Like, sure, Trump isn't being accused of a specific crime, but statements from a notorious sex trafficker that he knew about the girls and spent hours with a known victim absolutely *implicates him* in *wrongdoing*

Staff frequently have to remind me to take my phone off DND when I'm through with depos, hearings, etc., and I'm like, But I liiiiike it....

For the appeal memo, for example, it had some interesting theories, but it missed that the single biggest issue was a prior settlement that the court found covered the claims. It'll be hard to convince the prospective client that AI just got it wrong.

I've had this happen twice, once with an AI drafted complaint and one with an AI drafted memo for an appeal. I have said before that if I were pro se, I'd absolutely be using AI, so I get it, but I think people who do this are going to be heavily committed to the concepts AI told them were good

Everything good that happens in Les Miserables is the result of the bishop being kind when he had no reason to be kind. The idea that that's still possible is enough to change lives.

What makes this so great is it didn't immediately convert Valjean. It triggered a war between his commitment to hate and the fact that someone had saved him for no reason. It wasn't possible to believe both; one or the other had to go.

I'm not rooting against Kim. If she wants to be a lawyer and she can do the work, good on her for wanting to be more than a vapid TV star

But it's just so on brand for a Kardashian to skip the hard work of law school and instead put her faith in psychics

Gorsuch came at her for taking the opposite position in Tanzin re: RFRA and she was like, Yep, and then we lost 8-0

Yes, the ASG said she didn't think there was any daylight between the government's petition and the petitioner!

The notice/consent issue is important (to some justices) because RLUIPA imposes the religious liberty requirements on the states through the spending clause. By accepting federal funds, the state is agreeing to certain conditions, and the question here is partly whether the individuals consent too

Gorsuch repeatedly compares it to a principal-agent relationship. An agent can clearly be held responsible for damage suffered by the principal, but can't be held responsible for damages done by the principal to a third party. "Privity just doesn't work that way."

I think the main problem that the court has with allowing a recovery is the level of notice/consent for the individual defendants that there can be a monetary recovery against them personally