LightNews LightNews
nchaseteeples.bsky.social
@nchaseteeples.bsky.social
120 followers 210 following 84 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
lizagoitein.bsky.social
President Trump is once again threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, this time in Minneapolis. That would be a flagrant and particularly dangerous abuse of the Act—one that would threaten the rule of law and public safety alike. 1/13
January 16, 2026 at 12:18 AM
Reposted
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
🚨WHOA. The El Paso Medical Examiner says it will rule the death of a 55-year-old Cuban man at ICE's "Camp East Montana" tent camp as a homicide.

He was allegedly choked to death by a guard during a "struggle" after he refused to enter a housing unit without his medications.
By Douglas MacMillan When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the Jan. 3 death of detainee Geraldo Lunas Campos at a Texas detention camp, the agency said “staff observed him in distress,” and it gave no cause of death. An employee of El Paso County’s Office of the Medical Examiner told Lunas Campos’s daughter this week that, subject to results of a toxicology report, the office is likely to classify the death as a homicide, according to a recording of the conversation. In the recording, which the daughter shared with The Washington Post, the employee said a doctor there “is listing the preliminary cause of death as asphyxia due to neck and chest compression,” which means Lunas Campos did not get enough oxygen because of pressure on his neck and chest. Pending the results of a toxicology report, the staffer said on the recording, “our doctor is believing that we’re going to be listing the manner of death as homicide.” In an interview with The Post, Santos Jesus Flores, a man who says he was detained in the segregation unit the day Lunas Campos died, said he saw at least five guards struggling with Lunas Campos after he refused to enter the segregation unit, complaining that he didn’t have his medications. Flores said he saw guards choking Lunas Campos and heard Lunas Campos repeatedly saying, “No puedo respirar” — Spanish for “I can’t breathe.” Medical staff tried to resuscitate him for an hour, after which they took his body away, Flores said. “He said, ‘I cannot breathe, I cannot breathe.’ After that, we don’t hear his voice anymore and that’s it,” said Flores, who had contacted a family member of Lunas Campos, who in turn put him in touch with a Post reporter. The Post confirmed Flores was in Camp East Montana through ICE’s detainee locator.
January 15, 2026 at 11:03 PM
Reposted
daveweigel.bsky.social
Yeah, I think a lot about the choice the Trump admin has made to send film crews after everybody to show they're Doing Something.

Biden's DOJ (and Ellison's AG office) were rolling up fraudsters with convictions. But they didn't send influencers to advertise it. Cut to Rs saying Trump finally ACTED
michaelbishop.me Michael Bishop @michaelbishop.me · 22h
The funny thing is they were. The 60 Minutes piece last fall with Homan ended with them on raids with ICE doing exactly what they are doing now but targeted. Biden just kept it quiet.
January 15, 2026 at 4:21 PM
Reposted
bradheath.bsky.social
As Immigration and Customs Enforcement was racing to add 10,000 new officers to its force, an artificial intelligence error in how their applications were processed sent many new recruits into field offices without proper training.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...
January 15, 2026 at 4:53 PM
Reposted
zoetillman.bsky.social
New: Proposed class action in Minnesota fed accuses ICE of unlawful conduct, incl. stops w/out reasonable suspicion, arrests w/out probable cause, and "discriminatory animus" buff.ly/Na7sg01

Follows other action this week from state officials, protesters:
buff.ly/s5Rjb3k
buff.ly/mwcPF1k
January 15, 2026 at 5:32 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING Judge Ellis finds that the cases are related, reassigns Illinois v. DHS to be heard by her.

Ellis noted that she has "discretion to reassign under Rule 40.4(a)" and finds that plaintiffs meet 2 and 3.
Northern District Of Illinois Local Rules LR40.4. Related Cases; Reassignment of Cases as Related (a) Definitions. Two or more civil cases may be related if one or more of the following conditions are met: (1) the cases involve the same property; (2) the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law; (3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or (4) in class action suits, one or more of the classes involved in the cases is or are the same.
January 15, 2026 at 8:42 PM
Reposted
publius24.bsky.social
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche calls what is happening in Minneapolis an “insurrection” and threatens to go after Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey over their “terrorism.”
January 15, 2026 at 3:58 AM
Reposted
nicholasbednar.bsky.social
The Star Tribune had an insane graphic about the presence of immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. There are more immigration officers in the metro right now than local police officers.
Showing 3000 immigration officers to 2482 officers from the ten largest metro forces
January 15, 2026 at 12:56 AM
Reposted
bradheath.bsky.social
In an interview yesterday with Reuters, President Trump boasted that he has accomplished so much that “when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.”

