judge’s allegedly biased comments were made in the course of public, judicial proceedings. 2/

One of those cases — involving a Guantanamo Bay detainee — concerns a military judge who, while making decisions about the defendant in question, was simultaneously applying for an immigration judge job with the same agency representing the government. 3/

Read 10 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Sep 9

It struck me tonight that Meadows’s removal motions (and those of his co-defendants) is the second major conservative effort this year to ice out state courts from their role in election-related disputes. The first? Moore v. Harper, of course. 1/

That case — in which the Supreme Court could have embraced but did not endorse the independent state legislature doctrine — nonetheless reaffirms the power of states to regulate and administer elections. 2/

And in his opinion rejecting removal for Meadows, perhaps the most clever thing Judge Jones does is cite Moore v. Harper for the proposition that a state’s broad power over elections, including to prevent “fraud and corrupt practices,” comes from our *federal* constitution. 3/

Read 9 tweets

Lisa Rubin

@lawofruby

Sep 8

In deciding tonight that the GA case against Mark Meadows should remain in state court, Judge Steve Jones is putting a lot of stock in the word act and how it fits into the statute’s text. 1/

He notes that under 28 USC 1442, a criminal case brought in a state court against a federal officer “for or relating to any act under color of such office” “may be removed by [him] under color of such office.” 2/

He then explains that the structure “indicates that the criminal prosecution must arise from an act that is for or relating to the color of a federal office. Even if a criminal defendant can characterize individual instances of behavior as part of his official duties…” 3/

Read 14 tweets

Share this page!

Enter Twitter Thread URL to Unroll

Lisa Rubin

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @lawofruby

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!