Reposted by Kiki
Incredibly galling to hear Sauer talk about how the president is accountable to the public through elections, when the president he's referring to is one who attempted to illegally overturn an election he lost
December 8, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Incredibly galling to hear Sauer talk about how the president is accountable to the public through elections, when the president he's referring to is one who attempted to illegally overturn an election he lost
Reposted by Kiki
Supreme Court oral argument this morning, in sum
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
December 8, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Supreme Court oral argument this morning, in sum
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory)
Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)
Reposted by Kiki
Sauer saying something is unconstitutional because it "would be unconstitutional under Justice Scalia's dissent" is a remarkably cogent statement of the Roberts Court's approach to precedent.
December 8, 2025 at 3:44 PM
Sauer saying something is unconstitutional because it "would be unconstitutional under Justice Scalia's dissent" is a remarkably cogent statement of the Roberts Court's approach to precedent.
Reposted by Kiki
Kavanaugh: But under your theory, there could be an agency where the President could not simply direct the agency to issue a particular rule?
THIS QUESTION IS "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE PRESIDENT CANNOT LEGISLATE?"
THIS QUESTION IS "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE PRESIDENT CANNOT LEGISLATE?"
December 8, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Kavanaugh: But under your theory, there could be an agency where the President could not simply direct the agency to issue a particular rule?
THIS QUESTION IS "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE PRESIDENT CANNOT LEGISLATE?"
THIS QUESTION IS "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE PRESIDENT CANNOT LEGISLATE?"
Reposted by Kiki
Justice Kavanaugh: independent agencies give too much power to congress and not the president
Also justice kavanaugh: independent agencies create too much uncertainty because political appointments by presidents cause policy swings
Make it make sense pls thnks
Also justice kavanaugh: independent agencies create too much uncertainty because political appointments by presidents cause policy swings
Make it make sense pls thnks
December 8, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Justice Kavanaugh: independent agencies give too much power to congress and not the president
Also justice kavanaugh: independent agencies create too much uncertainty because political appointments by presidents cause policy swings
Make it make sense pls thnks
Also justice kavanaugh: independent agencies create too much uncertainty because political appointments by presidents cause policy swings
Make it make sense pls thnks
Reposted by Kiki
OMG.
BK "You have Taft and Scalia, that's good right?" (In response to the fact that the federal government is asking them to overrule a bunch of cases.)
Sauer - "Yes, Scalia is one of the greatest jurists"
BK "You have Taft and Scalia, that's good right?" (In response to the fact that the federal government is asking them to overrule a bunch of cases.)
Sauer - "Yes, Scalia is one of the greatest jurists"
December 8, 2025 at 3:48 PM
OMG.
BK "You have Taft and Scalia, that's good right?" (In response to the fact that the federal government is asking them to overrule a bunch of cases.)
Sauer - "Yes, Scalia is one of the greatest jurists"
BK "You have Taft and Scalia, that's good right?" (In response to the fact that the federal government is asking them to overrule a bunch of cases.)
Sauer - "Yes, Scalia is one of the greatest jurists"
Reposted by Kiki
Kavanaugh: "Tell me how the Fed is different"
Sauer: "It's different"
Kavanaugh: Great! (implied.)
Kagan steps in, voice near shaking with disdain/disbelief at what the Court is about to do - setting up a fight about which entities exercise enough exec power that POTUS must be able to fire them.
Sauer: "It's different"
Kavanaugh: Great! (implied.)
Kagan steps in, voice near shaking with disdain/disbelief at what the Court is about to do - setting up a fight about which entities exercise enough exec power that POTUS must be able to fire them.
December 8, 2025 at 3:20 PM
Kavanaugh: "Tell me how the Fed is different"
Sauer: "It's different"
Kavanaugh: Great! (implied.)
Kagan steps in, voice near shaking with disdain/disbelief at what the Court is about to do - setting up a fight about which entities exercise enough exec power that POTUS must be able to fire them.
Sauer: "It's different"
Kavanaugh: Great! (implied.)
Kagan steps in, voice near shaking with disdain/disbelief at what the Court is about to do - setting up a fight about which entities exercise enough exec power that POTUS must be able to fire them.
Reposted by Kiki
Given how this argument is proceeding, I wonder about the choice not to put up an advocate who would just speak ... a little more frankly to the justices?
December 8, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Given how this argument is proceeding, I wonder about the choice not to put up an advocate who would just speak ... a little more frankly to the justices?
Reposted by Kiki
I wrote this article 1.5 years ago-about how the R appointees were coming for independent agencies, civil service & more.
