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.
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.
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.
"By joining these climate initiatives, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants sent a strong public message to all companies they are invested in: carbon output must decrease. And for the Coal Companies, that necessarily means producing less coal."
Even worse "Defendants publicly joined climate initiatives and pledged their assets to climate-based goals that necessarily result in the reduction of coal output, publicly proclaimed their intent to further these goals" and then engaged with the companies to achieve those goals
Defendants' antitrust "Safe Harbor" argument are unavailing--at least for now.
Regarding Sherman, the States' Texas-led complaint did all that it needed to survive an MTD--and more.
Again, it turns out that joining a conspiracy in restraint of trade is a legal problem--even when done in plain view.
As many commentators at the time recognized, the States' claims are novel in some respects -- but very straightforward in others. That type of creative application of precedent is the sign of Texas's superb lawyering.
Of course, one particular sweet point is that Iowa's state-specific claim survives. Iowa's Consumer Fraud Act is a fantastic tool to hold accountable misleading or deceptive acts.
Once I see a live link to this opinion, I'll add it. Until then you'll just have to trust me that I didn't mock this up myself . . .
Thanks to Zach for posting a live link to the opinion:
🚨🚨ENORMOUS Immigration win for President Trump. The Fifth Circuit, the first federal court to address President Trump's expedited removal efforts, sides with the administration. Illegal aliens may be detained and removed! Judge Jones, joined by Duncan. Judge Douglas dissents.
Read the full opinion, argued *yesterday* here:
This will help slow down or stop the attempt by immigration lawyers and activists to clog the courts.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
It is worth noting that several brave district judges, including Judges Pacold (N.D. Ill.) and Judge Divine (E.D.M.O.) came to this result, while many others did not.
Big win for President Trump in the normally hostile Fourth Circuit. Can district courts enjoin President Trump's efforts to stop paying environmental and agricultural grants? Unanimously "No." Judge Rushing (Trump) wrote for a panel including Biden-appointed Judge Heytens!
*HUGE* finding that suits over ending grants must be redirected to the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. That means that the federal district judges who keep entering injunctions in Maryland and Virginia lack jurisdiction.
Can President Trump deploy the National Guard in DC? Unanimous opinion by Judge Miller (Obama) joined by Judges Katsas and Rao (Trump) says "Yes." Huge win for the President. Judge Rao writes separately to question whether DC can sue at all. She thinks probably not.
If interested, I raised some of the issues put forth by Judge Rao (joined by Katsas) in a thread. It is not clear that DC AG can sue the federal government at all.
Everyone agrees that a child born to US citizens in the United States is an American citizen. A child born to Canadian parents in Canada is not. But determining what the Constitution mandates regarding Birthright Citizenship is a tough question. 24 States weighed in on the limits
(Everything on this thread is pulled from the excellent brief filed by @AGTennessee and @AGIowa , and which I had the privilege of working on. So if there's some kind of implicit bias in explaining one's own brief, consider it disclosed!) ((Quotes adjusted for character limit))
Some table setting: "Contra plaintiffs’ thin historical arguments, contemporaneous sources instead support what common sense suggests: Conferring United States citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere presence by happenstance or illegality."
Did then-President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry adopt a legal theory justifying President Trump taxing remittances? Yes! Look at the denial of the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama/Kerry argued that needing "leverage" in international negotiations justified executive action.
What does that mean? That means that when President Trump wants "leverage" with our neighbors, he can take Presidential action to negotiate a better deal. The Art of the Deal but based on President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's denial of the Keystone XL project!
I'm not kidding. "Leverage" and "climate change [] leadership" were the two reasons Kerry and Obama put forward to deny Keystone XL. In short, important national security goals (like controlling our border) justify Presidential action. Taxing remittances follows that logic.
Hoo boy. Judge McConnell (once one of Senator Whitehouse's largest donors) issues an impossible to comply with decision. Cheekily voting the President's post asking for guidance on how to spend money he doesn't have, he responds "find the additional funds necessary."
Another poison pill in the order: the money must flow by November 3. But any money found must be allocated under the Administrative Procedure Act. How's that timeline work? Read the full order here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Judiciary expert and law professor Rob Luther weighs in: