Joseph Mead
@josephwmead.bsky.social
Special Litigation Counsel @ Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP). Views are my own, and are subject to change.
It's still a TRO if it gets extended for 14 days... FRCP 65 says this explicitly. I don't get this...
October 20, 2025 at 9:39 PM
It's still a TRO if it gets extended for 14 days... FRCP 65 says this explicitly. I don't get this...
Baby turtle, just hatched.
September 15, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Baby turtle, just hatched.
Massive police presence all over Union Station. Someone alert DOGE to this massive waste of government resources.
September 2, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Massive police presence all over Union Station. Someone alert DOGE to this massive waste of government resources.
DOJ: Considering ethnicity to provide grants to colleges is unconstitutional but considering ethnicity to decide who to detain is totally fine.
530D letter: www.justice.gov/oip/foia-lib...
Perdomo Stay Application: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
530D letter: www.justice.gov/oip/foia-lib...
Perdomo Stay Application: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
![DOJ letter refusing to defend Higher Education Act's award of grants to "Hispanic-serving institutions." Letter says: The Higher Education Act authorizes the Department
of
Education to award to
"H
ispanic-serving institutions." 20 U.S.C. 1
l0l
(c). The Act defines a "Hispanic-serving
institution" as an institution
of
higher ed ucation that, among other requirements, "has an
enrollment
of
undergraduate full-time equivalent students that is at least 25 percent Hispanic
students." 20 U.S.C. 1101a(5)(B).
rtment
of
Just ice has determined that those provisions violate the equalThe Depa
protection component
of
the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Supreme Co
mi
has
Students for Fairexplained that"[ o]utright racial balancing" is "patently unconstitutiona
l.
"
Admissions, In
c.
v. President & Fellows
of
Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181, 223 (2023). And its
precedents make clear that the government lacks any legitimate interest in differentiating among
rsities based on whether "a spec ifi ed numb er
of
seats in each class" are occupied byunive
"individuals from the preferred ethnic groups."
Id.
at 209. Under those principles, the
challenged provisions' 25-percent racial quota violates the Constitution.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:w45g2ajbacksyxyh4w5xqczq/bafkreid5so2ndk66ww6hzizzpuy7jdkyk53zeux2yi536q7sk54hbjuayy@jpeg)
August 25, 2025 at 1:25 PM
DOJ: Considering ethnicity to provide grants to colleges is unconstitutional but considering ethnicity to decide who to detain is totally fine.
530D letter: www.justice.gov/oip/foia-lib...
Perdomo Stay Application: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
530D letter: www.justice.gov/oip/foia-lib...
Perdomo Stay Application: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Spotted in a grand jury room. The Holy Bible: Judicial System edition.
August 20, 2025 at 2:58 AM
Spotted in a grand jury room. The Holy Bible: Judicial System edition.
A couple of these beasts and a whole bunch of uniforms by Union Station.
August 14, 2025 at 11:32 PM
A couple of these beasts and a whole bunch of uniforms by Union Station.
Re-reading Frederick Douglass's words following the Dred Scott decision:
"You will readily ask me how I am affected by this devilish decision-this judicial incarnation of wolfishness? My answer is, and no thanks to the slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court, my hopes were never brighter than now.
"You will readily ask me how I am affected by this devilish decision-this judicial incarnation of wolfishness? My answer is, and no thanks to the slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court, my hopes were never brighter than now.
July 2, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Re-reading Frederick Douglass's words following the Dred Scott decision:
"You will readily ask me how I am affected by this devilish decision-this judicial incarnation of wolfishness? My answer is, and no thanks to the slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court, my hopes were never brighter than now.
"You will readily ask me how I am affected by this devilish decision-this judicial incarnation of wolfishness? My answer is, and no thanks to the slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court, my hopes were never brighter than now.
The IRS has previously tried to deny exempt status to an educational nonprofit based on disagreement with speech. The DC Circuit struck down the IRS's refusal to grant 501c3 status to Big Mama Rag. Among DOJ's specific complaints was this Ask a Lez column, which I now share for your edification.
