Tab
LightNews LightNews
banner
discoveryattorney.net
Tab
@discoveryattorney.net
1.6K followers 3K following 1.9K posts
Is everything not computer?
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
discoveryattorney.net
Tab @discoveryattorney.net · Jan 31
www.cato.org/blog/there-n...

If you are a blue dot, in a red state, I suggest emailing this to your Congresspeople. I did. (I know it's Cato, so it may be hard for some of you; but before MAGA, this is what Conservatives believed. REMIND THEM.)
There Is No Good Reason to Revoke Birthright Citizenship
With the law, tradition, common sense, reason, and empirical evidence on the side of maintaining birthright citizenship, we can only hope that the courts maintain our exceptional system in its current...
www.cato.org
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Nevertheless, the Department of Defense and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts persisted.
December 18, 2025 at 8:53 PM
Reposted by Tab
benfields.net
Man this channel I watch of a guy who just talks through picking locks with a fixed camera on his hands does way better numbers than that (I find it soothing idk, he's also clearly very skilled which is pleasant to watch)
The three most recently posted videos from the LockPickingLawyer. All posted in the last two weeks and with 169k, 220k, and 236k views
December 14, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
What makes Law Dork different?

Here's an example. In my discussion at the end of today's newsletter about the Indiana redistricting vote, I gave you a link to the bill and the actual vote. It's a little thing, but important, and so few media sources do it.

www.lawdork.com/p/abrego-gar...
The Indianapolis Star’s key liveblog update was as ground-shifting as it was concise: 4:37 pm ET → Share this update Indiana Senate rejects redistricting bill Kayla Dwyer The decision is here: The Indiana Senate has rejected the mid-decade redistricting bill by a 19-31 vote. Although other states have gone along with Trump’s machinations, and although the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas’s new map to be used in 2026, more than enough Indiana Republicans said no to Trump that he did not get his way in the Hoosier state. Not only did the full chamber vote down the bill to allow the redistricting, but, as The New York Times reported, a majority of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the effort. It was a bare majority — 21-19 — but a majority it was.
December 12, 2025 at 3:54 AM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
To lose one indictment, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose a second looks like carelessness.

A third, though?!
December 11, 2025 at 8:53 PM
Reposted by Tab
fintwitter.bsky.social
RUSSIA'S PUTIN IN PHONE CALL WITH VENEZUELA'S MADURO EXPRESSES SOLIDARITY WITH VENEZUELAN PEOPLE, CONFIRMS RUSSIAN SUPPORT - REPORTS
December 11, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Judge Xinis orders ICE’s release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia “immediately.”
KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. KRISTINOEM, et al., Respondents. ・・・・・ Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-02780-PX ORDER For the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is this 1ith day of December, 2025, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's Petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 at ECF No. 1 is hereby GRANTED; 2. Respondents SHALL release Abrego Garcia from ICE custody immediately; 3. Respondents SHALL notify Abrego Garcia's counsel of the exact time and location of his release no fewer than four hours prior to releasing him, and notify the Court of the status of Abrego Garcia's release by email to chambers no later than 5:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 11, 2025; 4. A representative of the United States Pretrial Services Office for this District SHALL separately contact Abrego Garcia's criminal counsel with further instruction for installation on the release conditions previously imposed in his criminal case, United States v. Abrego Garcia, No. 3:25-CR-00115-1 (M.D. Tenn.); | 5. Respondents SHALL immediately transmit this Order and the accompanying Case 8:25-cv-02780-PX| Document 111 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2 Memorandum Opinion to all relevant officers, agents, and employees under their control and who are involved in this matter and the pending criminal case, United States v. Abrego Garcia, No. 3:25-CR-00115-1 (M.D. Tenn.); 6. Within a week of the date of this Order, by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 18, 2025, the parties SHALL submit a joint status report as to the parties' position regarding resolution of Respondents' pending motion to dissolve at ECF No. 72; and 7. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. December 11, 2025 Date /s/ Paula Xinis United States District Judge
December 11, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Reposted by Tab
cookpolitical.com
Without the spectre of a federal trial looming over him, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar is in a stronger position to win reelection. We move TX-28 from Toss Up -> Lean D.

