LightNews LightNews
phil-jet.bsky.social
@phil-jet.bsky.social
210 followers 150 following 210 posts
American. Californian. 🖤🤍💜 || 🖤🤍💚
Most of my posts/reposts are just useful resources for the 'current political atmosphere', for anyone interested.
Posts Replies Media Videos
phil-jet.bsky.social
This one's probably gonna come up again too.
To the extent that there remains any question as to the equitable power of the Court to enjoin Defendants from violating the Posse Comitatus Act, the history and purpose of the Act strongly weigh in favor of the availability of injunctive relief. Recall that Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent the federal government from deploying troops into the South to police polling places and thereby ensure that federal voting law was followed. Buttaro, The End of Reconstruction, supra, at 161–62; Elsea, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters, supra, at 21. President Grant himself ordered federal troops into the three states that swung the 1876 for the Republicans. See Grant, Special Message, supra. It is ahistorical and illogical to think that Congress reacted to this by passing a statute that had as its sole enforcement mechanism federal prosecution of individual troops by the same federal government that would have ordered the troops to engage in domestic law enforcement.
September 2, 2025 at 5:38 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Feels like this is gonna be important some day....
For instance, the Ninth Circuit’s test would likely enable a President to use federal law enforcement agents to stoke tensions and then use any resistance as justification to call forth the National Guard. As long as the President actually believed that the resistance significantly impeded his ability to execute federal law, it is hard to see how a court could find that he acted in bad faith, especially under the Ninth Circuit’s deferential standard of review. See Good Faith, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
September 2, 2025 at 5:04 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Also worth noting, the 9th Circuit did NOT say there was a rebellion or insurrection, only that protestors were obstructing ICE, and that was enough for Trump to legally deploy the NG. They also did not address possible violations of the PCA in their ruling.
7/11
With those principles in mind, we consider whether the President exceeded the limits of his statutory grant of authority under § 12406. We start with § 12406(3): “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). Because that provision is sufficient to allow us to conclude that Defendants are likely to prevail in this litigation, we do not reach the other condition invoked by the President, § 12406(2), concerning “rebellion.” There is evidence that the day before, protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, “pinned down” several FPS officers defending federal property by throwing “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects,” and used “large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram” in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building. Plaintiffs’ own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws. Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage. Before the district court, Plaintiffs argued that certain uses of the National Guard would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385. The district court found that claim to be premature, and Plaintiffs have not renewed it before us. We express no opinion on it.
August 10, 2025 at 11:00 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Judge Breyer initially ruled that Trump's deployment of the NG in California was illegal and issued a TRO, ordering Trump to return control of the NG to Newsom. He also said the protests in LA were not a rebellion.
4/11
The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of “rebellion.” Defendants refer repeatedly to “violent rioters,” and “mobs,” see, e.g., Opp. at 1, and so the Court pauses to state that there can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully. Nonetheless, it is also beyond debate that some individuals used the protests as an excuse for violence and destruction. Some bad actors on June 6 threw “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects at … officers,” Santacruz Decl. ¶ 11, and used “chairs, dumpsters, and other items as weapons,” id. ¶ 14. Others threw rocks and other objects, including a Molotov cocktail, on June 7. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 9. A “violent crowd” boxed in officers, threw fireworks, rocks, and mangos, and trapped one officer in her car, surrounding it, shaking it, and throwing stones at it. Santacruz Decl. Ex. 20. Some people on June 8 set off fireworks toward officers and threw objects at their vehicles. Santacruz Decl. ¶ 26. Someone on June 9 fired paintballs, id. ¶ 28, and a crowd injured five LAPD officers, id. ¶ 31. Violence is necessary for a rebellion, but it is not sufficient.
August 10, 2025 at 10:56 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
It's a weird case, but it also started in 2014, before Trump's first term.