In a freewheeling style of legal reasoning reminiscent of traditional, individual rights substantive due process cases - but rooted in hostility to regulation & admin state:
In a freewheeling style of legal reasoning reminiscent of traditional, individual rights substantive due process cases - but rooted in hostility to regulation & admin state:
December 8, 2025 at 5:07 PM
I wrote this article 1.5 years ago-about how the R appointees were coming for independent agencies, civil service & more.
In a freewheeling style of legal reasoning reminiscent of traditional, individual rights substantive due process cases - but rooted in hostility to regulation & admin state:
In a freewheeling style of legal reasoning reminiscent of traditional, individual rights substantive due process cases - but rooted in hostility to regulation & admin state:
Reposted by Kiki
During ratification of the 14th Amendment, senators discussed whether the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of immigrants and resoundingly concluded that it did. The text and history all point in one direction and the counter-arguments are patently fraudulent. I am going to lose my mind
The evidence is the text. All you have to do is read the Constitution.
December 7, 2025 at 7:19 PM
During ratification of the 14th Amendment, senators discussed whether the Citizenship Clause would apply to the children of immigrants and resoundingly concluded that it did. The text and history all point in one direction and the counter-arguments are patently fraudulent. I am going to lose my mind
Reposted by Kiki
Justice Jackson to Solicitor General Sauer (just now, in Trump v. Slaughter arguments):
December 8, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Justice Jackson to Solicitor General Sauer (just now, in Trump v. Slaughter arguments):
Reposted by Kiki
Congress didn't do this unimaginable thing I just made up, but we need to rule in a way that makes that unimaginable thing I made up unlawful were Congress to do it is my single least favorite kind of argument to a court.
December 8, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Congress didn't do this unimaginable thing I just made up, but we need to rule in a way that makes that unimaginable thing I made up unlawful were Congress to do it is my single least favorite kind of argument to a court.
Reposted by Kiki
The Supreme Court just set aside a 2nd Circuit decision upholding New York's requirement that all school students, public and private, obtain certain vaccinations, without any religious exemptions. It orders the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the ruling in light of SCOTUS' LGBTQ school books decision.
December 8, 2025 at 2:38 PM
The Supreme Court just set aside a 2nd Circuit decision upholding New York's requirement that all school students, public and private, obtain certain vaccinations, without any religious exemptions. It orders the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the ruling in light of SCOTUS' LGBTQ school books decision.
Reposted by Kiki
It is really, really hard to get your head around the raw hubris of the majority. They really will be destabilizing the operating structure of the entire U.S. government. Why? Because they believe they have a better idea about how the past century should've been done.
December 8, 2025 at 3:50 PM
It is really, really hard to get your head around the raw hubris of the majority. They really will be destabilizing the operating structure of the entire U.S. government. Why? Because they believe they have a better idea about how the past century should've been done.
Reposted by Kiki
This was my thought. The conservatives will always win on the hypertechnical arguments or distinguishing precedent or agencies. The only chance at winning Roberts or Barrett (or the public) is to persuasively convey the catastrophic consequences. Katyal is good at that. Agarwal isn’t.
December 8, 2025 at 4:43 PM
This was my thought. The conservatives will always win on the hypertechnical arguments or distinguishing precedent or agencies. The only chance at winning Roberts or Barrett (or the public) is to persuasively convey the catastrophic consequences. Katyal is good at that. Agarwal isn’t.
Reposted by Kiki
I assume Amit Agarwal was chosen to defend independent agencies at the Supreme Court today because he's a former Alito and Kavanaugh clerk with a conservative pedigree. But he is doing a very poor job, and I think a progressive advocate with subject matter expertise would've been far more effective.
December 8, 2025 at 4:30 PM
I assume Amit Agarwal was chosen to defend independent agencies at the Supreme Court today because he's a former Alito and Kavanaugh clerk with a conservative pedigree. But he is doing a very poor job, and I think a progressive advocate with subject matter expertise would've been far more effective.
Reposted by Kiki
Will be on MSNBC talking about this wretched case at 3 p.m.
I assume Amit Agarwal was chosen to defend independent agencies at the Supreme Court today because he's a former Alito and Kavanaugh clerk with a conservative pedigree. But he is doing a very poor job, and I think a progressive advocate with subject matter expertise would've been far more effective.
December 8, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Will be on MSNBC talking about this wretched case at 3 p.m.