Read more from @erincovey.bsky.social:
Trump’s Pardon of Cuellar Shifts Rating From Toss Up to Lean Democrat
President Donald Trump has gone to extreme lengths to shore up Republicans’ tenuous hold on the House — going as far as pressuring state legislators to redraw their congressional maps to net their par...
www.cookpolitical.com
December 9, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
(3) concludes that the standard applied by the Ninth Circuit panel in Newsom v. Trump was likely wrong (and praises Judge Marsha Berzon's dissent to that en banc request) because "there is no reason for the judiciary to accept at face value" a presidential determination on these issues; and
In Newsom, we concluded that we had the power to review the President's decision to deploy troops to enforce federal law in Los Angeles. 141 F.4th at 1045- 47. What standard of review do we use? We concluded that courts must defer to the President's determination that a statutory precondition for federalizing the National Guard has been met so long as that determination "reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a 'range of honest judgment.'" Id. at 1051 (citing Sterling, 287 U.S. at 399). Although we did not "further specify the precise standard that governs our review," id., we described the standard as one that is "especially deferential," id. at 1047. I am concerned that such deference sounding in horizontal separation of powers concerns-cannot be reconciled with vertical separation of powers principles found in the Domestic Violence Clause. And no matter the appropriate standard of review, one thing is clear: It does not require courts to turn a blind eye to pretext. Courts are "not at liberty to shut [their] eyes to an obvious mistake, when the validity of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared." Baker v. Carr, The question in this case is not how the President directs the National Guard, but whether the National Guard may be deployed to Oregon against the wishes of the state in the first place. The President has made certain statements in support of his › In her dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in Newsom, Judge Berzon provided a thoughtful analysis explaining why exceptional deference to the President's determinations is not appropriate in this context. See Newsom v. Trump, - F.4th --, 2025 WL 2977104, at *3-10 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025) (Berzon, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). 50 25-6268 Case: 25-6268, 12/08/2025, DktEntry: 100.1, Page 53 of 93 proposed course of action. The issue for us is how much deference do we owe to those justifications? There are, of course, circumstances where the judiciary, as a coordinate branch of government, must accord great respect to Presidential determinations of fact. But the cases in which we have been "especially deferential" are largely limited to national security and foreign affairs. Neither context is implicated here. The upshot of all this is that although there are certainly circumstances where the President's findings deserve substantial deference, in the context of the interpretation and invocation of the constitutional terms at issue, the President's findings cannot be the last word. Absolute fealty is not required here. We have the capacity both to define constitutional terms and to make findings as to whether the President's asserted basis for action comes within that definition. Just as we would not entrust the President to judge for himself whether a tax was proportional, art. I, § 8, cl. 1, whether a regulation gave preference to one port over another, art. I, § 9, cl. 6, or whether a rule was properly within the scope of the Commerce Clause, art. I, § 8, cl. 3, there is no reason for the judiciary to accept at face value the President's determination that a condition of insurrection or rebellion exists within a state or that he is unable to execute the law through ordinary means.
December 9, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
OK, seriously. This is wild.

Judge Jay Bybee (1) raises a new issue — the Domestic Violence Clause of the Constitution — to consider in the troop deployment cases; (2) extensively details its historical application;
The solution to the second issue and to George Mason’s question was the Domestic Violence Clause in Article IV , Section 4, which provides: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. The Clause’s phrasing directly inverts the Declaration of Independence’s grievance that the King “kept among us . . . Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.” The Declaration of Independence ¶ 13 (emphasis added). The Militia and Domestic Violence Clauses were to be read together to keep the federal government and the states in their respective lanes. We can quibble around the edges of these examples, and it is possible that I have missed other examples or even counterexamples, but the historical record from George Washington to George H.W. Bush—is, in the main, consistent: federal use of the Militia is constrained by the Domestic Violence Clause. Nor is this historical pattern confined to domestic unrest involving only state law or interests: in most episodes, federal interests, laws, and policies were the primary target of the unrest. From the earliest examples of presidential practice to modern day deployments, presidents have understood that state governments must first request assistance as a necessary condition for the federalized deployment of the Militia in response to domestic disturbances. An important exception to this rule comes out of the Fourteenth Amendment: If states actively oppose or resist the enforcement of the laws in violation of the Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, or Equal Protection Clauses, the federal government may deploy troops to execute the laws of the United States. In such cases, the Domestic Violence Clause provides no basis for objection when the states themselves are the source of or have acquiesced in the unrest. But otherwise, the President may not deploy the Militia without state consent.
December 9, 2025 at 3:37 AM
Reposted by Tab
kenwhite.bsky.social
This whole book is a hate crime. She's burning a cross on the front lawn of the English language.
davekarpf.bsky.social Dave Karpf @davekarpf.bsky.social · 10d
There’s a sentence on page 2 that is longer than Bluesky’s character limit.

