Gabriel Malor
LightNews LightNews
banner
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Gabriel Malor
@gabrielmalor.bsky.social
19K followers 200 following 9.5K posts
Oklahoman in Virginia. Appellate attorney.
I talk about federal court decisions. A lot.
Sometimes the most you can do is the best you can do.
gabriel.malor@gmail.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Whoa, thought for a minute we were talking about Jon Wick 3.
karabaic.org jack the nonabrasive @karabaic.org · 4h
Let's have a nice romantic time ON TOP OF MY DOG'S GRAVE

#TheSecondWoman #NoirAlley #TCMParty
andrian6.bsky.social Andrija Popovic @andrian6.bsky.social · 4h
Wow. Now that was a suggestive tide coming in... #NoirAlley #TCMParty #TheSecondWoman
January 4, 2026 at 6:55 AM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
pbump.com
"They use us to avoid addressing their own problems."
onestpress.onestnetwork.com Olga Nesterova @onestpress.onestnetwork.com · 7h
Colombian President Petro commenting on the US;

“A clan of pedophiles wants to destroy our democracy. To keep Epstein's list from coming out, they send warships to kill fishermen & threaten our neighbor with invasion for their oil."
January 4, 2026 at 4:53 AM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
This skeet is relevant to my interests.
kumail.bsky.social Kumail Nanjiani @kumail.bsky.social · 13h
I can finally announce:

I am in the next season (series) of Taskmaster! My favorite tv show! I’ve seen every season & some multiple times! Thrilled to be with this group of hilarious sweeties.
Amy Gledhill
Joanna Page
Armando Iannucci
Joel Dommett
And me!
January 4, 2026 at 4:20 AM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
mikesacks.bsky.social
CA4 rejects facial challenge to fed law banning firearm possession by peope who’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Unanimous, all-Dem panel (Obama/Biden/Biden) says as-applied challenges could succeed if plaintiff proves not dangerous

storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/01/...
DIAZ, Chief Judge: James Gould pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) by possessing a firearm after having previously been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. He appeals, claiming that the Second Amendment renders the statute facially unconstitutional. We disagree and affirm Gould's conviction. By its plain terms, § 922(g)(4) operates as a lifetime ban on possessing a firearm. But that's not the end of the story. 2. Previously, one could petition the Attorney General for relief from the ban by showing that he or she "will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest." 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). But that "provision has been rendered inoperative" because Congress, since 1992, "has repeatedly barred the Attorney General from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon [relief] applications." Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23, 28 n.1 (2007) (quotation omitted). Instead, Congress has permitted states that meet certain requirements to grant relief from the statute's firearm ban. See 34 U.S.C. § 40915.4 A state's process suffices if it (1) allows a person to apply for relief (2) before a state court, board, or commission that will determine-consistent with principles of due process—whether "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest" and (3) provides for de novo judicial review of a 4 Congress enacted 34 U.S.C. § 40915 in 2008. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-180, § 105, 121 Stat. 2559, 2569-70 (2008). • Appeal: 24-4192 Doc: 52 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 6 of 24 denial of a petition. Id. § 40915(a). Thirty-three states, including West Virginia, have established such processes. Though we find little evidence in the historical record of keeping firearms out of the hands of people released from mental institutions in the founding era, that dearth stems from a lack of mental institutions generally during that period. But what history does reveal is that people who were mentally ill were considered dangerous when their illness posed a threat to themselves or others, and so the state could incapacitate and disarm them. When a person today is released from a mental institution, the setting changes. But the historical justification for their disarmament, that they pose a danger, persists until they can demonstrate otherwise to a court. Rahimi doesn't hold that a law restricting firearm use is constitutional only if the historical tradition that justified disarming someone required continuous imprisonment. The laws disarming religious and racial groups during the eighteenth century didn't involve, for example, locking up all Catholics. Instead, we think-consistent with the reasoning in Rahimi-that a person (like Gould) found to be dangerous because of mental illness can be disarmed until he can show that his affliction no longer renders him dangerous. Gould makes one more argument. He claims that § 922(g)(4) is facially unconstitutional because the fact that an institution has released someone necessarily means that the person is no longer a danger to themselves or others. And if that's true, their right to own a firearm should be restored automatically upon release. The problem for Gould is that West Virginia doesn't require a finding that an individual is no longer a threat for them to be released from involuntary commitment. Rather, release may be granted when a medical official determines that "the conditions justifying involuntary hospitalization no longer exist or that the individual can no longer benefit from hospitalization." W. Va. Code Ann. § 27-7-1. Sometimes the release occurs with conditions (such as a requirement to continue outpatient treatment) and can be revoked if the individual doesn't comply. Id. § 27-7-2. Or the individual may be released even when they are "unimproved" if a responsible person is willing and able to take care of them. Id. § 27-7-3. It's not a stretch to find constitutional applications of § 922(g)(4) here. And it's reasonable to conclude that release from a mental institution (at least in West Virginia) isn't the same as a judicial determination that a person is no longer dangerous. * * * We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. Disarmament under § 922(g)(4) is facially constitutional because situations exist where it may be applied consistent with the Second Amendment. We express no opinion on as-applied challenges to the statute. AFFIRMED
January 4, 2026 at 4:08 AM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
tvsadam.bsky.social
the reason people sometimes act madder at democrats than republicans when republicans do impossibly evil shit is the same reason why, if you hired an exterminator to handle a roach infestation and he showed up to feed and play with them instead, your first instinct wouldn’t be to yell at the roaches
January 3, 2026 at 9:19 PM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
whatsarasaid.bsky.social
in the military there's a cliche for this: what you walk past, you accept as standard