www.reuters.com/world/us/fiv...
January 15, 2026 at 1:48 PM
Reposted
joshgerstein.bsky.social
BREAKING: Major win for Trump admin's drive to deport pro-Palestinian academics as 3rd Circuit panel rules, 2-1, that federal district court had no jurisdiction to order release of Columbia grad student Mahmoud Khalil. Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Khalil
www.documentcloud.org
January 15, 2026 at 1:56 PM
Reposted
kyledcheney.bsky.social
A federal judge has barred USDA from cutting funds to help Minnesota administer its SNAP program.
January 14, 2026 at 11:42 PM
Reposted
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
X updated its terms of service to declare that any lawsuit against it, even ones which are ongoing (as Musk’s suit against Media Matters is), must be heard by Reed O’Connor in Texas. Basically.
January 14, 2026 at 11:19 PM
Reposted
rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social
Again, this shares two attributes with many of the other en bancs that CA5 has been granting: it was from a panel of two democratic appointees, who ruled in favor of the "left" position, and there was a Trump appointee dissent.
joshgerstein.bsky.social Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein.bsky.social · 1d
JUST IN: 5th Circuit grants en banc rehearing on House's authority to pass bills by remote voting. Panel ruled remote voting was constitutional. That ruling now vacated pending full bench argument. Order: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26... Earlier: law.justia.com/cases/federa...
HouseRemoteVotingCA5EBOrd011426
www.documentcloud.org
January 14, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NOTE: In DOJ's appeal of the dismissal of the Comey/James cases because Lindsey Halligan wasn't properly appointed, the Fourth Circuit briefing won't even be completed until mid-March — with any oral argument sometime after that. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to consolidate, the court grants the motion and consolidates Case No. 25-4673 (L) and Case No. 25-4674. The court grants an extension of the briefing schedule as follows: Joint appendix due: 02/09/2026 Opening brief due: 02/09/2026 Response briefs due: 03/03/2026 Any reply brief: 10 days from service of response brief. The court grants appellees' motions for leave to file separate briefs, each of which shall not exceed 13,000 words. The motion for additional argument time is deferred pending assignment of the case to a panel.
January 14, 2026 at 7:43 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Three-judge panel, on a 2-1 vote, refuses to block California from using its mid-decade redistricting map. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Proposition 50 was the single issue on the ballot for the November 4 special election: the Official Voter Information Guide provided maps to the voters showing both the existing district lines and the proposed new district lines. And the pros and cons of Proposition 50 were outlined in purely political, partisan terms, with each side claiming the other was engaging in a "power grab." No one told the voters that the Proposition 50 Map involved racial gerrymandering. Over 7 million Californians voted "yes" on Proposition 50, it passed by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, and the next day Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this Court. But the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." So, Challengers have abandoned the argument they made to the voters. Proposition 50, apparently, is no longer a partisan power grab. Now, it is a "racial gerrymander." And Challengers also tell us that, even if the voters intended to adopt the Proposition 50 Map as a partisan counterweight to Texas's redistricting, their intent does not matter, as they were simply dupes of a racially-motivated legislature. However, we reject the notion that voters' intent does not matter. Instead, we employ well-understood tools to determine the voters' intent in adopting the Proposition 50 Map, and after reviewing the evidence, we conclude that it was exactly as one would think: it was partisan. Indeed, the record contains a mountain of statements reflecting the partisan goals of Proposition 50, from which Challengers have culled a molehill of statements showing race consciousness on the part of the mapmaker and certain legislators. But that is not enough to make the necessary showing that the relevant decisionmakers-here, the electorate enacted the new map for racial reasons. Nor have Challengers offered alternative maps that would prove otherwise. Significantly, they provide no alternative map for any congressional district except one: District 13.3 And as to that district, the alternative maps they do offer are either materially indistinguishable from the Proposition 50 Map or do not meet other redistricting goals.
January 14, 2026 at 8:50 PM
Reposted
rparloff.bsky.social
Yes, Alina Habba resigned. But govt argues that that doesn't moot her appeal because she intends to come back if the disqualification is reversed.
January 14, 2026 at 5:51 PM
Reposted
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Deleted these two posts because we now have confirmation from the State Department that this suspension is limited ONLY to immigrant visas — visas which let someone enter the United States with permanent residence status and on a path to a green card. There is NOT a suspension on nonimmigrant visas.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick ‪@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social‬ WILD news. The Trump administration is indefinitely suspending ALL visa processing (unclear if just immigrant visas or also nonimmigrant visas) for 75 countries, including ones not on the travel ban list such as Brazil and Thailand, allegedly to add intense new "public charge" screening rules. ‪Aaron Reichlin-Melnick‬ ‪@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social‬ · 2h Yep. People who currently have visas will still be able to attend, but depending on how long this indefinite suspension goes on (presuming it also applies to nonimmigrant visas), it could severely reduce attendance. The goal is very clear; they want to severely reduce legal immigration. Period. ‪Leslie‬ ‪@leslieandrews.bsky.social‬ · 2h All of this certainly does not bode well for attendance at the Olympics or World Cup events. Who at this point would make plans to come here except of course, the obvious.
January 14, 2026 at 6:09 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: In Sen. Kelly's lawsuit against Hegseth, DOD has agreed to extend the 10-day deadline for Kelly to respond to the Navy retirement grade letter until Feb. 4, obviating the need for a TRO. The parties propose to now just focus on the preliminary injunction motion/APA stay, w a proposed schedule:
Counsel for the parties have conferred and have agreed upon a more streamlined process to facilitate the Court's consideration. If the Court enters the parties' proposed schedule: a. Defendants agree (1) to change their January 20 deadline for Senator Kelly to respond to the retirement grade administrative proceeding to February 4, 2026, and (2) to refrain from relying in any way on the determinations in the Letter of Censure until this Court resolves Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction and stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705. While Senator Kelly maintains that he faces ongoing irreparable harm, he agrees- conditioned on Defendants' above postponement of the grade-determination response deadline to withdraw his request for a temporary restraining order and requests that the Court convert his Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Stay Under 5 U.S.C. & 705 to a motion for preliminary injunction and stay under 5 U.S.C. $ 705. The parties propose the following schedule: Defendants will file their response to Plaintiff's motion by Tuesday, January 20 at 3:00 PM. 2 Case 1:26-cv-00081-RJL Document 8 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4 Plaintiff will file his reply by Thursday, January 22 at 5:00 PM. If convenient for the Court's calendar, the parties will make themselves available for a hearing on Friday, January 23, 2026. Senator Kelly respectfully requests that the Court rule on his motion a preliminary injunction and stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 by January 29, 2026. That schedule will permit any necessary appellate proceedings following the Court's decision before the February 4, 2026, deadline for Senator Kelly to respond to both the retirement grade reopening and the Letter of Censure.
January 14, 2026 at 6:12 PM
Reposted
tylermcbrien.com
Since Trump took office in Jan 2025:
- Deadliest year on record for ICE detention
- Detention facilities nearly doubled
- Detainees rose by ~75%,
- 2,450% increase in number of people with no criminal record held in ICE detention on given day
- 87% drop in discretionary release
January 14, 2026 at 4:02 PM
Reposted
bradheath.bsky.social
Before it targeted Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Trump's DOJ had pursued probes of two officials who investigated Trump, nine Democratic members of Congress, two officials-turned-critics from his first term, a liberal billionaire, a Democrat fundraising group, and more.