B. Dr. Lavinsky’s Bataar Skull 14. On March 27, 2014, Dr. Lavinsky received a letter from Defendants regarding his possession of the Bataar Skull and demanding he relinquish the skull and forfeit all rights to the alleged stolen property. The Letter from HSI regarding Possession of Smuggled Paleontological Artifacts is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. According to Defendants, “[u]nder U.S. law, generally, paleontological artifacts of Mongolian origin are considered to be stolen property and vertebrate paleontological artifacts of Chinese origin are considered to be stolen property.” See Ex. A, Letter from HSI Re: Possession of Smuggled Paleontological Artifacts. 16. Specifically, the letter states that Defendants determined Dr. Lavinsky “imported or caused to be imported, and/or purchased, obtained, or otherwise acquired one or more prohibited fossils of Chinese or Mongolian origin that were imported into the United States in violation of law.” Id. The letter further threatened that the Government “will initiate legal action to compel the production of and/or seizure and forfeiture of” the Bataar Skull. Id.
July 3, 2025 at 6:00 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
$1 bond once again, lol
Instead, the Court’s proposed Order requires only that they perform their mandatory notification and referral obligations — a minor imposition well within the scope of their official duties. The Court will therefore order Plaintiff to post a bond of $1.00.
June 20, 2025 at 9:37 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
For reference, from Judge Boasberg's opinion piece.
As matters currently stand, however, the Court takes the Government at its word that El Salvador is the legally responsible sovereign for the CECOT Plaintiffs’ ongoing detention. And Plaintiffs — who bear the burden of establishing habeas jurisdiction, In re Petitioners Seeking Habeas Corpus Relief, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 127 — have pointed the Court to no robust evidence to the contrary. The Court nonetheless reminds the Government that any official who makes knowingly false statements in a sworn declaration subjects himself to perjury prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 1621(2).
June 7, 2025 at 12:36 AM
phil-jet.bsky.social
"Administrative stay" while they consider the motion, so it's not a final ruling yet. I think this means that tariffs are still on, though.
(2) The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted to the extent that the judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases are temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers
May 29, 2025 at 7:33 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
I'll just drop this for others to read directly too.
*We note that the District Court recently denied class certification as to the detainees’ underlying habeas claims challenging the validity of removal under the AEA. See ECF Doc. 67. By its own terms, the District Court’s order is “automatically vacated” by our order granting a writ of certiorari. Id., at 2. And in any event, the District Court’s order primarily addressed the detainees’ ability to challenge the validity of AEA removal on a classwide basis. The application before this Court seeks only to vindicate notice rights on a classwide basis. To the extent the District Court’s order addressed due process, see post, at 12 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (citing ECF Doc. 67, pp. 29−31, 33, 38−39), the District Court’s concerns as to the propriety of classwide relief focused on considerations downstream of the initial notice necessary for detainees to raise any substantive claims against AEA removal, see ECF Doc. 67, pp. 29−31, 33, 38−39.
May 16, 2025 at 9:41 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Are we betting on when they invoke state secrets again? At a bare minimum, they want to file it under seal.
The Court should either grant Defendants a protective order from the obligation to disclose the ARRPs or reconsider the Disclosure Order because the ARRPs are privileged pre-decisional and deliberative agency planning documents. They also contain significant, highly sensitive information the disclosure of which will irreparably harm OPM, OMB, and the Defendant Agencies, harm that cannot be undone once the documents are disclosed. Defendants submit that the Court’s grant of this extraordinary relief was both substantively and procedurally erroneous. And although the Court need not consider this separate question to grant the relief requested, the ARRPs are also simply irrelevant to future proceedings in this Court, and at the very least no one will be irreparably harmed by granting relief from disclosure (let alone by a brief administrative stay). The irreparable harm to the government would be particularly severe here given the contents of the ARRPs, which “include highly sensitive information that would seriously undermine agency operations if they were released.” Decl. ¶ 4. This “information includes strategies for agency negotiations with unions; plans and strategies for personnel reorganization that may or may not materialize, but might seriously hurt agency recruitment and retention if released; plans and strategies regarding present and future regulatory changes; plans and strategies for present and future appropriations requests; plans and strategies for congressional engagement; and plans and strategies for agency IT management.” Id. The Court should accordingly direct any ARRPs to be filed under seal and should enter a protective order directing that Plaintiffs’ counsel may not disclose the ARRPs to anyone else (including their clients).