Reposted by Kiki
Roberts keeps jumping to argue that their imminent overturn of Humphrey's Executor does not actually threaten the Fed, entire civil service, article 1 courts, etc. Kagan not buying it, says to SG Sauer: "Once you go down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop"
December 8, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Roberts keeps jumping to argue that their imminent overturn of Humphrey's Executor does not actually threaten the Fed, entire civil service, article 1 courts, etc. Kagan not buying it, says to SG Sauer: "Once you go down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop"
Reposted by Kiki
Justice Barrett is asking SG Sauer, do we really have to decide today which clause of the Constitution is the basis for our unitary executive theory? Can't we just continue "not being very specific about it," as we've been doing?
Question captures something v. important about originalism and text.
Question captures something v. important about originalism and text.
December 8, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Justice Barrett is asking SG Sauer, do we really have to decide today which clause of the Constitution is the basis for our unitary executive theory? Can't we just continue "not being very specific about it," as we've been doing?
Question captures something v. important about originalism and text.
Question captures something v. important about originalism and text.
Reposted by Kiki
This is where Agarwal went predictably off the rails.
Seems like relying on a precedent that stands for unchecked maximal presidential power over investigation & enforcement might not be the best argument for...
[checks notes]
**independent agencies that investigate & enforce**
Seems like relying on a precedent that stands for unchecked maximal presidential power over investigation & enforcement might not be the best argument for...
[checks notes]
**independent agencies that investigate & enforce**
35/ Kavanaugh and Gorsuch ask the obvious:
What are the lines around "conclusive and preclusive" if all of these agencies have some core powers that implicate foreign policy?
Like the FTC itself? (T = "TRADE"!)
Doesn't your "rule" mean that the FTC should not be independent?
They make good points.
What are the lines around "conclusive and preclusive" if all of these agencies have some core powers that implicate foreign policy?
Like the FTC itself? (T = "TRADE"!)
Doesn't your "rule" mean that the FTC should not be independent?
They make good points.
December 8, 2025 at 8:16 PM
This is where Agarwal went predictably off the rails.
Seems like relying on a precedent that stands for unchecked maximal presidential power over investigation & enforcement might not be the best argument for...
[checks notes]
**independent agencies that investigate & enforce**
Seems like relying on a precedent that stands for unchecked maximal presidential power over investigation & enforcement might not be the best argument for...
[checks notes]
**independent agencies that investigate & enforce**
Reposted by Kiki
Tucked inside the Republican bill for health care subsidies, a clause that would restrict the money from being used for abortion (with exception for rape, incest or life of the mother) or for "any sex trait modification procedure or service."
www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
December 8, 2025 at 11:53 PM
Tucked inside the Republican bill for health care subsidies, a clause that would restrict the money from being used for abortion (with exception for rape, incest or life of the mother) or for "any sex trait modification procedure or service."
www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/do...
Reposted by Kiki
Every legal story now is either
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
October 3, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Every legal story now is either
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
Reposted by Kiki
The best reading of this article: Trump is going to use FDA to restrict medication abortion, but he wants to wait until after the midterms so the Republicans don't experience blowback. But that just makes the midterms more important. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
FDA Slow Walking a Long-Awaited Abortion Pill Safety Study
The Food and Drug Administration has delayed a promised review of safety data for the abortion drug mifepristone at Commissioner Marty Makary’s request to put it off until after the midterm elections,...
www.bloomberg.com
December 8, 2025 at 11:20 PM
The best reading of this article: Trump is going to use FDA to restrict medication abortion, but he wants to wait until after the midterms so the Republicans don't experience blowback. But that just makes the midterms more important. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Reposted by Kiki
It is true that New York had a religious exemption for student vaccines before 2019. But the reason lawmakers abolished that exemption was because parents began abusing it at an unprecedented scale and allegedly spurred a horrific measles epidemic. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
December 8, 2025 at 2:55 PM
It is true that New York had a religious exemption for student vaccines before 2019. But the reason lawmakers abolished that exemption was because parents began abusing it at an unprecedented scale and allegedly spurred a horrific measles epidemic. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Reposted by Kiki
Landmark case up for argument at SCOTUS at 10am on the power of presidents to fire independent agency heads.
Here’s my quick preview in Espresso, @economist.com’s daily app.
I’ll be posting live analysis during the oral argument in this thread
Here’s my quick preview in Espresso, @economist.com’s daily app.
I’ll be posting live analysis during the oral argument in this thread
December 8, 2025 at 1:28 PM
Landmark case up for argument at SCOTUS at 10am on the power of presidents to fire independent agency heads.
Here’s my quick preview in Espresso, @economist.com’s daily app.
I’ll be posting live analysis during the oral argument in this thread
Here’s my quick preview in Espresso, @economist.com’s daily app.
I’ll be posting live analysis during the oral argument in this thread