First off, the conservative/GOP bona fides of Bill Burck and Robert Hur have been covered elsewhere. telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/0…
But as @WilliamBaude notes, Lehotsky Keller Cohn is on the brief, with name partners Steve Lehotsky (Scalia clerk, former Bush-era OLC); Scott Keller (former Texas SG, Ted Cruz Chief of Staff, Kennedy clerk), and Jonathan Cohn (Thomas clerk).
Lehotsky Keller Cohn has lots of other lawyers on the brief who have conservative credentials, such as Katherine Yarger (former Gorsuch/Thomas clerk), Mary Elizabeth Miller (Alito clerk), Shannon Denmark (Kavanaugh clerk).
Will any of this change the outcome in the case? I doubt it. But it's an interesting signal to send to the courts—not just the district court, but those on the court of appeals and potentially the Supreme Court who might be following the case.
Errata: Scott Keller was Cruz's chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, not his Chief of Staff. (Serves me right for writing too quickly....)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
DC Circuit denies the motion for an emergency stay in the Boasberg case 2-1, with a brief order and 92 pages of concurrences (one by Henderson, one by Millett) and a dissent (Walker).
I'm going to scan through the opinions and select out key parts. 🧵
Magistrate judge in the 5th Circuit, asked to sign off on warrants for routine "tower dumps," declines to do, writing an opinion concluding that all tower dumps are likewise unconstitutional in light of the 5th Circuit's recent geofencing opinion. 🧵
#N storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Other courts have broadly ruled that tower dumps are not searches at all. I think this is wrong, as it's based on the erroneous mosaic theory. I explain why that's wrong in my new book. So I don't have a problem with the search holding, holding that a search will occur.
As for the idea that a warrant can't be used in this setting, I think it's bananas. But then it's based on the 5th Circuit's bananas geofence warrant ruling, so hey, if bananas is Fifth Circuit law, you're going to get a lot of bananas.
The Acting US Attorney of the SDNY resigned today, and she sent this letter yesterday to the Attorney General explaining why she refused to drop the charges against NYC's mayor. Read the whole thing, but the last two pages are in the screenshots. static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…
The Deputy AG replies— among other things, putting all the AUSAs who were "principally responsible" for the Adams prosecution on administrative leave and referring them to OPR. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Also, the SDNY is taken off the case, which is given to main Justice so the motion wanted will be filed.
Sorry if this is nitpicky, but headline writers, it's maybe worth noting: Smith's report argues that the evidence would have been *legally sufficient* to convict. It does not claim, as your headlines say, that a jury *would have convicted.* Smith is a lawyer, not a soothsayer.
et tu, WSJ? Sheesh.
ABC News is getting this headline right, at least.
A favorite in my collection: an original copy of William Lloyd Garrison's abolitionist newspaper, "The Liberator," from December 14, 1849. (Quick thread)
"The Liberator" was an abolitionist newspaper published on a weekly basis from 1831 to 1865. You can read about it here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liber…
The 1st page of the issue I have has some fascinating stories, such as this report of an argument in the Court of Common Pleas about a case trying to end school desegregation in Boston.
Classic @IJ case, and I'm a big fan of the result from a policy perspective. Constitutionally, though, this seems off to me (with the usual apologies for thinking that the Constitution does not enact my personal policy preferences).
#N ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
If the State thinks that you can't practice veterinary medicine effectively without inspecting the animal in person, that may be a dumb judgment. But at least to me—admittedly a non-expert in this area—it doesn't sound intuitively like it's primarily a regulation of speech.
As I understand the opinion, the CA5 focuses on the fact that this particular veterinarian violated the physical-inspection requirement by putting his advice in writing—specifically, emails. And that's speech, the court says.