if the only 535 Americans who can reject a particular act by impeaching the president don't bother to, they're walking past it, and that's the same as saying it's OK with them
anatosaurus.bsky.social Anat Shenker-Osorio @anatosaurus.bsky.social · 10h
How are voters meant to understand how serious things are if in lieu of shouting fire AND going into building with hoses, you're simply posting fire safety suggestions on social media?
Not introducing articles of impeachment is a message that Trump hasn't committed impeachable offenses.
January 4, 2026 at 2:36 AM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
thewizardofboz.bsky.social
Insane how much these people hate their own country
January 3, 2026 at 8:52 PM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
carlcecere.bsky.social
I also see that we’ve learned from prior experience that the dropping of American bombs is the end of the conflict and not the beginning.
pwnallthethings.bsky.social 2026 all the things @pwnallthethings.bsky.social · 15h
Is the US doing things in Venezuela only for oil? Well, no, but also yes
January 3, 2026 at 8:23 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
The constitutional remedy for a president who commits acts of war without the authorization of Congress is impeachment, removal, and disqualification followed by a a criminal trial.

This is true regardless of what the idiot John Roberts thinks.
January 3, 2026 at 8:15 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Especially Boomers. Sorry to make it about age, but it is always the Baby Boomers.
disabilitystor1.bsky.social Aparna Nair @disabilitystor1.bsky.social · 15h
Im in my late 40s, and im just flashing back to every ‘justified’ regime change and invasion for decades, every ‘weapons of mass destruction’ lie, every ‘evil communists’ trope bought and sold by politicians, journalists and people, and all the incredible suffering that followed
January 3, 2026 at 7:58 PM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
jacobbogage.bsky.social
They’ve got Twitter up on the big screens in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago makeshift “situation room.”

Photos from Trump’s Truth Social account.
January 3, 2026 at 6:13 PM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
kashana.blacksky.app
Well, it was either all this or another black person in a Star Wars movie
January 3, 2026 at 5:01 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
This creature, who was politely asked to not be in the kitchen while I'm cooking, is in the kitchen acting all innocent.
January 3, 2026 at 6:03 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Ferfuckssakes.
austinkocher.com Austin Kocher, PhD @austinkocher.com · 1d
ICE is gross. In a lawsuit over inhumane detention conditions on floor 6 of ICE building in San Francisco resulted in a preliminary injunction. So ICE moved detainees to floor 5, claiming that skirts the injunction. Judge says, no way.

www.courthousenews.com/judge-rips-t...
January 3, 2026 at 2:15 AM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
emptywheel.bsky.social
Accused pipe bomber Brian Cole is docket 26-cr-1 in DC.

For five years now, docket 1 has been a Jan6er:

2022: Dan Shaw
2023: Paul Modrell
2024: Christopher Keniley
2025: Timothy DesJardins
2026: Brian Cole

www.courtlistener.com/docket/72099...
United States v. COLE, 1:26-cr-00001 - CourtListener.com
Docket for United States v. COLE, 1:26-cr-00001 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
www.courtlistener.com
January 2, 2026 at 11:36 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
9th Cir., 2-1, holds that open carry is protected by the Second Amendment even where a state allows concealed carry, strikes California's law banning urban open carry and its licensing law for open carry in rural counties.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
Addressing Baird’s facial and as applied challenges to California’s urban open-carry ban, the panel held that California’s ban on open carry in counties with a population greater than 200,000 is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the standard set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition. It was clearly protected at the time of the Founding and at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no record of any law restricting open carry at the Founding, let alone a distinctly similar historical regulation. California’s failure to satisfy its burden to present evidence of a relevant historical tradition of firearm regulation is dispositive with respect to California’s urban open-carry ban. Addressing Baird’s as-applied and facial challenges to California’s licensing requirements in counties with
January 2, 2026 at 10:18 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
9th Cir. holds there is no constitutional right to interstate commerce that is unlawful under federal law.

