Noah Dahl
@noahdahl.bsky.social
Self-deprecating handle (say it a few times fast). Pro-democracy. Focused on SCOTUS and the federal judiciary, but not exclusively so. Upside-down flag is a distress signal.
Pinned
On the blog today, guest blogger @noahdahl.bsky.social proposes reining in the Chief Justice's nearly unilateral and unreviewable power over judicial administration to increase accountability throughout the federal judiciary.
A Sinking Court — and One Way To Right It
This is in response to one of Steve Vladeck's “One First" essays from last month (“ Progressive Judicial Institutionalism ”), which was itse...
www.dorfonlaw.org
Amid the ongoing discussions around Supreme Court legitimacy, recently revisited by @samuelmoyn.bsky.social, @ryandoerfler.bsky.social—and @stevevladeck.bsky.social in response—some of my own thoughts on *how* to go about reforming the court in ways that also preserve institutional legitimacy.
What they should be reading from the NYT and WaPo every day, and hearing about on cable news.
What America will read this weekend while in line at the grocery checkout:
@peoplemag.bsky.social #ICE
people.com/ice-detains-...
@peoplemag.bsky.social #ICE
people.com/ice-detains-...
January 22, 2026 at 6:05 PM
What they should be reading from the NYT and WaPo every day, and hearing about on cable news.
Reposted by Noah Dahl
WTF happened to the Epstein files? Full release was required December 19 by federal law. Today, 99% are still undisclosed. Initially, there were rolling releases. Now, nothing in weeks.
REMEMBER: The DOJ said the review of these documents was complete in JULY.
REMEMBER: The DOJ said the review of these documents was complete in JULY.
DOJ admits it has still not released 99% of Epstein files, violating law
The DOJ said it is still reviewing millions of Epstein files, after previously claiming it completed the review in July
popular.info
January 22, 2026 at 5:41 PM
WTF happened to the Epstein files? Full release was required December 19 by federal law. Today, 99% are still undisclosed. Initially, there were rolling releases. Now, nothing in weeks.
REMEMBER: The DOJ said the review of these documents was complete in JULY.
REMEMBER: The DOJ said the review of these documents was complete in JULY.
Reposted by Noah Dahl
We used to mark today with celebration — today, we must mark it with action.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Illinois has safeguarded and expanded existing protections for medical professionals, as well as made contraception and the abortion pill more accessible.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Illinois has safeguarded and expanded existing protections for medical professionals, as well as made contraception and the abortion pill more accessible.
January 22, 2026 at 4:26 PM
We used to mark today with celebration — today, we must mark it with action.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Illinois has safeguarded and expanded existing protections for medical professionals, as well as made contraception and the abortion pill more accessible.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Illinois has safeguarded and expanded existing protections for medical professionals, as well as made contraception and the abortion pill more accessible.
Another fantastic Biden appointee to the bench.
New: Another judge has rejected a DOJ subpoena served on a hospital providing gender-affirming care, calling it a "pretext" to end the practice. "The Government seeks to fulfill its policy agenda through compliance born of fear," Judge Julie Rubin in Maryland wrote. www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
DOJ subpoenaed hospital to end gender-affirming care through 'fear,' judge says
A federal judge has rejected the U.S. Department of Justice's bid to obtain records involving several patients who received gender-affirming care at Children's National Hospital, saying the request wa...
www.reuters.com
January 22, 2026 at 5:06 PM
Another fantastic Biden appointee to the bench.
Reposted by Noah Dahl
New: Another judge has rejected a DOJ subpoena served on a hospital providing gender-affirming care, calling it a "pretext" to end the practice. "The Government seeks to fulfill its policy agenda through compliance born of fear," Judge Julie Rubin in Maryland wrote. www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
DOJ subpoenaed hospital to end gender-affirming care through 'fear,' judge says
A federal judge has rejected the U.S. Department of Justice's bid to obtain records involving several patients who received gender-affirming care at Children's National Hospital, saying the request wa...
www.reuters.com
January 22, 2026 at 5:04 PM
New: Another judge has rejected a DOJ subpoena served on a hospital providing gender-affirming care, calling it a "pretext" to end the practice. "The Government seeks to fulfill its policy agenda through compliance born of fear," Judge Julie Rubin in Maryland wrote. www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
I'll be damned. The Third Amendment comes in handy after all....