June 28, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The IRS has previously tried to deny exempt status to an educational nonprofit based on disagreement with speech. The DC Circuit struck down the IRS's refusal to grant 501c3 status to Big Mama Rag. Among DOJ's specific complaints was this Ask a Lez column, which I now share for your edification.
In my view it is especially unseemly for governments to forum shop, and Congress could be easily curb this with a simple change to the venue statute to say states "reside" only in their capital. But this will never happen because Texas, King of forum-shopping, will never give up its gamesmanship.
![A more modest possibility would be to amend the venue statute to require that states sue only in the district and division encompassing their state capital. Although section 1391(c)(2) provides that plaintiff “entit[ies]” will be deemed to reside “only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business,” courts have rejected the argument that this limits states to their capital. States may feel singled out by this proposal, but because the best-documented examples of judge-shopping include states leaving their capital, it is a modest place to start.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:w45g2ajbacksyxyh4w5xqczq/bafkreibhovxfin3jvjkgpr7somlkjeferbm7zm2pdja4zu45vbwsiksbnm@jpeg)
June 26, 2025 at 12:05 PM
In my view it is especially unseemly for governments to forum shop, and Congress could be easily curb this with a simple change to the venue statute to say states "reside" only in their capital. But this will never happen because Texas, King of forum-shopping, will never give up its gamesmanship.
C'mon people, we need to hear some good news! Here, I'll go again: our diamond dove welcomed (yet another) baby into the world. Look how tiny and goofy yet cute it is.
June 24, 2025 at 12:25 PM
C'mon people, we need to hear some good news! Here, I'll go again: our diamond dove welcomed (yet another) baby into the world. Look how tiny and goofy yet cute it is.
Compare today's FDA opinion allowing forum-shopping to what the Supreme Court had to say YESTERDAY ("gamesmanship") about forum-shopping. (Today's forum-shopping was by the challenger to the agency, and yesterday's was forum-shopping BY the agency).
![11Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
Opinion of the Court
procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of per-
mitting [it] to discharge [its] multitudinous duties.’ ” Brief
for Petitioner 26–27 (quoting FCC v. Pottsville Broadcast-
ing Co., 309 U. S. 134, 143 (1940)). But, whatever discre-
tion EPA has to manage its internal affairs, Congress con-
clusively defined the term “action” in §7607(b)(1) to focus on
the specific statutory authority EPA is exercising.
Tellingly, EPA’s position that it can control the unit of
“action” used to determine venue lacks any statutory limit-
ing principle. If EPA had free rein to group decisions into a
single “action” for venue purposes, then it could bundle even
unrelated matters into one Federal Register pronounce-
ment that is, in the aggregate, nationally applicable. Such
a possibility would effectively give EPA a veto power over
venue under the CAA. We see no reason to read §7607(b)(1)
to permit such gamesmanship. Absent indication that Con-
gress meant to give a party unfettered control over venue,
we will not read a venue provision to confer such broad dis-
cretion.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:w45g2ajbacksyxyh4w5xqczq/bafkreicav2lxvnmd7ojouto2zvilb72fn2xia6ccc6eosx6enbls6ajlqq@jpeg)
June 20, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Compare today's FDA opinion allowing forum-shopping to what the Supreme Court had to say YESTERDAY ("gamesmanship") about forum-shopping. (Today's forum-shopping was by the challenger to the agency, and yesterday's was forum-shopping BY the agency).
Why, back in my day, TROs weren't even immediately appealable!
June 13, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Why, back in my day, TROs weren't even immediately appealable!
Happy Eastern Box Turtle week!
May 6, 2025 at 7:59 PM
Happy Eastern Box Turtle week!
So Abrego Garcia's entire criminal history is that he was arrested (not convicted) for "loitering"-- a silly crime for which the local law provides a maximum penalty (upon conviction) as: "a written warning requesting an individual to move."
Why was he arrested? Or sent to ICE in the first place?
Why was he arrested? Or sent to ICE in the first place?
April 17, 2025 at 3:41 PM
So Abrego Garcia's entire criminal history is that he was arrested (not convicted) for "loitering"-- a silly crime for which the local law provides a maximum penalty (upon conviction) as: "a written warning requesting an individual to move."
