@lakebrody.bsky.social
Reposted
A reminder that Bondi already has access to all of the Epstein files, but is pretending that she needs to go through the laborious process of unsealing grand jury testimonies. It’s all political theater to fool the rubes in her base into thinking she’s doing something. She’s just covering for Trump.
July 20, 2025 at 1:03 AM
A reminder that Bondi already has access to all of the Epstein files, but is pretending that she needs to go through the laborious process of unsealing grand jury testimonies. It’s all political theater to fool the rubes in her base into thinking she’s doing something. She’s just covering for Trump.
Shame on Senator Grassley. He has claimed for years that he is a champion of whistleblowers, and yet here, where there is corroborating evidence of the whistleblower’s charges regarding Emil Bove, Senator Grassley disregards them because they do not serve his purposes. Senator Grassley is weak.
Rather than participate in the travesty, the Dems walked out of the Bove vote, which therefore was officially 12-0. Really a day that should live in infamy -- a result of so many different acts of corruption and malfeasance.
July 19, 2025 at 3:24 AM
Shame on Senator Grassley. He has claimed for years that he is a champion of whistleblowers, and yet here, where there is corroborating evidence of the whistleblower’s charges regarding Emil Bove, Senator Grassley disregards them because they do not serve his purposes. Senator Grassley is weak.
Seems like en banc review in the DC Circuit may be warranted before the Supreme Court has its chance. . .
This ruling is based on the theory that journalists in the press pool just listen passively to the president's speeches. But anyone who's watched a press conference knows this is wrong. Journalists ask questions! Evidently the DC Circuit is unaware of this. www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...
Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules
The AP sued after the White House restricted its access over continued references to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America.
www.nbcnews.com
June 7, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Seems like en banc review in the DC Circuit may be warranted before the Supreme Court has its chance. . .
It’s very weak. Alito whines about procedural issues, which don’t seem to bother him nearly as much in other circumstances when he joins the majority to grant emergency relief. And given the government’s behavior of late, he is simply wrong to say there was no need for the Court to act hastily.
NEW: Alito issues his dissent, complaining, "Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief." He then gives a bullet-point list of his opposition. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Law Dork background: www.lawdork.com/p/supreme-co...
Law Dork background: www.lawdork.com/p/supreme-co...
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A.A.R.P., ET AL. V. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[April 19, 2025]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dis-senting.
Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief. Proceeding under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S. C. $1651, the Court ordered "[t]he Government" not to remove a "putative class of detainees" until this Court issues a superseding or-der. 604 U.S. _ (2025). Although the order does not define the "putative class," it appears that the Court means all members of the class that the habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely, "[a]ll noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its imple-mentation."* Motion for Class Certification in No. 1:25-cv-59 (ND Tex., Apr. 16, 2025), ECF Doc. 3, p. 1. And although the Court does not specify what it means by "[t]he Govern-ment," it appears that the term is intended to embrace all the named defendants, including the President. Cf. Fed.
Rule Civ. Proc. 65(d)(2).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreianpj4mqdx5t73nhftw7gsqobaqs4wwtgfzpijghgljquvk7eclom@jpeg)
April 20, 2025 at 3:47 AM
It’s very weak. Alito whines about procedural issues, which don’t seem to bother him nearly as much in other circumstances when he joins the majority to grant emergency relief. And given the government’s behavior of late, he is simply wrong to say there was no need for the Court to act hastily.
“But this case arose only because of the Trump administration’s attempt to play Calvinball with detainees it’s seeking to remove under the Alien Enemy Act.”
An absolute must-read from @stevevladeck.bsky.social this morning:
“Just before 1:00 a.m., the justices (aggressively) stepped back into the Alien Enemy Act litigation—in a decision suggesting that a majority understands that these are no longer normal circumstances.”
“Just before 1:00 a.m., the justices (aggressively) stepped back into the Alien Enemy Act litigation—in a decision suggesting that a majority understands that these are no longer normal circumstances.”
144. The Supreme Court's Late-Night Alien Enemy Act Intervention
Just before 1:00 a.m., the justices (aggressively) stepped back into the Alien Enemy Act litigation—in a decision suggesting that a majority understands that these are no longer normal circumstances.
www.stevevladeck.com
April 19, 2025 at 2:43 PM
“But this case arose only because of the Trump administration’s attempt to play Calvinball with detainees it’s seeking to remove under the Alien Enemy Act.”