In which I explain that the Third Amendment—the one nobody ever talks about—allows hotels to refuse to house Kristi Noem’s ICE goons.
Opinion: Hotels Have a Constitutional Right Not To House ICE Agents
The Third Amendment prohibits the government from forcing people to “quarter” troops. ICE is essentially a paramilitary force—so why would hotels let them stay?
rewirenewsgroup.com
January 22, 2026 at 3:13 PM
I'll be damned. The Third Amendment comes in handy after all....
Here we go: another one automatically assuming that being critical of Dems means the critic stayed home at election time or registered a throwaway protest vote.
Yeah, sorry, bud, we've been through several rounds of "I'll reward Dems if they try and fail" and every fucking time it's been met with "they didn't try hard enough, fuck Dems".
Sorry, but nobody buys that routine any more.
Sorry, but nobody buys that routine any more.
Please. Talk about telling yourself whatever you need to win the argument.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
January 22, 2026 at 3:11 PM
Here we go: another one automatically assuming that being critical of Dems means the critic stayed home at election time or registered a throwaway protest vote.
If I were an 'anti-democrat activist' I could just vote R.
The fact of the matter is thst Republicans are engaging in a full-throttle assault on the Constitution and rule of law, and the Dem party is one of the key avenues for stopping them.
But only if they actually take real steps to stop them.
The fact of the matter is thst Republicans are engaging in a full-throttle assault on the Constitution and rule of law, and the Dem party is one of the key avenues for stopping them.
But only if they actually take real steps to stop them.
The vast majority of these anti-Democrat activists seem incapable of accepting the fact that there are more unaffiliated leftists than there are us Democrats.
They blame us for not doing "enough" when anyone with the reasoning power of a third grader can recognize that we just can't do it all.
They blame us for not doing "enough" when anyone with the reasoning power of a third grader can recognize that we just can't do it all.
And therefore any criticism of Dems is not only unwarranted, but also more to blame for Dems loss than Dems themselves.
January 22, 2026 at 2:46 PM
If I were an 'anti-democrat activist' I could just vote R.
The fact of the matter is thst Republicans are engaging in a full-throttle assault on the Constitution and rule of law, and the Dem party is one of the key avenues for stopping them.
But only if they actually take real steps to stop them.
The fact of the matter is thst Republicans are engaging in a full-throttle assault on the Constitution and rule of law, and the Dem party is one of the key avenues for stopping them.
But only if they actually take real steps to stop them.
This is a prime example of the vacuous argument that asserts that what, I, a random person on the internet with few followers, say about Garland and Dems had more influence than what Dems themselves actually say and do.
They've convinced themselves that there was nothing more anyone could do.
They've convinced themselves that there was nothing more anyone could do.
Here is one of our prime examples of the Horseshoe Theory.
This person chose to help put Trump back into office because Democrats were not willing to abandon the rule-of-law and due process for Republicans when they controlled the leadership at our Department of Justice.
This person chose to help put Trump back into office because Democrats were not willing to abandon the rule-of-law and due process for Republicans when they controlled the leadership at our Department of Justice.
Please. Talk about telling yourself whatever you need to win the argument.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
January 22, 2026 at 2:22 PM
This is a prime example of the vacuous argument that asserts that what, I, a random person on the internet with few followers, say about Garland and Dems had more influence than what Dems themselves actually say and do.
They've convinced themselves that there was nothing more anyone could do.
They've convinced themselves that there was nothing more anyone could do.
Reposted by Noah Dahl
If you can’t run against the fucking Gestapo, then get out of the way for those who can.
January 22, 2026 at 1:24 AM
If you can’t run against the fucking Gestapo, then get out of the way for those who can.
Please. Talk about telling yourself whatever you need to win the argument.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
This is disingenuous BS, Will, and you know it
In an alternate universe, you'd be arguing that <replacement AG> purposefully rushed the conviction of Trump because he arrested and charged him before discovering the full extent of his crimes and gave SCOTUS the excuse they needed to dismiss/overturn
In an alternate universe, you'd be arguing that <replacement AG> purposefully rushed the conviction of Trump because he arrested and charged him before discovering the full extent of his crimes and gave SCOTUS the excuse they needed to dismiss/overturn
January 22, 2026 at 2:08 PM
Please. Talk about telling yourself whatever you need to win the argument.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
The fact of the matter is they didn't do that. But if they had been more aggressive, I'd have been supportive. And I bet Will would too, even if it failed.
