Agreed - so don’t say that charters can be religious when legally, they can’t, and imo, constitutionally, they shouldn’t be allowed to be, for Establishment Clause reasons. (Of course, what I think is unlikely to be where the court ends up! But don’t let the Court off the hook yet.)
April 23, 2025 at 5:59 AM
Agreed - so don’t say that charters can be religious when legally, they can’t, and imo, constitutionally, they shouldn’t be allowed to be, for Establishment Clause reasons. (Of course, what I think is unlikely to be where the court ends up! But don’t let the Court off the hook yet.)
Don’t concede this one yet! At least until the end of this term, this is categorically NOT the case - indeed, the permissibility of religious charters is exactly what SCOTUS will be hearing about next week in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond.
I’m not optimistic, but hold the damn line.
I’m not optimistic, but hold the damn line.
April 23, 2025 at 4:50 AM
Don’t concede this one yet! At least until the end of this term, this is categorically NOT the case - indeed, the permissibility of religious charters is exactly what SCOTUS will be hearing about next week in Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond.
I’m not optimistic, but hold the damn line.
I’m not optimistic, but hold the damn line.
Yeah, and it’s also him just lying about an extremely-clearly worded text - in this case, a children’s book; but the parallels to, e.g., the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment draw themselves. 🙃
April 22, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Yeah, and it’s also him just lying about an extremely-clearly worded text - in this case, a children’s book; but the parallels to, e.g., the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment draw themselves. 🙃
🙃
Like this is truly the level of analysis it feels like we're at right now with their construction of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". It seems pretty similarly self-evident; and yet!
![[screenshot of a transcript of supreme court oral argument in mahmoud v. taylor, available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_bp7c.pdf]
MR. BAXTER: -- it's hard to express what their actual concerns are.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, when the character says he'll have less time for me, it seems self-evident, isn't it?
MR. BAXTER: You know, Your Honor, I -- again, Montgomery County's own principals objected to this –
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. Now
The sentence "Well, when the character says he'll have less time for me, it seems self-evident, isn't it?" is highlighted in blue](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n67d6vhcx2ownx63bkql3avf/bafkreia7lbg7ao53nn7faxlytiret34pr3bfvi7cxatbqoptqz6m7jaqaq@jpeg)
April 22, 2025 at 10:41 PM
🙃
Yikes, I hate this timeline. 😭
There's something especially revealing to me about how Alito is specifically simply lying about the meaning of a simple text here, too. Like there's not too much daylight between the reading level of this book and the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment imo ...
There's something especially revealing to me about how Alito is specifically simply lying about the meaning of a simple text here, too. Like there's not too much daylight between the reading level of this book and the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment imo ...
April 22, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Yikes, I hate this timeline. 😭
There's something especially revealing to me about how Alito is specifically simply lying about the meaning of a simple text here, too. Like there's not too much daylight between the reading level of this book and the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment imo ...
There's something especially revealing to me about how Alito is specifically simply lying about the meaning of a simple text here, too. Like there's not too much daylight between the reading level of this book and the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment imo ...
Like this is truly the level of analysis it feels like we're at right now with their construction of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". It seems pretty similarly self-evident; and yet!
April 22, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Like this is truly the level of analysis it feels like we're at right now with their construction of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". It seems pretty similarly self-evident; and yet!
like idk whether there actually IS much difference between what he's doing here with the text of the book v. what he says it's about and what he may well do with the text of the 14th amendment vs. his claims about what it means for birthright citizenship
April 22, 2025 at 10:28 PM
like idk whether there actually IS much difference between what he's doing here with the text of the book v. what he says it's about and what he may well do with the text of the 14th amendment vs. his claims about what it means for birthright citizenship
imo it's incredibly REVEALING about how these justices interpret the constitution itself that alito is out there blatantly lying about what this children's book is about
and that even when sotomayor proves it by QUOTING THE BOOK, both alito and the lawyer just ignore her and get to speak over her 🤡
and that even when sotomayor proves it by QUOTING THE BOOK, both alito and the lawyer just ignore her and get to speak over her 🤡
![[screenshot of a transcript of supreme court oral argument in mahmoud v. taylor, available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_bp7c.pdf]
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, the book has -- the book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with. I don't think anybody can read that and say, well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men, that Uncle Bobby gets married to his boyfriend, Jamie, and everybody's happy and everything is -- you know, it portrays this -- everyone accepts this except for the little girl, Chloe, who has reservations about it. But her mother corrects her: No, you shouldn't have any reservations about this. As I said, it has a clear moral message. There may be –
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Wait a minute. The reservation is about –
JUSTICE ALITO: Can I finish, please?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel. Yeah.
JUSTICE ALITO: It has a clear moral message. And it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n67d6vhcx2ownx63bkql3avf/bafkreiafggao5rqvtn6pnpvchxftppqikngxqaf4zzov2cpbovl44g4y2q@jpeg)
![[screenshot of a transcript of supreme court oral argument in mahmoud v. taylor, available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_bp7c.pdf]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, a couple of questions to clarify things. Uncle Bob's Wedding, the character, the child character, wasn't objecting to same-sex marriage. She was objecting to the fact that marriage would take her uncle away from spending more time with her, correct?