Reposted
"But it only applies to official acts"
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
April 16, 2025 at 2:30 AM
"But it only applies to official acts"
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
Reposted
On this day, April 14, 2025, the President of the United States openly defied the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion of April 10, 2025, ordering him to “facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador
April 15, 2025 at 1:49 AM
On this day, April 14, 2025, the President of the United States openly defied the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion of April 10, 2025, ordering him to “facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador
That is absolutely correct. And the government has never once declined to give an Art III judge sensitive and classified national security information on an ex parte in camera basis even when asserting the state secrets privilege.
State secrets privilege is to protect disclosure to the public, not to the court.
NEW: A second filing today from the DOJ tells Judge Xinis that in their view, since Mr. Abrego is in Bukele's custody, she can't order them to do anything further to bring him back since that's not what "facilitate" means.
They also say the deal with Bukele is classified and/or a state secret.
They also say the deal with Bukele is classified and/or a state secret.
April 14, 2025 at 12:29 AM
That is absolutely correct. And the government has never once declined to give an Art III judge sensitive and classified national security information on an ex parte in camera basis even when asserting the state secrets privilege.
How true. Ed is a principled conservative and legal scholar who understands what is going on and willing to call it like it is. Those celebrating the Trump DOJ’s actions in support of this despicable executive branch behavior are not true conservatives and have no principle or moral compass.
Over on the other site Ed Whelan has a message for his fellow conservatives.
April 11, 2025 at 11:47 PM
How true. Ed is a principled conservative and legal scholar who understands what is going on and willing to call it like it is. Those celebrating the Trump DOJ’s actions in support of this despicable executive branch behavior are not true conservatives and have no principle or moral compass.
Reposted
This is some next level audacity to respond to federal judges the way this cabal of lawyers representing Trump/the Trump Administration has done.
But I have YET to see the kind of judicial bench-slap that's frankly needed to put them in their place...
But I have YET to see the kind of judicial bench-slap that's frankly needed to put them in their place...
April 11, 2025 at 5:40 PM
This is some next level audacity to respond to federal judges the way this cabal of lawyers representing Trump/the Trump Administration has done.
But I have YET to see the kind of judicial bench-slap that's frankly needed to put them in their place...
But I have YET to see the kind of judicial bench-slap that's frankly needed to put them in their place...
Reposted
If I were Judge Xinis, I would order the government to produce, in her courtroom, officials who were in a position to answer her questions and to do so under oath.
Letting DOJ continue to prevaricate and deflect responsibility in written submissions seems ... insufficient at this point.
Letting DOJ continue to prevaricate and deflect responsibility in written submissions seems ... insufficient at this point.
April 11, 2025 at 5:32 PM
If I were Judge Xinis, I would order the government to produce, in her courtroom, officials who were in a position to answer her questions and to do so under oath.
Letting DOJ continue to prevaricate and deflect responsibility in written submissions seems ... insufficient at this point.
Letting DOJ continue to prevaricate and deflect responsibility in written submissions seems ... insufficient at this point.
Reposted
It is frustrating but we cannot win by becoming like them.
Yet it feels like a very unfair fight.
Yet it feels like a very unfair fight.
April 11, 2025 at 5:29 PM
It is frustrating but we cannot win by becoming like them.
Yet it feels like a very unfair fight.
Yet it feels like a very unfair fight.
Shameful. What has happened to principle and integrity?
April 11, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Shameful. What has happened to principle and integrity?
Shameful. What has happened to principle and integrity?
Damn
more law firms have just sold out to Trump
April 11, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Shameful. What has happened to principle and integrity?
Reposted
The government *admitted* that it broke the law by shipping a man to a foreign prison, in violation of a court order.
And yet its entire approach to handling this case has been some flavor of "who are you to question us?"
And yet its entire approach to handling this case has been some flavor of "who are you to question us?"
April 11, 2025 at 4:39 PM
The government *admitted* that it broke the law by shipping a man to a foreign prison, in violation of a court order.
And yet its entire approach to handling this case has been some flavor of "who are you to question us?"
And yet its entire approach to handling this case has been some flavor of "who are you to question us?"
Reposted
Interesting that no one signed it.
April 11, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Interesting that no one signed it.