Because it would have been the right way to handle it.
The fact that Dems refuse to make an election issue out of this borders on criminal.
The most damaging thing is that the scale of the corruption is so vast that he has made it virtually impossible to keep up with — which, if only out of a kind of fatigue and resignation — ends up normalizing it.
“Of course he’s a crooked piece of shit. We all know that. But what are we gonna do? 🤷♂️”
“Of course he’s a crooked piece of shit. We all know that. But what are we gonna do? 🤷♂️”
NYT Ed Board: One year ago, Trump took an oath to serve the American people. Instead, he has focused on using the presidency to enrich himself.
A review by the editorial board shows that Trump has used the office of the presidency to make at least $1,408,500,000.
A review by the editorial board shows that Trump has used the office of the presidency to make at least $1,408,500,000.
January 22, 2026 at 6:32 AM
The fact that Dems refuse to make an election issue out of this borders on criminal.
Contempt not just from the rank and file, but from top leadership. From those who absolutely know better.
ICE must be abolished and everyone responsible for this decision making process, as well as those who carried out the orders, charged and prosecuted with severe jail time.
This is a CLEARCUT violation of the Fourth Amendment, and shows a complete contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law
This is a CLEARCUT violation of the Fourth Amendment, and shows a complete contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law
ICE secretly told its officers that any time someone has been ordered removed, ICE can break down their door.
It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!
It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!
January 22, 2026 at 2:08 AM
Contempt not just from the rank and file, but from top leadership. From those who absolutely know better.
Because I am clearly unwell, I just listened to Deputy AG Todd Blanche's discussion before the Federalist Society gathering last November.
He insisted multiple times that they are following the law and in the right, claiming that he feels like he's being 'gaslight' when he hears criticism of DOJ.
He insisted multiple times that they are following the law and in the right, claiming that he feels like he's being 'gaslight' when he hears criticism of DOJ.
ICE secretly told its officers that any time someone has been ordered removed, ICE can break down their door.
It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!
It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!
![May 12, 2025
MEMORANDUM FOR: All ICE Personnel
FROM: Todd Lyons Acting Director
SUBJECT: Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal
On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to "ensur[e] the successful enforcement of final orders of removal." 90 Fed. Reg. 8443, 8444 (Jan. 20, 2025) (E.O. 14159). Essential to the removal of aliens subject to final orders of removal is the ability to locate and arrest them. To this end, certain supervisory immigration officers within both Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) are authorized to issue an administrative warrant, Form I-205, Warrant of Removal (Form 1-205), for the arrest of an alien with a final order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 241.2(a)(1). All U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents and deportation officers are authorized to execute Forms 1-205. 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(e)(3)(iii) - (y)
Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose. Accordingly, in light of this legal determination, ICE immigration officers may arrest and detain aliens subject to a final under of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or a U.S.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreifrzrvaszfhj4bzhgtyvx3fm6ht4kc2zrwtvozijyxl3zxgp7vx6a@jpeg)
January 21, 2026 at 11:36 PM
Because I am clearly unwell, I just listened to Deputy AG Todd Blanche's discussion before the Federalist Society gathering last November.
He insisted multiple times that they are following the law and in the right, claiming that he feels like he's being 'gaslight' when he hears criticism of DOJ.
He insisted multiple times that they are following the law and in the right, claiming that he feels like he's being 'gaslight' when he hears criticism of DOJ.
Reposted by Noah Dahl
Mischief Toy Store in St. Paul has until Wednesday to turn over employment records to the Department of Homeland Security as part of a surprise audit launched Friday, just hours after one of the shop's owners criticized ICE agents during a television interview. bit.ly/4r5AFol
January 21, 2026 at 3:35 AM
Mischief Toy Store in St. Paul has until Wednesday to turn over employment records to the Department of Homeland Security as part of a surprise audit launched Friday, just hours after one of the shop's owners criticized ICE agents during a television interview. bit.ly/4r5AFol
Reposted by Noah Dahl
#SCOTUS is likely to do the right thing in the Lisa Cook case.
