Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Eric W. Profile picture
@EWess92
Mar 5 • 5 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
"I am stunned." The Supreme Court 5-4 ruled that a sole judge can order billions of dollars out the door--unrecoverable. Justice Alito's shock is appropriate. SCOTUS's unwillingness to police the judicial resistance is worrying--hopefully this is resolved on the merits, soon. Image
Link to the full opinion, here:
Voting to let the TRO remain in place was: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jacksonsupremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, continues. He accuses the Supreme Court of failing to live up to its supervisory responsibility over the federal court system Image
The dissent's conclusion strikes a somber tone. Given this opinion, I think it is fair to say that there will be exacting scrutiny on the next universal injunction that makes its way to SCOTUS Image
The majority relies on weasel words. "The present application does not challenge the Gov'ts obligation to follow that order." Not so, despite what it implies. The deadline passed--but what is to be done now? The majority has taken this big mess and magnified it. Truly stunning. Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Eric W.

Eric W. 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 @EWess92

Eric W. Profile picture
Aug 20
Ninth Circuit issues opinion *denying* Birthright Citizenship to the son of a Nigerian diplomat. Opinion properly applies Wong Kim Ark to find both presence *and* jurisdiction necessary for citizenship. Judge Johnstone (Biden appointee) writes for a unanimous panel.Image
Image
Here, Judge Johnstone reflects many of the arguments raised by the United States in its case. The only difference is that he is applying the same logic to one of the three categories named in Wong Kim Ark. But for that, this could have been an amicus for the Government.Image
Read the full opinion here: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
Read 4 tweets
Eric W. Profile picture
Aug 1
Breaking: Antitrust claims against Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard survive motion to dismiss. Major effort to restrict supply of coal can proceed. Enormous win for @KenPaxtonTX, @AGIowa, a coalition of States, @AFergusonFTC and @TheJusticeDept. This is a *BIG* Deal. Image
Image
Judge Kernodle (E.D. Texas) opens his opinion cleanly laying out the background of antitrust law and the allegations. Defendants own huge amounts of coal companies. And Plaintiffs allege they use that control to try to cut down on coal production. A classic violation. Image
Image
Joining big organizations that commit you to unrealistic goals and coordination carries big risks. State AGs have been warning this for years. So have @WillHild and @ConsumersFirst --including whistleblowing about these organizations specifically. Image
Image
Read 12 tweets
Eric W. Profile picture
Jul 30
Yikes! Another hallucinated opinion, this time justifying a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of a State law. The rush to issue orders like this undermines the judiciary. Even worse--apparently the "corrected" opinion still has a hallucinated case . . . Image
Image
One law professor assessing the ruling did not conclusively determine this was an AI error. But she did feel like "Alice in Wonderland." Image
Apparently there is little recourse, short of an appellate court (or perhaps a judicial complaint). When attorneys have engaged in behavior like this, they have faced serious sanctions. Image
Read 4 tweets
Eric W. Profile picture
Jul 28
Wow. Judge Talwani doubles down: Injunction entered against law defunding Planned Parenthood--on First Amendment *and* Bill of Attainder grounds. Interested to see if the First Circuit has it in them to rein in what appears to me to be a likely unlawful preliminary injunction! Image
This is the crux of the First Amendment analysis: by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and *affiliates*, Judge Talwani finds that there are First Amendment rights being violated. Being a part of an organization is protected--and thus funding cannot be cut? Revolutionary! Image
Image
Next, the Judge lays out the rationale for why Congress defunding organizations that provide abortions is . . . an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. As with many truly novel arguments, this immediately raised skepticism among many court watchers. Image
Read 7 tweets
Eric W. Profile picture
Jul 22
The district court in Massachusetts enjoined Congress from cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. Abandoning it's earlier Bill of Attainder theory, the Court finds that Congress passing a law defunding PP violates their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. I'm skeptical! Image
Let's look first at the First Amendment claim. Basically: PP & affiliates lobbies and engages in advocacy. Cutting their funding impedes that. So Congress may not cut. By that logic, Congress may not cut funding to *any* organization, esp. if it discourages affiliates Image
Image
Next, let's look at Equal Protection. Because the Court finds that the PP affiliation is expressive, cutting the funding is subject to...strict scrutiny? On my quick read this section went over my head. Not really sure why this is an EPC rather than another (odd) 1A claim Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Eric W. Profile picture
Jul 16
Must Chief Judge Boasberg recuse? One reason for recusal is the appearance of impropriety. Given the public reporting on the Judge's specific concerns about President Trump I think it has to be addressed. Even if the Judge can be neutral, the appearance here is 👀
Yikes -- pretty bad timing by Judge Boasberg. It is a real shame that judges are not extending to President Trump the same grace as extended to any other President. Especially given his zealous commitment to the rule of law and norms
For those who are interested, I was called out for succumbing to silly concerns, and posted a response here: . Happy to share good-faith criticisms as always!
Read 8 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

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

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(