Had some time to stop by Extreme Soccer in Berwyn and hear how Donald Trump’s policies are hurting our small businesses.

Nauseating. Physically nauseating.

Here's how Mr. Abrego got accused of being an MS-13 member.

In 2019, he shows up to a Home Depot looking for day labor. He chats with other guys there. Local cops show up and arrest everyone. He's interrogated, denies gang claims. Local cops declare that he's in a gang anyway. He gets sent to ICE.

Judge Coughenour: "It has become evermore apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals, the rule of law is something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether for political or personal gain...."

No one elected Elon Musk.

As Donald Trump allows Musk to access people’s personal information and shut down government funding, Republicans in Washington will also own the consequences.

We must do everything in our power to push back and protect people from harm.

The federal government *regularly* spends money to encourage behavior it couldn’t compel directly. Like paying states to build roads or fund healthcare for those who can’t afford it.

It’s called the Spending Clause—and it’s the very first enumerated power that the Constitution gives to Congress.

🤦🏻‍♂️

Thinking about standing a lot this weekend. Causation, redressability, and injury.

Don't forget what happened with the travel ban during the first Trump administration:

Version 1: Clumsy, overbroad, and poorly implemented; blocked by courts; withdrawn.

Version 2: Slightly less clumsy; slightly less overbroad; poorly implemented; blocked by courts; expired.

Version 3: Upheld.

The effect of rescinding the order is to moot the case, but be vigilant. They'll try doing this by another route.

there's literally one, maybe two things you can do to make Neil Gorsuch rule against you as a right-wing freak and they did it

I've been writing about birthright citizenship for 20 years. This thread strings together my opinion pieces (not law review tomes, which I will post separately). I wrote a book about the Fourteenth Amendment and I debated John Eastman 20 years ago about his vile plan to end birthright citizenship./1

i think it is important to clarify that this — the exclusionary distribution of benefits on some sort of ethnic or national basis — isn’t socialism. it’s, you know, something else.

I don't know who needs to know this, but Pro Publica has an online thing that will format a letter to your US health insurance company to demand the records behind a claim denial. (which the insurance is then legally required to provide in most cases)

projects.propublica.org/claimfile/

The logic of denying citizenship to children born here to immigrants is the same as the logic of denying citizenship to black Americans in the pre-Civil War era: exactly what 14A was enacted to stop. Originalists should oppose this violation of the Constitution.
www.justsecurity.org/105176/birth...

Getting a lot of replies along the lines of "oh, you rube, you still think the law matters" and it feels strategically foolish to just concede that it doesn't. Contest everything. Expose the hypocrisy.

Do not obey in advance means defending ideas as institutions until you lose that fight. I simply cannot tell this loud enough— the law, our Constitution, means what we say it means. Let the Supreme Court tell us we’re wrong. But until then, cede no ground to corrupted visions of law.

Considering getting drinks with fellow immigration lawyers. But don’t want to spiral????

Everyone loves minutely close reading and technical statutory interpretation, right? Right?

(For labor lawyers, you can basically just replace the picture on the left with a picket line, and the references to the INA on the right with cites to the NLRA)