Tmrw, the Judge is going to take up Trump's violation of the gag order. It's an obvious violation, as the Order bars Trump from commenting on prospective jurors. The DA sought $1000 fines. But the vios here are flagrant, and the judge has another solution: jail time (suspended) The law permits a 30 day jail term for these violations. Of course, putting him in jail now is a drastic step, especially when a jury is impaneled. But the vios are flagrant. So what to do? 1 possibility is to say Trump is sentenced to a jail term, and then suspend service of it

SCOTUS oral argument on abortion drug has just begun. Solicitor General Prelogar opens with a powerful argument, on both legal standing and the safety of the drug.

Justice Thomas asks the first question. About standing. (My amazing law partner, Jess Ellsworth, will be arguing next. Then the challengers' lawyer, Erin Hawley, will argue.). The case is slated for 60 minutes and it will likely go double that length of time or more.

Today, the trial of Defendant Trump for Jan 6 was supposed to begin in Washington, DC

Instead, we are widely expected to get a decision from the Supreme Court permitting Trump to remain on the ballot, despite being an adjudicated insurrectionist. 1/2 This comes on top of last week’s Supreme Ct action delaying Trump’s Jan 6 trial until possibly past the election, depriving you&me of a public trial where the evidence for/against Trump would be laid out for the world to see

I’ll cover the Supreme Ct decision live at 10AM on @msnbc. 2/2

Smith's filing is really excellent. The one quibble is that he should have cited Trump v Thompson, where SCOTUS denied a stay against Trump's claim the lower court opinion was too broad. SCOTUS said no stay b/c it wouldn't make a difference to outcome of the case. Same true here

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1757905477005173198

In Trump v. Thompson SCOTUS said no to Trump's claim to delay

Trump's lawyer begins in a very bizarre place, that Ct can't decide this because 14th amendment allows an insurrectionist to hold office w/a two-thirds vote of Cong. Chief Justice all over him for this. And argument boomerangs--Trump's lawyer is highlighting how the 14a has a democratic solution--if Trump upset he can't run, he can go to Congress and try to get that 2/3 vote. Justice Alito asks what precedent Colorado Supreme Ct would set -- would it mean Trump DQ'd in other states under the doctrine of collateral estoppel? Trump lawyer wisely says no, but then explains that this could lead to a 50 state disuniformity nightmare. Challengers to Trump need to hit this head on

Trump is not only indicted, his name is mentioned 193 times in the indictment, and the charges go out of the way to show Trump directly violated the law

THREAD REACTING TO INDICTMENT TEXT
1. The indictment is far more detailed than the basic, bare-bones one prosecutors file. An indictment with this level of detail is a “speaking indictment" and this indictment speaks loud&clear: they have damning evidence–and a lot of it at that 2. I think the most notable part of this indictment is that so much of it is told through Trump’s own words. It lists damaging statement after damaging statement before, during, and after these subpoenas were issued. In a way, Trump’s big mouth is what ultimately did him in.

My views on United States v. Trump, the 1st indictment of a former President ever:
1. Its a sad moment–not sad because Trump is being targeted or treated unfairly – but sad b/c it underscores the extreme damage he has done to the institution of the presidency&country as a whole 2. I think this was really the only outcome that the Justice Department could arrive at. What kind of message would it send to the people who risk their lives gathering covert information if the govt allows someone to behave so recklessly w/ our nation’s most important secrets?

Just so folks know just how powerful AI is, Im writing an oped on Special Counsels&Barr. On a lark,I asked #ChatGPT “write a 1000 word essay about special counsels and bill Barr in the style of neal Katyal”

Ive been thinking and advising on AI for 5 years. I’m legit freaked out It might be hard for others to understand, but basically the AI has captured my voice and thoughts. It is only 80% there, but it is mind-busting to see it there already.

I have thought about AI and guardrails and even devised a Constitution of sorts for AI. But …

Sorry for my delay, have been dealing with some difficult things and just seeing this.