And the sole knowledge that sentence conveys is “Olivia was born on January 6th.”
my mother always told me. The date would later become shorthand for the occasion of that riot at the Capitol over which more than a thousand people were arrested and for which the president was indicted by a grand jury in the District of Columbia and charged with conspiring to defraud the United States and obstruct an official proceeding. He pleaded not guilty. When he returned to office, the government dropped the case and he pardoned the prisoners. He called them patriots. Strange symmetry. Circular. On this humid night, a last gasp as the tail met the jaw. I did not yet grasp this.
December 8, 2025 at 7:02 PM
discoveryattorney.net
That's it. I'm running for Congress in Texas.
December 6, 2025 at 3:27 AM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to take up a challenge to President Trump's January 20 birthright citizenship executive order.

The court will hear DOJ's appeal of a loss below in a class-action challenge brought in the wake of June's decision limiting universal injunctions.
(ORDER LIST: 607 U.S.) FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2025 24-621 ORDER IN PENDING CASE NRSC, ET AL. V. FEC, ET AL. The motion of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below for leave to file a supplemental brief is granted. 25-83 25-197 25-365 25-5146 CERTIORARI GRANTED JULES, ADRIAN V. ANDRE BALAZS PROP., ET AL. T. M. V. UNIV. OF MD MEDICAL SYS., ET AL. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. BARBARA, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is granted. ABOUAMMO, AHMAD V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. QUESTION PRESENTED The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those "born ** * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order's effective date. The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.
December 5, 2025 at 7:11 PM
discoveryattorney.net
🤣
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 13d
NBC News: DOJ fails to get a new indictment of Letitia James.
www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...
NBC NEWS SUBSCRIBE BREAKING NEWS Dec. 4, 2025, 5:40 PM EST JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Grand jury declines to indict N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James, less than two weeks after the first case was dismissed Federal officials failed to secure the new indictment against James, whom Trump has targeted, after a judge said the previous one was secured by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor.
December 4, 2025 at 10:58 PM
Reposted by Tab
numb.comfortab.ly
"...and this is where we bathe our coats."
December 1, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Reposted by Tab
colindickey.com
Handing back student work that’s been written by ChatGPT with a 0 followed by the comment “This essay will never stand in authentic wonder before the Beauty of God’s creation.”
vulture.com Vulture @vulture.com · 22d
Pope Leo XIV told students not to use artificial intelligence for homework, saying that AI ‘won’t stand in authentic wonder before the beauty of God’s creation.’
Even God Is Worried About ChatGPT
Pope Leo XIV told students not to use artificial intelligence for homework, saying that AI ‘won’t stand in authentic wonder before the beauty of God’s creation.’
www.vulture.com
November 26, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Reposted by Tab
govpressoffice.gov.ca.gov
November 24, 2025 at 6:37 PM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Following this week's shenanigans from Lindsey Halligan and crew, James Comey seeks dismissal of the indictment against him "because the grand jury never approved the operative indictment." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
JAMES B. COMEY, JR.’S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT BASED ON FIFTH AMENDMENT, RULE 6, AND GRAND JURY VIOLATIONS James B. Comey, Jr., by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b), moves this Court to dismiss the government’s indictment. As explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the case should be dismissed because the grand jury never approved the operative indictment. “A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(f). But here, at least 12 jurors did not concur in the operative twocount indictment; and the grand jury rejected the only indictment that the government presented to it. The government’s attempt to prosecute Mr. Comey without a valid “indictment of a Grand Jury” violates the Fifth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. V. Moreover, dismissal is independently warranted because of the government’s misconduct before the grand jury. Among other things, the government relied on information it obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the attorney-client privilege; and it made serious misstatements of law to the grand jury. Collectively, those violations raise “‘grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of” the government’s misconduct, warranting dismissal with prejudice. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256 (1988) (citation omitted).
November 21, 2025 at 9:59 PM
Reposted by Tab
klasfeldreports.com
A senior ICE official just admitted in an evidentiary hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case that someone else drafted his declaration in the case and he didn’t know what certain words meant.
November 20, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Reposted by Tab
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Federal judge rules that Trump's DC troop deployment is likely illegal — both as to D.C. National Guard and and out-of-state National Guard units — granting DC's request to block the use of the troops in this way.

