Eric W. Profile picture
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

Sep 3
*HUGE* "For President Trump, however, the rules are different." Judge Oldham powerfully dissents in tonight's Alien Enemies Act case. 185 pages of opinion to say that President Trump cannot use the Act to deport Tren de Aragua members. Back to the Supreme Court this goes! Image
Image
Image
Read the full opinion and dissent in the case formerly known as A.A.R.P. here: ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
Interesting paragraph at the top of the Majority's page 38. If TdA was found to be invading or a predatory incursion, and that was "at least in part" directed by Venezuela, then the President's order would be lawful. That's a low bar to assert the authority. Image
Read 5 tweets
Sep 2
Ho boy. Judge Breyer--having already been denied once by a bipartisan-appointed panel of appellate judges--purports to enjoin President Trump from using the National Guard for law enforcement purposes. I'll cover some serious questions I have below 🧵
The opening shows where the judge's concern lies: that the successful law enforcement in LA could be replicated elsewhere. Including in the Judge's own Northern District of California. (Yet the judge raises no questions about why the lawsuit is not in LA...) Image
The first analytical give away is explicitly relying on non-binding dicta from a different era of the Court's jurisprudence. Very dissimilar situations and to reach his result, the Judge had to reach into the annals of law. (In the case he cites the plaintiffs were dismissed) Image
Read 7 tweets
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
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
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
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

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!

:(