Why was he arrested? Or sent to ICE in the first place?
Why was he arrested? Or sent to ICE in the first place?
(With a nice shout out to the legal ethics experts' amici briefs!)
April 16, 2025 at 3:35 PM
(With a nice shout out to the legal ethics experts' amici briefs!)
I'm stuck outside the US courthouse in Greenbelt.
April 15, 2025 at 7:56 PM
I'm stuck outside the US courthouse in Greenbelt.
Ruby Bridges, this darling, wonderful, brave child, demonstrated more courage than we're seeing from many biglaw firms, who are among the most powerful people around. Never forget that.
April 11, 2025 at 9:55 PM
Ruby Bridges, this darling, wonderful, brave child, demonstrated more courage than we're seeing from many biglaw firms, who are among the most powerful people around. Never forget that.
Had to take a sick turtle to the vet. Here is her xray from our last visit. We don't deserve turtles.
April 11, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Had to take a sick turtle to the vet. Here is her xray from our last visit. We don't deserve turtles.
ICAP is in court today to fight against federal agents raiding houses of worship without a judicial warrant.
![Plaintiffs are 12 national denominational bodies and representatives, 4 regional denominational bodies, and 11 denominational and interdenominational associations, all rooted in the Jewish and Christian faiths. Plaintiffs, their members, and their congregations (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) represent millions of people of faith across dozens of religious traditions: Baptists, Brethren, Conservative Jews, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Mennonites, Quakers, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Reconstructionist Jews, Reform Jews, Unitarian Universalists, United Methodists, Zion Methodists, and more. They join together to bring this suit in response to an unprecedented assault on their religious exercise by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). For three decades, DHS’s official policy substantially restricted immigration enforcement or investigative activity in or near places of worship. Although DHS has statutory authority to conduct a variety of enforcement actions—such as conducting stops and interrogations, serving process and other orders, and executing immigration arrests and raids without judicial warrant—DHS’s longstanding “sensitive locations” (or “protected areas”) policy provided that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) would do so at or near places of worship only under exigent circumstances or with prior written, high-level supervisory approval. On January 20, 2025, DHS abruptly reversed course and rescinded the sensitive locations policy. DHS’s new enforcement policy simply directs ICE and CBP officers to “use [their] discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense” in deciding whether to conduct immigration enforcement actions at places of worship, during religious ceremonies, and at other sensitive locations. As Plaintiffs’ declarations establish, immigration agents already have begun exercising this newfound authority to snare worshippers and other visitors at Plaintiffs’ places of worship, inflicting …](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:w45g2ajbacksyxyh4w5xqczq/bafkreiaxb6kuhecbuqnsypu7xwiwz6nyx5qum7hlobckzia76uqxop5vz4@jpeg)
April 4, 2025 at 11:14 AM
ICAP is in court today to fight against federal agents raiding houses of worship without a judicial warrant.
In honor of BigLaw, I present a montage of Arrested Development chicken dances. youtu.be/RaS_WXQ9QK0?...
March 24, 2025 at 1:32 AM
In honor of BigLaw, I present a montage of Arrested Development chicken dances. youtu.be/RaS_WXQ9QK0?...
I'm delighted to be headed to George Mason Law School this Tuesday to talk about criminal tactics in enforcement of immigration law during this administration. Come join us!
March 23, 2025 at 11:59 PM
I'm delighted to be headed to George Mason Law School this Tuesday to talk about criminal tactics in enforcement of immigration law during this administration. Come join us!
New badass level unlocked! @georgetownlaw.bsky.social @icapgeorgetown.bsky.social's @rupadc.bsky.social was on the Daily Show last night!
February 25, 2025 at 1:40 PM
New badass level unlocked! @georgetownlaw.bsky.social @icapgeorgetown.bsky.social's @rupadc.bsky.social was on the Daily Show last night!
When a court says there is only a "decades-old case" on point, do you have a gut intuition of what year range the case is likely to be? I was thinking like 1970s. (That is not correct.)
February 21, 2025 at 3:57 PM
When a court says there is only a "decades-old case" on point, do you have a gut intuition of what year range the case is likely to be? I was thinking like 1970s. (That is not correct.)