The preliminary injunction is stayed until Dec. 11.
The record in this case, including many of the amicus briefs filed, makes clear that there are strong views on both sides about whether these deployments represent good policy. But the Court is only tasked with deciding whether Defendants' actions are lawful. In this opinion, the Court addresses two of the District's statutory arguments under the APA and finds that it is likely to succeed on the merits of both. First, the DOD Defendants have exceeded the bounds of their authority under Title 49 of the D.C. Code, and thus acted contrary to law, in deploying the DCNG for non-military, crime-deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city's civil authorities. Second, these Defendants lack statutory authority under 32 U.S.C. § 502 to support their request for assistance from out-of-state National Guards and their actions in calling those Guards to the District. The Court finds that the District's exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction is irreparably harmed by Defendants' actions in deploying the Guards, and that the balance of equities and public interest weigh in the District's favor. As such, the Court will GRANT the District's motion for preliminary relief and partially DENY Defendants' motion to dismiss on those claims. The Court finds, however, that the public interest weighs in favor of an administrative stay in this case, and that a stay is needed to permit orderly proceedings on appeal. Accordingly, the Court will STAY its order for 21 days, until December 11, 2025?
November 20, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Reposted by Tab
kenwhite.bsky.social
/6 Also, it is the obligation of every lawyer who takes their oath and the Constitution seriously to shun from legal society every single AUSA and DoJ lawyer participating in this. Strike their names from every book and tablet, every pylon and obelisk, every monument of the rule of law.
November 19, 2025 at 11:46 PM
Reposted by Tab
awardedlime.bsky.social
Voir Dire in Starr County starts off in Spanish so the judge can figure out who really doesn’t speak English. America is amazing and amazing Americans don’t always speak English.
November 20, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Reposted by Tab
obarcala.bsky.social
We're all textualists now.*

*Except where I suspect the issues involve that dastardly George Soros.
November 19, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Reposted by Tab
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Judge Jerry Smith's dissent from the decision that Texas' redrawn congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander is now available.

And holy shit it goes hard.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
“Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!”1 I dissent from the entirety of Judge Brown’s opinion granting a preliminary injunction. * * * * * PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I append this Preliminary Statement to dispel any suspicion that I’m responsible for any delay in issuing the preliminary injunction or that I am or saw slow-walking the ruling. I also need to highlight the pernicious judicial misbehavior of U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown.2 1 Bette Davis (as Margo Channing), All About Eve (20th Century Fox 1950). 2 When misbehavior, or even irregular procedural behavior, occurs, there’s ample precedent for bringing it to the attention of the public. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732, 810-14 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (Boggs, J., dissenting) (describing the misbehavior of the Chief Judge in Case 3:21-cv-00259-DCG-JES-JVB Document 1439 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 104 LULAC v. Abbott, No. 3:21-CV-259 (W.D. Tex., El Paso) 2 In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.
November 19, 2025 at 8:57 PM
Reposted by Tab
kenwhite.bsky.social
So here’s what apparently happened: they tried to indict Comey on the last day of the statute with a three-count indictment. The grand jury rejected one. Rather than cross it out or indicate on the indictment that only two of the three counts were voted upon, Halligan creates…/1
annabower.bsky.social Anna Bower @annabower.bsky.social · 29d
NEWS: During a hearing in federal court in VA, prosecutors confirmed that the operative indictment in the case against James Comey was never shown to or voted on by the entire grand jury before it was presented in open court.

Defense counsel argued that’s a complete bar to further prosecution
November 19, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Reposted by Tab
marcelias.bsky.social
I want to take a moment to thank the entire Elias Law Group team who worked on the Texas redistricting case as well as our fearless clients. The thirteen Black and Latino voters we represented stood up to challenge Texas's unprecedented mid-decade redistricting. We all ow them a debt of gratitude.
November 18, 2025 at 8:11 PM