Alex Botoman
@abotoman.bsky.social
Appellate public defender, tennis umpire, member of U.S. Soccer’s Fan Council, former SID
At some point this has got to become a due process issue, right? Lack of a neutral decisionmaker?
November 21, 2025 at 11:21 PM
At some point this has got to become a due process issue, right? Lack of a neutral decisionmaker?
If they’re going to play this game, it has to end up with putting Lindsey Halligan on the stand right?
November 21, 2025 at 1:30 AM
If they’re going to play this game, it has to end up with putting Lindsey Halligan on the stand right?
Maybe he’s worried Trump will replace him with Jeff Brown
November 19, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Maybe he’s worried Trump will replace him with Jeff Brown
In a twist of irony, the judge he’s excoriating *is* a Trump appointee
November 19, 2025 at 8:59 PM
In a twist of irony, the judge he’s excoriating *is* a Trump appointee
A good first step in all of this would be to call your local federal public defender’s office. They may be able to represent you even before charges are brought. At the very least, they will know who the good federal practitioners are and could give you some names
November 19, 2025 at 2:54 PM
A good first step in all of this would be to call your local federal public defender’s office. They may be able to represent you even before charges are brought. At the very least, they will know who the good federal practitioners are and could give you some names
This is my suspicion too. Although I don’t actually think it ever had a chance of working. The en banc panel has discretion to take the new appeal as a “comeback case” if they want to (and if it’s a majority “liberal” panel, I suspect they will)
November 17, 2025 at 3:36 AM
This is my suspicion too. Although I don’t actually think it ever had a chance of working. The en banc panel has discretion to take the new appeal as a “comeback case” if they want to (and if it’s a majority “liberal” panel, I suspect they will)
I ultimately don’t think this would have worked—the en banc panel could still take the new appeal as a “comeback case”—but that was my initial suspicion when they moved to dismiss the old appeal several days before filing the new one
November 17, 2025 at 3:26 AM
I ultimately don’t think this would have worked—the en banc panel could still take the new appeal as a “comeback case”—but that was my initial suspicion when they moved to dismiss the old appeal several days before filing the new one
I’m wondering if they were playing games to try to avoid the en banc panel drawn for the TRO. They moved to dismiss that appeal, and they might have been hoping that motion would be granted before they filed the new appeal
November 17, 2025 at 3:26 AM
I’m wondering if they were playing games to try to avoid the en banc panel drawn for the TRO. They moved to dismiss that appeal, and they might have been hoping that motion would be granted before they filed the new appeal
Bizarre in that, as best I can tell, the most significant change is adding an alternative holding that the officer had PC to search for a violation of Nevada law. Which would seem to make it even more unnecessary to reach the cross-enforcement issue
November 13, 2025 at 7:21 PM
Bizarre in that, as best I can tell, the most significant change is adding an alternative holding that the officer had PC to search for a violation of Nevada law. Which would seem to make it even more unnecessary to reach the cross-enforcement issue
This is why all the drama around the discharge petition has made no sense to me. Even if the vote passes in the House, are the Senate and Trump really going to let this happen?
November 13, 2025 at 3:12 PM
This is why all the drama around the discharge petition has made no sense to me. Even if the vote passes in the House, are the Senate and Trump really going to let this happen?
The pay practices in college athletics are insane (and insanely illegal). I took a job right out of college that paid $6,000 A YEAR for full time work. Many others were working in full-time *unpaid* “internships.” But you had to take these jobs to break into the field
November 12, 2025 at 5:19 PM
The pay practices in college athletics are insane (and insanely illegal). I took a job right out of college that paid $6,000 A YEAR for full time work. Many others were working in full-time *unpaid* “internships.” But you had to take these jobs to break into the field
If you mean it, call on Schumer and Durbin to step down
November 10, 2025 at 12:44 PM
If you mean it, call on Schumer and Durbin to step down
Does the fact that this applies only to “civil immigration enforcement” leave it open to challenge? Since immigration enforcement is primarily, if not exclusively, federal, it seems like it could be seen as discriminating against the federal government
November 5, 2025 at 2:26 PM
Does the fact that this applies only to “civil immigration enforcement” leave it open to challenge? Since immigration enforcement is primarily, if not exclusively, federal, it seems like it could be seen as discriminating against the federal government
The panel may have felt that this conclusion was obvious and that there was no point in burdening an oral argument panel. But this is definitely a departure from how the Ninth Circuit normally resolves novel issues
November 4, 2025 at 5:19 PM
The panel may have felt that this conclusion was obvious and that there was no point in burdening an oral argument panel. But this is definitely a departure from how the Ninth Circuit normally resolves novel issues
Screening panels are supposed to only decide cases where the result is clear under settled precedent. But here, the screening panel issued a precedential opinion holding, for the first time in the Ninth Circuit that the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was not properly ratified.
November 4, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Screening panels are supposed to only decide cases where the result is clear under settled precedent. But here, the screening panel issued a precedential opinion holding, for the first time in the Ninth Circuit that the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was not properly ratified.
When I asked this question, Marty Lederman told me to “read the brief.” Which addresses this question in about a paragraph at the very end, and in a way I’m not confident this SCOTUS will agree with
November 3, 2025 at 3:09 PM
When I asked this question, Marty Lederman told me to “read the brief.” Which addresses this question in about a paragraph at the very end, and in a way I’m not confident this SCOTUS will agree with
Yes and no. The government will inevitably appeal the PI, as well as the decision she is promising to issue by Friday. And the same en banc panel that was drawn to handle the TRO will have discretion to take those appeals as “comeback cases” (which I suspect they may do)
November 3, 2025 at 4:36 AM
Yes and no. The government will inevitably appeal the PI, as well as the decision she is promising to issue by Friday. And the same en banc panel that was drawn to handle the TRO will have discretion to take those appeals as “comeback cases” (which I suspect they may do)
Guess we will find out whether responding to this is a judicial act, or instead the act of an “inquisitor”
November 2, 2025 at 12:31 AM
Guess we will find out whether responding to this is a judicial act, or instead the act of an “inquisitor”
Ah ok. I see what you’re saying and think you might be right. They’re not allowing deployment
October 31, 2025 at 2:56 AM
Ah ok. I see what you’re saying and think you might be right. They’re not allowing deployment
I’m honestly not sure. You think the admin stay was in effect the whole time? If so, what was the point of the order last Friday that stayed the panel’s reasoned order?
October 31, 2025 at 2:54 AM
I’m honestly not sure. You think the admin stay was in effect the whole time? If so, what was the point of the order last Friday that stayed the panel’s reasoned order?