This thread is really a misinformed take. Anybody who knows Trump knows that playing nice does not mean he will play nice too. And this IS a new DOJ because the decisions being made there now are to support unlawful edicts by a lunatic Executive even where there are no good faith arguments to do so.
But be clear, this isn't new. This is a DOJ civil litigation tactic honed over decades of righteously indignant outrage over any challenges to Executive branch authority.
Ask them to do something and they might do it. Try to make them and they must destroy you as an example to all others.
Ask them to do something and they might do it. Try to make them and they must destroy you as an example to all others.
April 11, 2025 at 4:42 PM
This thread is really a misinformed take. Anybody who knows Trump knows that playing nice does not mean he will play nice too. And this IS a new DOJ because the decisions being made there now are to support unlawful edicts by a lunatic Executive even where there are no good faith arguments to do so.
Reposted
We all know what’s going on here at this point. The President is not going to stop until he is stopped once and for all by the federal courts.
April 10, 2025 at 4:34 PM
We all know what’s going on here at this point. The President is not going to stop until he is stopped once and for all by the federal courts.
Reposted
MORE: Judge XINIS has updated her original order requiring the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. and demanding an immediate update on his whereabouts/status and what they're doing to bring him back. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
April 11, 2025 at 2:48 AM
MORE: Judge XINIS has updated her original order requiring the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. and demanding an immediate update on his whereabouts/status and what they're doing to bring him back. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
In all of the state secrets cases over the last decades, the government has never once declined to give an Art III judge sensitive national security information (usually classified) in support of its claim of privilege.
I wrote a piece for @lawfare.bsky.social on the basis for another specious argument the government is making in the AEA deportation cases: The state secrets privilege.
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The Tangled History of the State Secrets Privilege
Contemporary jurisprudence around the privilege has not always been careful to distinguish it from historically adjacent doctrines.
www.lawfaremedia.org
April 8, 2025 at 6:53 PM
In all of the state secrets cases over the last decades, the government has never once declined to give an Art III judge sensitive national security information (usually classified) in support of its claim of privilege.
Because they can’t put together two sentences that make sense in defense of their conduct.
I don't even understand the relationship between the two sentences.
April 6, 2025 at 4:51 PM
Because they can’t put together two sentences that make sense in defense of their conduct.
Right. The government’s state secrets assertion in the Boasberg case is a ruse to try to avoid contempt. Indeed, the government has given classified national security information to Judge Boasberg numerous times over the years in his role on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
JUST IN: Trump admin doesn't want to give Judge Boasberg unclassified info on deportation flights involving hundreds of people, but it just gave one of his colleagues classified info on dangers posed by Chinese made drones
April 5, 2025 at 2:46 AM
Right. The government’s state secrets assertion in the Boasberg case is a ruse to try to avoid contempt. Indeed, the government has given classified national security information to Judge Boasberg numerous times over the years in his role on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
This kind of statement is shameful, and unsurprising from a White House occupied by a cretin who has no respect for the institutions of government.
The Trump administration claims the right to throw a man with legal status into a black hole Central American prison, affording him no due process, to admit afterward it was a mistake, and then to get snide with the judge who tells them to fix it.
April 5, 2025 at 2:28 AM
This kind of statement is shameful, and unsurprising from a White House occupied by a cretin who has no respect for the institutions of government.
That is absolutely correct. And the government has never withheld national security information from an Article III judge, ex parte in camera, in support of its claim of privilege.
In the deportation case ACLU asserts what I had believed to be the case: USG has never invoked state secrets to prevent a judge from knowing what he needs to know to enforce his own orders.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
April 1, 2025 at 3:18 AM
That is absolutely correct. And the government has never withheld national security information from an Article III judge, ex parte in camera, in support of its claim of privilege.
And the government has given Judge Boasberg highly sensitive and classified national security information numerous times over the years in his role as a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Until now, the gov has always (in every case) given an Art III judge, ex parte and in camera, national security information in support of the state secrets privilege assertion. That includes highly sensitive information — such as in cases challenging the Bush era Terrorist Surveillance Program.
The ACLU is correct. The gov never before has asserted the state secrets privilege as justification to decline to answer a federal court’s questions concerning compliance with a court order.
April 1, 2025 at 2:15 AM
And the government has given Judge Boasberg highly sensitive and classified national security information numerous times over the years in his role as a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.