www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
January 14, 2026 at 3:19 PM
Reposted
mjsdc.bsky.social
The Supreme Court's third and FINAL decision of the day is Bost v. Illinois, holding 7–2 that candidates have standing to challenge laws that require the counting of mail ballots sent by Election Day but arriving shortly thereafter. Jackson and Sotomayor dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
January 14, 2026 at 3:14 PM
Reposted
mjsdc.bsky.social
The Supreme Court's second opinion (also not tariffs) is Case v. Montana, which unanimously holds that police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400 (2006), this Court held that police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone inside needs emergency assistance. The question presented is whether that standard means that officers must have “probable cause” for the intrusion, as they typically would when investigating a crime. We hold it does not. The probable-cause requirement is rooted in, and derives its meaning from, the criminal context, and we decline to transplant it to this different one. Brigham City’s reasonableness standard means just what it says, with no further gloss. And here it was satisfied because the police had “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” that a homeowner intended to take his own life and, indeed, may already have shot himself.
January 14, 2026 at 3:09 PM
Reposted
mjsdc.bsky.social
The Supreme Court's first opinion is Barrett v. U.S., a criminal sentencing case (so not the tariffs ruling). www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
Congress has not authorized convictions under both 18 U. S. C. §§924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for one act that violates both provisions. The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals that held otherwise is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
January 14, 2026 at 3:02 PM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: SCOTUS likely to allow state trans sports bans, but a changed tone could signal a narrow ruling.

Although a majority appeared unlikely to strike down West Virginia and Idaho's bans, there also seemed to be interest in avoiding a final decision on constitutional questions for now.

Law Dork:
SCOTUS likely to allow state trans sports bans, but a changed tone could signal a narrow ruling
Although a majority appeared unlikely to strike down West Virginia and Idaho's bans, there also seemed to be interest in avoiding a final decision on constitutional questions for now.
www.lawdork.com
January 14, 2026 at 2:05 AM