*HUGE* Win for President Trump in the challenge to Chicago's law enforcement surge. This is a stunning rebuke of the district court, explaining that the order is necessary to stop futute courts from following. The district judge is chastened by the appeals judges for overstepping
Equally important is another court has joined in to explain the problems with district court judges entering so-called "putative" class actions. The Seventh Circuit recognizes the problems and orders courts to stop, under the Trump v. CASA decision.
"Recall that the plaintiffs asked the district court for an order voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Rules 23(e) and 41(a). That ruling would bind the whole class, which is why the district court held a hearing and had
the parties notify the class...
...as Rule 23 requires. No class members or lead plaintiffs objected to dismissing this case with prejudice. Nor did anyone request an opt-out." Huge recognition of this problem in putative class actions.
Judge Easterbrook dissents. He would merely dismiss the appeal. But even he acknowledges serious concern with the district court's behavior here.
Huge win for @TheJusticeDept and Federal Programs specifically that had to manage what the Seventh Circuit has recognized as an unreasonable court that failed to follow the federal rules.
35 retired federal judges, using their titles as former judges, filed a nonparty motion to reopen the settled Trump v. IRS case. They are represented by partisan Democrats and are led by Michael Luttig and Nancy Gertner. I've seen filings like this, but usually by pro se types
What is the basis for this intervention? It's an important case and they'd like to intervene. Also one Eleventh Circuit case and one Sixth Circuit case applying an earlier version of Rule 60 allowed a nonparty motion. I am really quite skeptical of this.
I'm very, very, skeptical of retired judges using their former title as a basis for filing partisan briefs in high-profile cases. Here, their interest in the case is directly tied to their judicial commission. Feels very odd to me.
A naturalized American citizen was inspired to join ISIS, where he committed attacks that killed 100,000 people. He eventually left ISIS and returned to the US. Convicted of terror charges, his recommended term was 30-50 years. He got 10. Not enough, per Judge Thapar. 100% right!
These facts are wild. "During his naturalization ceremony, Ramic refused to recite the oath of allegiance to the United States. Instead, he proclaimed an Islamic oath and cursed all nonbelievers." He tried to go to Yemen. Was caught. FBI told him to stop. He did not.
He eventually met a convicted terrorist. A jamaican terrorist who advocated killing Christians, Jews, and Americans. He follows the advice to sneak into Syria and became a fighter. He wanted to be a suicide bomber, but got disillusioned with the six month wait.
The @ABAesq agrees with President Trump: DEI is as good as DEAD. Illegal race discrimination should play no role in race discrimination. Hopefully, the ABA will repudiate its position about a fake constitutional amendment embraced by President Biden too. Glad to see (not enough)!
One has to wonder how much fear of losing a lawsuit to @HarmeetKDhillon and @TheJusticeDept played a role in the ABA abandoning what it long argued was a core belief
Can a court clerk undermine the highest profile murder conviction South Carolina has recently seen? Yes. Richard Murdaugh's conviction for murdering his wife and son reversed in a twist right out of true crime. A new trial ordered due to interference by the clerk of court.
" Elections have consequences...In this case, two former candidates for Kentucky judicial office argue that the state violated the First Amendment when it threatened to sanction them for their campaign speech during a 2022 election. They’re right." So Judge Thapar begins.
This dispute questions what limitations Kentucky can impose on the speech of judicial candidates. The candidates wanted to self ID as "conservative" "Republican" and tout their endorsements. They can. The commission didn't raise sovereign immunity. And this is all as applied.
Judge Griffin dissents. He doesn't think the candidates have standing. The threat of enforcement in the form of letters was not enough to justify this suit. I'm not sure he's right--but he may be. He doesn't touch on the merits other than agreeing the facial challenge fails
Twin wins for @AGCHanaway & @CitizenCapozzi defending Missouri's new fair maps. First, plaintiffs argued that the new maps should not go into effect due to a pending referendum. Second argued the map is unconstitutional. Both challenges fail. Important wins for election integrity