(Though I welcome correction from anyone familiar with the exact terms of the deals.)
(Though I welcome correction from anyone familiar with the exact terms of the deals.)
?Bannon: Is this New York magazine story real
Epstein: Yes BUT!!
E: Not for texts
?B: K
E: Do your homework. Put someone on It
E: Guaranteed
?Bannon: Is this New York magazine story real
Epstein: Yes BUT!!
E: Not for texts
?B: K
E: Do your homework. Put someone on It
E: Guaranteed
🧵
🧵
Notably, the court rejects the argument that "anti-Zionist speech" is "inherently antisemitic" (p.32)
Notably, the court rejects the argument that "anti-Zionist speech" is "inherently antisemitic" (p.32)
SCOTUS will review that rule.
an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,”
The other cases address arbitration and bankruptcy law.
SCOTUS will review that rule.
One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.
One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.
This is not one of those times.
This is not one of those times.
E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.
That and much more in my new piece:
newrepublic.com/article/2006...
The standard is met by making the statement with "hatred or ill will."
The standard is met by making the statement with "hatred or ill will."
Bill Pulte's accusation, the sole pretext Trump used to fire her from the Fed, was that she claimed two homes as primary residence.
These docs show she did not.
www.reuters.com/world/us/fed...
1. He seems to suggest that purely statistical evidence is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
2. He says plaintiffs lack standing under Lyons because it's speculative to think they'll be stopped again. But if (1) is now true, it's not at all speculative
Apparent 6-3 ruling. Dissenting, Sotomayor says the order is "unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation's constitutional guarantees." @courthousenews.bsky.social
1. He seems to suggest that purely statistical evidence is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
2. He says plaintiffs lack standing under Lyons because it's speculative to think they'll be stopped again. But if (1) is now true, it's not at all speculative
1. Our .edu memberships are launched! If you have a .edu email address you now qualify for a free Tier 1 CourtListener membership.
2. We have a new guide for librarians so they can see all of our biggest features in one place. 1/2
free.law/2025/09/05/l...
We're headed towards an entirely self-inflicted recession.
We're headed towards an entirely self-inflicted recession.