MR. BAXTER: Again, it would be -- you know, courts would be engaged in religious discrimination entanglement if they –
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm asking you to answer my question. It wasn't that she was objecting to gay marriage qua gay marriage, period. She was objecting to having her uncle's time taken by someone else?
MR. BAXTER: I'm not sure that's correct, Your Honor. I think, for a child of that age –
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Then now we -- now –
MR. BAXTER: -- it's hard to express what their actual concerns are.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, when the character says he'll have less time for me, it seems self-evident, isn't it?
MR. BAXTER: You know, Your Honor, I -- again, Montgomery County's own principals objected to this –
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. Now](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n67d6vhcx2ownx63bkql3avf/bafkreifss7yyrqrmxp77kegfpn37tggokrbm6v7vj2v52syyxveooub66a@jpeg)
April 22, 2025 at 10:26 PM
imo it's incredibly REVEALING about how these justices interpret the constitution itself that alito is out there blatantly lying about what this children's book is about
and that even when sotomayor proves it by QUOTING THE BOOK, both alito and the lawyer just ignore her and get to speak over her 🤡
and that even when sotomayor proves it by QUOTING THE BOOK, both alito and the lawyer just ignore her and get to speak over her 🤡
did not pencil in [existential breakdown over children’s literary fucking analysis] into my calendar for this morning but here we are 🫠
April 22, 2025 at 3:24 PM
did not pencil in [existential breakdown over children’s literary fucking analysis] into my calendar for this morning but here we are 🫠
It’s just a perfect encapsulation of how Alito simply lies about/distorts texts to give up whatever interpretation he wants them to have. And it doesn’t even matter!! He doesn’t even care!! Because it’s just window dressing for the raw exertion of power!
Like WHAT are we even doing here tbh
Like WHAT are we even doing here tbh
April 22, 2025 at 3:22 PM
It’s just a perfect encapsulation of how Alito simply lies about/distorts texts to give up whatever interpretation he wants them to have. And it doesn’t even matter!! He doesn’t even care!! Because it’s just window dressing for the raw exertion of power!
Like WHAT are we even doing here tbh
Like WHAT are we even doing here tbh
with the constitution they can pretend it’s some complicated historical thing and You Just Don’t Understand the Blackstonian Nuance, but seeing him do it so blatantly with a kid’s book just lays bare the entire joke of an enterprise 🤡
April 22, 2025 at 2:54 PM
with the constitution they can pretend it’s some complicated historical thing and You Just Don’t Understand the Blackstonian Nuance, but seeing him do it so blatantly with a kid’s book just lays bare the entire joke of an enterprise 🤡
like on a meta level, this obviously disingenuous argument about the meaning of a CHILDREN’S BOOK demonstrates how Alito et al. simply lie about texts to give them whatever predetermined interpretation they want them to have
April 22, 2025 at 2:54 PM
like on a meta level, this obviously disingenuous argument about the meaning of a CHILDREN’S BOOK demonstrates how Alito et al. simply lie about texts to give them whatever predetermined interpretation they want them to have
simply losing it over the national embarrassment that is relying on a guy who doesn’t understand the basic plot of “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” to interpret THE CONSTITUTION definitively 🫠
April 22, 2025 at 2:47 PM
simply losing it over the national embarrassment that is relying on a guy who doesn’t understand the basic plot of “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” to interpret THE CONSTITUTION definitively 🫠
Oops - forgot alt text!
For reference, first screenshot is from www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...; second is from www.courtlistener.com/docket/69913...
For reference, first screenshot is from www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...; second is from www.courtlistener.com/docket/69913...
April 21, 2025 at 1:13 AM
Oops - forgot alt text!
For reference, first screenshot is from www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...; second is from www.courtlistener.com/docket/69913...
For reference, first screenshot is from www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...; second is from www.courtlistener.com/docket/69913...
The Supreme Court got to it at 12:55, as you said; then, just a few minutes later, the 5th Circuit issued its own order on the relevant motion at 1:03am EST (12:03am CST - so technically the dating IS wrong). So like I said - time zone issue!
![14 Apr 18,
2025
COURT ORDER: Petitioners' opposed motion for a temporary administrative stay and an injunction pending appeal is DENIED as premature. "A court of appeals sits as a court of review, not of first view." Zaragoza v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, 112 F.4th 313, 322 (5th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). That principle dictates our ruling today. Just yesterday, the district court entered an order indicating that "[the government states that authorities will not remove the petitioners during this litigation, and it will alert the Court if that changes.
" If Petitioners are concerned
that Respondents' position has changed, they should have litigated these concerns before the district court in the first instance. We do not doubt the diligence and ability of the respected district judge in this case to act expeditiously when circumstances warrant.Petitioners insist that they tried to proceed before the district court in the first instance, and that the district court simply "refus[ed] to act." But the district court's order today indicates that Petitioners gave the court only 42 minutes to act--and did not give Respondents an opportunity to respond. The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a)(1), for substantially the reasons stated in JudgeRamirez's concurrence. [4] [4].
