Lee Kovarsky
@kovarsky.bsky.social
Professor of Law, University of Texas. Habeas corpus, death penalty, some other law stuff, sentient space robots, kids who don't listen to me, and hot sauce.
BIO: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/lee-kovarsky/
BIO: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/lee-kovarsky/
See the references to a “habeas corpus application under section 2254?” That’s a reference to 28 USC 2254, which is ALSO just for people “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a STATE court.”
9/
9/
October 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
See the references to a “habeas corpus application under section 2254?” That’s a reference to 28 USC 2254, which is ALSO just for people “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a STATE court.”
9/
9/
And then here is the provision applicable to those habeas applicants in STATE custody, which also limits section 2244 only to those serving STATE criminal sentences.
8/
8/
October 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
And then here is the provision applicable to those habeas applicants in STATE custody, which also limits section 2244 only to those serving STATE criminal sentences.
8/
8/
But again, here’s the federal statute, which expressly bars successive challenges by only if the detention is pursuant to the judgment of a court.
7/
7/
October 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
But again, here’s the federal statute, which expressly bars successive challenges by only if the detention is pursuant to the judgment of a court.
7/
7/
Here he is again, with the same thing, this time in a question to DOJ:
6/
6/
October 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Here he is again, with the same thing, this time in a question to DOJ:
6/
6/
NG suggests, repeatedly and as though it’s a shared understanding, that 2244 restricts ALL habeas claimants, not just those “pursuant to the judgment of a court of the United States.” Here he is questioning the prisoner’s lawyer.
5/
5/
October 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
NG suggests, repeatedly and as though it’s a shared understanding, that 2244 restricts ALL habeas claimants, not just those “pursuant to the judgment of a court of the United States.” Here he is questioning the prisoner’s lawyer.
5/
5/
Here’s 2244(a), which restricts the provision’s scope to – in federal prisoner cases - to cases where a habeas claimant is a person is detained “pursuant to the judgment of a court of the United States.”
4/
4/
October 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Here’s 2244(a), which restricts the provision’s scope to – in federal prisoner cases - to cases where a habeas claimant is a person is detained “pursuant to the judgment of a court of the United States.”
4/
4/
Public authority was the defense at issue in the Oliver North case, Marty prob knows more about that. North couldn't qualify but not b/c he was an official, but b/c he hadn't gotten the OK from a qualifying interpreter. From the partially withdrawn per curiam:
1/
1/
October 14, 2025 at 8:27 PM
Public authority was the defense at issue in the Oliver North case, Marty prob knows more about that. North couldn't qualify but not b/c he was an official, but b/c he hadn't gotten the OK from a qualifying interpreter. From the partially withdrawn per curiam:
1/
1/
There is no allegation that she was ever part of some agreement containing such an arrangement. Paragraph 7 just says that she herself rented it out at some point. (No proof of ownership agreement to do so even alleged, this is fucking embarrassing.)
October 10, 2025 at 12:41 AM
There is no allegation that she was ever part of some agreement containing such an arrangement. Paragraph 7 just says that she herself rented it out at some point. (No proof of ownership agreement to do so even alleged, this is fucking embarrassing.)
Had a chance to read this. Paragraph 6 alleges that her origination agreement barred her from entering a timeshare or co-ownership agreement that required her to rent or to turn possession over to someone else.
1/
1/
October 10, 2025 at 12:41 AM
Had a chance to read this. Paragraph 6 alleges that her origination agreement barred her from entering a timeshare or co-ownership agreement that required her to rent or to turn possession over to someone else.
1/
1/
Is there a legal intern somewhere anywhere who is like "you know you sound like absolute idiots right"
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
October 9, 2025 at 2:13 AM
Is there a legal intern somewhere anywhere who is like "you know you sound like absolute idiots right"
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
I have no fucking idea what Ilan is even talking about here, or even whether he's tracking the litigation. The issue is whether POTUS complied with a statutory delegation of power under 10 USC 12406, to nationalize the fed guard. His lawyers aren't even arguing commander in chief power.
1/
1/
October 5, 2025 at 5:03 AM
I have no fucking idea what Ilan is even talking about here, or even whether he's tracking the litigation. The issue is whether POTUS complied with a statutory delegation of power under 10 USC 12406, to nationalize the fed guard. His lawyers aren't even arguing commander in chief power.
1/
1/
lol, countdown to headlines that "some experts say" he can't do this
October 4, 2025 at 1:21 AM
lol, countdown to headlines that "some experts say" he can't do this