🔥Hot off the presses: @TheJusticeDept issued an opinion today explaining that disparate-impact liability under federal employment law is *unconstitutional*. This is an earthquake in federal civil rights law. If right, this is the foundation to overturn that pernicious regime.
The Supreme Court recently explained that we have a "colorblind Constitution." This opinion explains what is needed. First, business necessity is a *low bar* to defend against disparate impact. Second, causality is a *high bar* for plaintiffs. But the third requirement is👀
"Third, plaintiffs must establish with particular evidence that there is an available alternative practice that causes less disparate impact and would be equally effective for serving the employer’s valid business purpose." Louisiana v. Callais for employment law. Amazing!
The whole opinion is necessary reading. But I always appreciate a nice summation conclusion. This single paragraph helps to contextualize everything that came before. Read while it's hot!
Kudos to @ElliotGaiser and @joshjcraddock
for putting together this logical, concise, and frankly devastating opinion for defenders of the old, illegal disparate impact regime. Great news for civil rights warrior @andrealucasEEOC too!
Then-Attorney General and now Senator @AshleyMoodyFL endorsed this in a petition to EPA in 2024. (Of course joining that coalition was @AGIowa.) Back then, AG Moody's chief was the notable @DHSGenCounsel 👀
@AshleyMoodyFL @AGIowa @DHSGenCounsel Senator Lee, the most based senator, weighs in:
Portland, Ore. & President Obama's DOJ colluded to lock in a permanent consent decree w/ various woke reforms. One part of the deal was mandatory information sharing with DOJ. President Trump moved to enforce. Judge: Denied, the information is sought in bad faith. I'm skeptical!
First, the facts. Obama sued Portland and they settled immediately, agreeing to policies both sides wanted the same day. This reads hilariously given the unjustifiable attempt to issue sanctions or discipline due to lack of adversity in Florida in the anti-Weaponizarioj case
The agreement was, in part, Portland's attempt to circumvent law enforcement by ensuring the federal government could do what Portland itself (perhaps) could not. But a permanent consent decree with the federal government is *permanent*. It's not a Democrat-only agreement!
Unreal. A second judge in the District of Massachusetts has entered an order stopping President Trump from ending *Temporary* Protected Status for Ethiopians. This comes less than one month after the Supreme Court said it could not do that
Here is a thread on a different district judge in Massachusetts also entering an order pausing TPS for South Sudan. The First Circuit, if asked, should likely consider mandamus and reassignment.
U.S. Supreme Court June 25, 2026: District courts lack jurisdiction to review President Trump's decision to end *TEMPORARY* Protected Status. Please stop.
D. of Mass., July 23, 2026: I am ordering the end of *TEMPORARY* Protected Status for South Sudan indefinitely delayed.
Styling the decision as an administrative stay (instead of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction) should be grounds for mandamus. The First Circuit should not brook this active resistance to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read the docket including the order here:
And if you are confused by the caption, there are three identically captioned cases challenging the end of TPS for South Sudan, Somalia, & Ethiopia. Despite binding Supreme Court precedent, none are in effectcourtlistener.com/docket/7206905…
Congress passed a law stripping district courts from collateral attacks on deportation proceedings. The Second and Third Circuits interpreted the law to do just that. Now, the Fourth Circuit creates a split, with Judge Wilkinson dissenting.
"In short, the majority rips an irreparable hole in the INA’s jurisdiction-channeling scheme...Each such suit will grind removal proceedings to a halt, invite a district court to take control of them, and require the government to prove the alien’s removability a second time." 🔥
Notably, dissenting Judge Wilkinson is one of the most skeptical Republican-appointed judges of President Trump. And even he dissented. Supreme Court, here we come. Read the opinions here: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2851…
AAP filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court in Chicago, arguing that AG @JamesUthmeierFL's attempt to enforce Florida consumer protection law in Florida state court to protect kids cannot proceed. The full Seventh Circuit took the case to end it. Now they want to dismiss.
AAP is on the verge of losing a momentous, precedential, en banc decision in the moderate Seventh Circuit. So they are trying to dismiss their case. What's the reason? They claim that they are a "non-profit entity with related budget constraints." Is that plausible?
Notably, AAP does not say that they are paying the attorneys here (nine, extremely expensive big law attorneys) at all. That makes sense. The law firm literally *won a pro bono award* from AAP for representing them *FOR FREE*. That's so nice! Where's the resource constraint?
Big win for President Trump! Can deportable illegal aliens use the Constitution's Due Process Clause for release? The full Fifth Circuit took the case. And tipping their hand, today they stayed the district court order. Due Process habeas releases should be OVER in the Fifth