Mandate issue d
is 06/10/2025.
[25-10534] (RAJ [Entered: 04/19/2025 12:03 AMI
Att 1
Dispositive
Court Order](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:n67d6vhcx2ownx63bkql3avf/bafkreife4zjk7mizwelo7tu7wrqobxcwjun5gsins2bhuaxvvlyafqvocy@jpeg)
April 21, 2025 at 1:11 AM
The Supreme Court got to it at 12:55, as you said; then, just a few minutes later, the 5th Circuit issued its own order on the relevant motion at 1:03am EST (12:03am CST - so technically the dating IS wrong). So like I said - time zone issue!
after the district court refused to act (along with Judge Boasberg in DDC, actually - given the urgency, they were going to all courts that might act ASAP), as they mentioned in their motion:
April 21, 2025 at 1:10 AM
after the district court refused to act (along with Judge Boasberg in DDC, actually - given the urgency, they were going to all courts that might act ASAP), as they mentioned in their motion:
In fact, looks to me like that’s exactly what happened!
For context, I think you’re misunderstanding a bit. The 5th Circuit order was NOT a “reply” to the (one-page) Supreme Court order. Rather, both orders were on more or less the same motion: the ACLU simultaneously asked both courts to intervene
For context, I think you’re misunderstanding a bit. The 5th Circuit order was NOT a “reply” to the (one-page) Supreme Court order. Rather, both orders were on more or less the same motion: the ACLU simultaneously asked both courts to intervene
April 21, 2025 at 1:03 AM
In fact, looks to me like that’s exactly what happened!
For context, I think you’re misunderstanding a bit. The 5th Circuit order was NOT a “reply” to the (one-page) Supreme Court order. Rather, both orders were on more or less the same motion: the ACLU simultaneously asked both courts to intervene
For context, I think you’re misunderstanding a bit. The 5th Circuit order was NOT a “reply” to the (one-page) Supreme Court order. Rather, both orders were on more or less the same motion: the ACLU simultaneously asked both courts to intervene
Like, @the US government, you want to admit that deportation's been a fucking punishment all along? OK - then time for the Trump admin start paying the ACLU lawyers and folks like @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social, I guess, because Gideon wouldn't be even the HALF of the process they would owe.
April 19, 2025 at 10:18 PM
Like, @the US government, you want to admit that deportation's been a fucking punishment all along? OK - then time for the Trump admin start paying the ACLU lawyers and folks like @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social, I guess, because Gideon wouldn't be even the HALF of the process they would owe.
held, "But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused."
April 19, 2025 at 10:14 PM
held, "But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused."
In Wong Wing v. US (1896), the Court held CLEARLY unconstitutional a law that sentenced immigrants to ten years imprisonment prior to removal. While acknowledging that it was "settled by our previous decisions that the United States can... expel aliens or classes of aliens" civilly, the Court then
April 19, 2025 at 10:13 PM
In Wong Wing v. US (1896), the Court held CLEARLY unconstitutional a law that sentenced immigrants to ten years imprisonment prior to removal. While acknowledging that it was "settled by our previous decisions that the United States can... expel aliens or classes of aliens" civilly, the Court then
See, e.g., Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984); DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020); etc.
But as far back as 189-fucking-6, the Supreme Court recognized that this claim would be untenable if "deportation" were anything OTHER than just return.
But as far back as 189-fucking-6, the Supreme Court recognized that this claim would be untenable if "deportation" were anything OTHER than just return.
April 19, 2025 at 10:10 PM
See, e.g., Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952); INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984); DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020); etc.
But as far back as 189-fucking-6, the Supreme Court recognized that this claim would be untenable if "deportation" were anything OTHER than just return.
But as far back as 189-fucking-6, the Supreme Court recognized that this claim would be untenable if "deportation" were anything OTHER than just return.
Indeed, the argument that "deportation is not criminal punishment" is what the whole rotten edifice of immigration law's reduced due process standard (even in normal conditions) is BUILT on! That's why you don't automatically get a lawyer in immigration court, and why "expedited removal" is a thing.
April 19, 2025 at 10:07 PM
Indeed, the argument that "deportation is not criminal punishment" is what the whole rotten edifice of immigration law's reduced due process standard (even in normal conditions) is BUILT on! That's why you don't automatically get a lawyer in immigration court, and why "expedited removal" is a thing.
Couldn’t that just be a time zone issue with a midnight ruling? If the SCt order came in around 12:30am EST, it would already be 4/19 for them in DC - but if the 5th Circuit issued an order fifteen minutes LATER, they would date it as still 4/18, because it would still be 11:45pm CST.
April 19, 2025 at 9:10 AM
Couldn’t that just be a time zone issue with a midnight ruling? If the SCt order came in around 12:30am EST, it would already be 4/19 for them in DC - but if the 5th Circuit issued an order fifteen minutes LATER, they would date it as still 4/18, because it would still be 11:45pm CST.