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:
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 . . .
One law professor assessing the ruling did not conclusively determine this was an AI error. But she did feel like "Alice in Wonderland."
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.
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!
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!
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.
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!
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
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
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!
HUGE National Security win for President Trump. Secretary of Defense is able to withdraw from President Biden administration's last minute attempt to avoid death penalty for September 11 attackers. Long opinion by Judges Millett and Rao, concur/dissent in part by Judge Wilkins
It cannot be that every Presidential policy and every law must survive review by every district court to go into effect. That is precisely the "imperial judiciary" Justice Barrett warned against. Here we are again. One judge issued a same-day TRO--no defense allowed.
"Maintain the status quo" cannot always trump the political branches exercising their Constitutional aurhority
The TRO was filed this morning. It is 60-pages long. It involves a long and complicated law enacted by Congress and signed by the President less than one business day ago. Yet the Court purports to order the federal government to pay money? Very aggressive in the wake of CASA!