Put another way, the dormant commerce clause does not restrict residency requirements for cannabis dispensaries bc marijuana is illegal under federal law.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
We hold that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply here. Mindful of the Supreme Court’s directive that “‘extreme caution’ is warranted before a court deploys” its “implied authority” under the dormant Commerce Clause, Nat’l Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356, 390 (2023) (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 310 (1997)), we decline to extend the dormant Commerce Clause to interstate commerce in a drug market that Congress has declared illegal. Although we appreciate that judges on other courts are divided on this question, we see insufficient license in Supreme Court precedent to use the judge-made dormant Commerce Clause to promote a constitutional right to interstate commerce that is unlawful under federal law. The two district courts in these cases both reached the same conclusion. In both cases, we therefore affirm.
January 2, 2026 at 6:05 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
9th Cir. rejects a copyright claim against Paramount from the owners the copyright in "Top Guns," a 1983 magazine article about the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School, who claimed the 2022 sequel, Top Gun: Maverick, infringed their copyright.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
Shosh and Yuval Yonay own the copyright in “Top Guns,” a 1983 magazine article by Ehud Yonay about the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as “Top Gun.” They sued Paramount Pictures Corporation, alleging that its 2022 movie Top Gun: Maverick infringed that copyright. “Top Guns” and Maverick do share some similarities because they both depict the Navy’s real fighter-pilot training program. But copyright plaintiffs must show more than an allegedly infringing work’s general similarity to their own. They must show that what is similar is their original expression. Because Maverick does not share substantial amounts of the original expression of “Top Guns,” we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Paramount.
January 2, 2026 at 5:57 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
8th Cir.: Missouri law requiring registered sex offenders to put up a sign reading "No candy or treats at this residence" on Halloween violated the 1A bc it was not narrowly tailored since such offenders are already prohibited from participating in Halloween.

ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/01...
grooming that could lead to future abuse, could not provide any evidence for the claim that signs provide any additional protection beyond the other restrictions imposed on registrants in the Halloween statute. There was no evidence to support the idea that children would be at risk if there was no sign, so long as the registrant complied with the remaining provisions of the statute (i.e., remaining inside the residence, not giving candy to or otherwise engaging with children, and leaving lights off). In other words, nothing in the record indicates that a child knocking on a door that no one opens presents a risk to that child.
January 2, 2026 at 5:50 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Accused RNC/DNC pipe bomber's response to gov't failing to procure a federal grand jury indictment or provide a preliminary hearing is now UNSEALED.

Includes timeline that led DOJ to seek a D.C. Superior Court indictment instead going to a federal grand.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
32. The government blamed its decision to seek an indictment from a D.C. Superior Court grand jury rather than a district court grand jury on the defense, claiming that it “sought an indictment return from a Superior Court grand jury panel out of necessity due to the absence of any federal panels and in direct response to changed circumstances brought about by the defense.” (Gov. Memo. at 5-6.) 33. The “changed circumstances” were unstated but apparently consist of the government’s prior belief that it could ignore the commands of 18 U.S.C. § 3060(b) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(c) so long as defense counsel and the Court did not notice. 34. This is not hyperbole. The government admits as much, stating that it “would have sought [] an early indictment from a federal grand jury panel had there been any indication that the defense, contrary to all indications, intended to pursue Case 1:25-mj-00276-MAU Document 26 Filed 12/31/25 Page 12 of 20 a preliminary hearing on December 30, 2025.” In other words, the government expected defense counsel to drop the ball.3 That is not “changed circumstances.”
January 2, 2026 at 4:09 PM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
So it turns out that lots of people still use alarm clocks. Real cave-man shit.
gabrielmalor.bsky.social Gabriel Malor @gabrielmalor.bsky.social · 2d
Do people outside of TV and the movies still use alarm clocks? Or does everyone pretty much use their cell phone.
January 2, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Reposted by Gabriel Malor
joshgerstein.bsky.social
Looks like a variant of what conservatives have long decried as a collusive "sue and settle." Also the consent decree has not been approved by the judge yet. @ACLUVA is seeking to block it on behalf of so-called dreamers. Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26... Judge Robert Payne (GHWBush)
January 2, 2026 at 5:53 AM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
I don't believe I've seen this before:

FN1: " . . . Therefore, the court holds that facilitating his return in this context means providing either transportation to a port of entry or financial support to reach a port of entry."
January 2, 2026 at 4:21 AM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
Do people outside of TV and the movies still use alarm clocks? Or does everyone pretty much use their cell phone.
January 2, 2026 at 3:41 AM
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
My brain is so messed up about what day of the week it is. Been in weekend-mode for like five days. And tomorrow is Friday, yay!
January 2, 2026 at 1:20 AM