I appreciate the question. I don’t think the timing of when the investigation commenced is the relevant issue, as much as whether Durham was conducting this investigation as part of his …

https://twitter.com/muellershewrote/status/1618959469131730944

Special Counsel duties. As I understand the reporting, he was so doing, and, if so, it would make sense that it would be included in his final report. But note that we were also concerned about final reports tarring people without an indictment & a chance to defend themselves

Such a privilege to argue #MoorevHarper in the Supreme Court on behalf of Becky Harper, @CommonCause & other voter protection groups. Anything you liked in my argument was really the product of incredible work by so many, especially @judgeluttig, Abha Khanna, Elisabeth Theodore + Stanton Jones, Allison Riggs, Katie Wellington, Will Havemann, Olivia Molodanof, Sam Hirsch, Jessie Amunson, Zach Shauf, Erik Zimmerman, and many many more.

A decision is expected by June, 2023.

With huge thanks to so many who have worked around the clock for months, we have just filed our merits brief in Moore v Harper, the “Independent State Legislature Theory” case that the Supreme Court will hear on December 7.

This special master opinion is so bad it’s hard to know where to begin:
1. She says Biden hasn’t weighed in on whether docs protected by Exec Privilege. Nonsense. The archives letter (which DOJ submitted to the Judge) makes it clear current President thinks none of this ... is privileged. Archivist says it is “not a close” question
2. Judge enjoins the entire investigation because some of the material might be subject to Executive Privilege. But Executive Priv isn’t some post-presidential privilege that allows Presidents to keep documents after ...

THREAD My Thoughts on @politico story saying the Court voted to say Roe v. Wade is fully overruled.

I’ve quickly scanned the draft opinion and it appears legitimate. This means there was a preliminary vote to fully overrule Roe V Wade and that a majority of the Court agreed. There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him. It’s 60+ pages long.

This is big. 1/6 committee just said they have a good-faith belief that Trump committed crimes.
"The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President & members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the US in violation of § 371"

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1499199677694201856

Justice Kagan is flaying the small business lawyer Scott Keller right now. Oh my. Her point is that the extraordinary nature of the pandemic justifies the vaccine mandate. He hasn't provided a coherent answer.

My new @TheAtlantic 1/6 piece: "This investigation into high-level wrongdoing is the greatest test an AG could face.Right now,despite what he said in yesterday’s generally good speech,it is worth worrying about whether Merrick Garland is failing that test"
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Rolling thread.

1. Breyer begins questioning by making critical point of importance of adhering to precedent in rare, watershed cases. Can imagine Breyer looking right at CJ as he asks this question.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1465833889159651334

2. Now Sotomayor follows up. She says Mississippi legislature enacted this law because the composition of US supreme Ct has changed. “How will the Ct survive the stench this creates.” “How will we (the Court) be able to survive?” This is as open a statement as I’ve seen in an arg

Justice Thomas asks first question about the meaning of a 1908 precedent. Lawyer takes a while to get to answer but eventually does, that language doesn’t control. The Court now gives advocates 2 minutes before questioning begins. Justice Sotomayor asks second question, helping the attorney answer Justice Thomas. Now returns to his main (strong) theme: this is an evasion of enforcement of constl rights.

Um...so this happened. What a great honor. @SHO_Billions has been my favorite show for years, the writing and acting are incredible. One thing I had no idea about was what a production something like this is. We had over 100 people with us filming in London. It was executed beautifully, true teamwork from the director, producers, assistants, everything. (These people should run our government.)

AG Garland announcing lawsuit against Texas by the federal govt. Bravo. This is the fed govt standing up for our Constitution. He calls the Texas law "clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent." He is zeroing in on the "vigilante" provision, explaining just how destructive to the rule of law it is. And he's explaining how much the abortion restrictions destroy women's constitutional rights. It's an excellent statement so far.