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.

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)! Read the full article here: news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-p…

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.
Read the opinion here: sccourts.org/media/opinions…

" 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.

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
Read the first opinion here: courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=23…

Read the second opinion here: courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=23…

Huge win for Democracy and the Virginia Constitution. The Virginia-mander has been found to be illegal for several reasons. Glad to see the Virginia Supreme Court stick to following Rule of Law. Read the opinion here: more to come in a threadvacourts.gov/static/opinion…

After threatening the mother of his baby and firing a gun in a park, a man led police on a 30 minute chase that included helicopters and SWAT. He was shot while dangling a baby in an alley. Qualified immunity: no money to the wild man.
The majority declines to reach whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation at all. Instead, it determines that no violation was clearly established. No other case clearly established that the shot was improper. Qualified immunity granted.

Can President Trump detain illegal immigrants without bond that are already in the country? The Fifth and Eighth Circuits say yes. The Second Circuit says no. The Seventh Circuit split 1-1-1. Today, the Eleventh Circuit joins the Second. Judge Lagoa dissents; Judge Marcus writes.
Read the full decision here: media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…

Professor Vladeck does not like today's decision finding President Biden's half-baked rules to allow dispensing abortion pills by mail was illegal. Let's take a look, as he's a thought leader on the legal left. First, he's upset that it will require in-person doctor visits
Next, he takes issue with the claims of danger. (Not rebutting any of the data actually in the opinion.) He objects to sovereign harms for standing. (But does not rebut the longstanding existence of same.) And he doesn't at all engage with the question of financial harm. Oh well!

Holy pro-life guacamole. Enormous win for @AGLizMurrill against President Biden's attempts to remove almost all safety regulations from abortion pills. That means that nationwide, the old rules must snapback while the appeal was pending. Judge Duncan for a unanimous court.
This stay was briefed by General Murrill's SG team, led by SG Ben Aguinaga. (Good winning week for that crew, between this and Callais.) Notably, Judge Duncan is joined by Judges Southwick and Engelhardt. Both are moderate.
Read the full opinion here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Should an organization that believes President Biden can amend the Constitution via Tweet have a monopoly on over seeing law schools? What about if the organization is partisan and also raises law school costs? U.S. Attorney @BradenBoucek & @FTC team up to say No! "The ABA requirement meets Tennessee’s definition of a monopoly. It uses its cartel-like status to operate to the detriment of consumers and competitors...Discrimination based on race is illegal and wrong and may violate federal law." 🔥🔥

I was certain that the redistricting Louisiana v. Callais case would come out in June. I was wrong. As penance, I am going to do a full thread on the opinion. Key takeaway: Republican States can remove race discrimination in their state maps. An Original meaning Section 2 lives. First, look at the holding and the line up. The Holding explains that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to make a new majority-minority district. Using race failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. This is a classic 6-3 Republican appointees vs. Democrat appointee lineup

Justice Jackson gave a speech on April 13 highly critical of both President Trump and the Supreme Court. Some of her remarks relate to ongoing cases. For example, she is highly critical of President Trump ending Temporary Protected Status. That case will be argued this month. While later in the speech she explains that she prefers the phrase "emergency docket", she uses @WilliamBaude's "Shadow Docket" in her introduction to her speech criticizing the Court and the President. She's speaking at @YaleLawSch, a top-3 law school (tied with @UChicagoLaw)

🔥🔥"As is crystal clear to anyone willing to look, this meritless appeal was about one thing: more time in the United States. And the case’s tortured history confirms that our court delivered...more time." So concludes Judge VanDyke, joined by Judge Tung, concurring.
"A rational observer might wonder how an alien—who conceded his removability in 2015 and whose application for immigration relief was ruled meritless in 2015 and then again in 2016—could possibly still be in the United States pursuing a meritless claim...a full decade later." 👀

*HUGE* Win for victims of terrorism today. 11 Years after entry of judgment, the $655m verdict against the Palestinian Liberation Organization may be enforced. The case is a procedural mess but serves as an example of Congressional action leading to results. Time to collect!

Read the full opinion here: ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys…

Can President Trump end *Temporary* Protected Status for Somalians on March 17? No says Judge Burroughs (Obama, D. Mass). Why? Ending TPS would be a big deal with big implications. No discussion of the preliminary injunction or stay factors. Just a presumption against regularity.
Equally irregular, in my opinion, is the lack of citation to either of the *Two* U.S. Supreme Court cases allowing TPS for other countries to end. One would think those Supreme Court stays allowing action would counsel against an administrative stay here.

"This is a case about swinging dicks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them in their spa." Judge VanDyke's thermonuclear dissental. The panel raised eyebrows for mandating a women's spa serve a male patron
Judge Murguia (joined by many Judges, including Trump-appointed Miller) and Judge Owens (joined by Trump-appointed Forrest) call out Judge VanDyke's dissent--too harsh. I've never seen opinions like this. Straight out of Mean Girls. On Wednesdays they write (nice) pink opinions?

Do State and Federal judges have an obligation to try to follow Supreme Court emergency orders in good faith? 175 judges say no, endorsing the ongoing resistance by district courts to orders the Supreme Court has *already said* are binding. Odd to join such a partisan brief! These 175 judges apparently believe the only binding part of a judicial opinion is its reasoning, not its ultimate judgment. I do not think that is the best read of longstanding case law--much less the Supreme Court's recent admonition in Boyle.

*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.

*BIG* Immigration win for President Trump. Ninth Circuit holds that President Trump's executive order regarding refugees is lawful. Judge Bybee writes that it is and vacates most of the preliminary injunction. One year in, President Trump is able to run the executive branch

How big is this win? "We recognize the enormous practical implications of this decision. There are over one hundred thousand vetted and conditionally approved refugees...But such a result is one potential consequence of Congress’s sweeping grant of power to the President...”

Can Seattle ban apps like @Uber and @Instacart from deactivating gig workers' accounts? Judge Clifton says yes, the ordinance is neither unconstitutionally vague nor violates the First Amendment. Judge Bennett dissents and would instead remand on commercial speech
Judge Bennett is concerned that the district court erred in failing to consider the First Amendment/commercial speech issue at the outset. And that initial failure, Judge Bennett dissents, infected the rest of the analysis. He would ask the district court to reassess.