But it's worth bearing in mind that this idea that the Fed is some bespoke exception to the unitary executive theory is utterly incoherent as a matter of both law and history—and is really just proof that the UET is itself bollocks:
But it's worth bearing in mind that this idea that the Fed is some bespoke exception to the unitary executive theory is utterly incoherent as a matter of both law and history—and is really just proof that the UET is itself bollocks:
153. Living by the Ipse Dixit
A constitutional principle like the "unitary executive theory" isn't worth all that much if the Supreme Court can conjure new, unprincipled exceptions to it by simply asserting that they exist.
www.stevevladeck.com
January 21, 2026 at 5:24 PM
#SCOTUS is likely to do the right thing in the Lisa Cook case.
But it's worth bearing in mind that this idea that the Fed is some bespoke exception to the unitary executive theory is utterly incoherent as a matter of both law and history—and is really just proof that the UET is itself bollocks:
But it's worth bearing in mind that this idea that the Fed is some bespoke exception to the unitary executive theory is utterly incoherent as a matter of both law and history—and is really just proof that the UET is itself bollocks:
Just want to point out the incredibly weak line of reasoning Justice Thomas is following here. In his mind, the fact that the exact process for review wasn't specified in the law means that Congress didn't actually mean to restrict the presiden't removal power.
Thomas: what would the hearing and the review look like?
Clement: president would have a fair degree of discretion about the nature of the hearing - much flexibility
As for review: the more process, the less judicial review of factual determinations
Clement: president would have a fair degree of discretion about the nature of the hearing - much flexibility
As for review: the more process, the less judicial review of factual determinations
January 21, 2026 at 5:21 PM
Just want to point out the incredibly weak line of reasoning Justice Thomas is following here. In his mind, the fact that the exact process for review wasn't specified in the law means that Congress didn't actually mean to restrict the presiden't removal power.
Reposted by Noah Dahl
Checking in on Bari Weiss' @cbsnews.com coverage of Trump's speech at Davos:
January 21, 2026 at 3:45 PM
Checking in on Bari Weiss' @cbsnews.com coverage of Trump's speech at Davos:
Checking in on Bari Weiss' @cbsnews.com coverage of Trump's speech at Davos:
January 21, 2026 at 3:45 PM
Checking in on Bari Weiss' @cbsnews.com coverage of Trump's speech at Davos:
Reposted by Noah Dahl
The Solicitor General interrupting the first Black woman appointed to SCOTUS during oral arguments about whether Trump, his boss, can try to fire the first Black woman appointed to the Fed for pretextual reasons. You truly can’t make this stuff up.
The justices sound pretty irritated with Solicitor General Sauer; Chief Justice Roberts even told him to stop interrupting KBJ when he kept talking over her questions.
He is ... not an effective oral advocate, especially in comparison to his predecessor Elizabeth Prelogar.
He is ... not an effective oral advocate, especially in comparison to his predecessor Elizabeth Prelogar.
Wow, Sauer squawks over women justices A LOT
January 21, 2026 at 3:32 PM
The Solicitor General interrupting the first Black woman appointed to SCOTUS during oral arguments about whether Trump, his boss, can try to fire the first Black woman appointed to the Fed for pretextual reasons. You truly can’t make this stuff up.
Well that's just substantive due process. All trials will henceforth be held via social media and failure or refusal to participate is tantamount to admitting guilt.
5/ Sauer argues that the court should draw an adverse inference from the fact that Lisa Cook doesn't bleat out random shit protesting her innocence on social media. Justice Kagan is flabbergasted.
January 21, 2026 at 3:33 PM
Well that's just substantive due process. All trials will henceforth be held via social media and failure or refusal to participate is tantamount to admitting guilt.
I'm not sure mainstream media even has the capacity to convey just how imbecilic this take is.
Trump: "We should be paying the lowest interest rate of any country in the world, because without the United States you don't have a country." 🥴
January 21, 2026 at 2:51 PM
I'm not sure mainstream media even has the capacity to convey just how imbecilic this take is.
Now seeing the kind of inauthentic 'follow' activity that showed up on X when Elon bought it.
January 21, 2026 at 1:30 PM
Now seeing the kind of inauthentic 'follow' activity that showed up on X when Elon bought it.
Only consequences—or the concrete threat of them—produces results.
January 21, 2026 at 1:18 PM
Only consequences—or the concrete threat of them—produces results.
Guilty
They’re trying to make “contempt of trump” a federal crime www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/u...
Prosecutors Subpoena Minnesota Democrats as Part of Federal Inquiry
www.nytimes.com
January 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM
Guilty