May 12, 2025 at 3:05 AM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Also for those curious: To the first point about similarities with AFT v. Bessent, here's what Judge Toby Heytens (who voted for the block) had to say in response to the dissent.
I will not attempt to provide a full list of reasons why the case for initial en banc consideration of the government’s stay motion is even stronger here than it was in American Federation of Teachers. To me, the most important ones include: • the even greater scale of information involved; • the terms of the order from which the government seeks a stay pending appeal— particularly the fact that this preliminary injunction requires disgorgement of information that was already provided while expressly preserving the government’s ability to obtain data as needed going forward; and USCA4 Appeal: 25-1411 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/30/2025 Pg: 14 of 169 15 • the government’s inability to provide a convincing explanation of how it will be tangibly and irreparably harmed absent a stay or how the balance of the equities warrants staying the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. For these reasons, I think that keeping the district court’s preliminary injunction in effect without interruption is especially imperative. I thus concur.
April 30, 2025 at 8:14 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
(Obligatory IANAL) I took a few screenshots for anyone curious about some of the arguments the dissent gives. One point is that this case is too similar to AFT v. Bessent, where the court made the opposite decision. Another point seems to be that no plaintiff has claimed actual "targeted snooping."
RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, AGEE, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING join, dissenting: Though this case comes in different clothing, it is the legal twin of American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent, No. 25-1282, 2025 WL 1023638 (4th Cir. April 7, 2025) (“AFT”). In AFT, the plaintiffs sued the Department of Education, the Department of Treasury, and the Office of Personnel Management. They claimed that the agencies granted IT access to certain of their employees affiliated with DOGE in violation of the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs asserted that the very fact those agency employees could access their personal information—regardless of whether they did or what was done—caused harm that required immediate redress. The district court granted a preliminary injunction revoking IT access, spurring the government to seek a stay pending appeal from a panel of this court. Before the panel could rule, initialen-banc review was requested. That request was denied by a majority of this Court. Id. at *1. The AFT panel then entered a stay pending appeal. Id. In a concurring opinion, I explained why the stay was warranted. I highlighted how the “multiplicative” structure of the case inherently made it difficult for the plaintiffs below—and thus easy for the government on appeal—to show a likelihood of success on the merits: “Between the four Winter factors themselves, several threshold jurisdictional questions, and the alleged Privacy Act violation, this case involves several issues that are each potentially dispositive of the appeal. To win, the government need only prevail on one of them; the plaintiffs, on the other hand, must prevail on all of them.” No plaintiff has alleged that they have been the subject of any targeted snooping. No plaintiff has even alleged that a DOGE-affiliated SSA employee has seen their specific personal information. They have only alleged that they feel distressed by such employees having access to the SSA’s databases. Given this, the employees are not like “someone rifling through their neighbor’s mail.” Resp. Br. at 9. They are instead much closer to someone with access to a central USPS mail facility where millions of letters from millions of people are sorted each day. Any given letter in the facility, like any given row in the SSA’s databases, may contain highly personal information. But the abstract harm inflicted by the bare knowledge that someone has access to the facility “strikes me as different in kind, not just in degree, from the harm inflicted by reporters, detectives, and paparazzi.” AFT, 2025 WL 1023638, at *5 (Richardson, J. concurring). There is no particular reason to tear this case from its twin. Yet, like parents playing favorites, we have left to the panel one and taken en banc the other, stayed the preliminary injunction in one and let continue the preliminary injunction in the other. I would rather treat like things alike. I respectfully dissent.
April 30, 2025 at 8:04 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
IDK how it would work, but I'm also sure PP doesn't know either. He's too inexperienced to say "No" to that kind of 'fair deal' that Trump may offer.
April 3, 2025 at 4:18 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
I don't think that's the real tweet, they might be making parody of this one
March 31, 2025 at 11:09 PM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Just a quick update to this thread, the ACLU has now submitted this request
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
March 25, 2025 at 12:19 AM
phil-jet.bsky.social
Judge Boasberg might have someone else in mind. If I'm reading it right(?), he wants someone higher up than Cerna to give a declaration. Once he gets that declaration, he'll get another possible name on the list. I'm not a lawyer tho, so idk.
March 21, 2025 at 12:21 AM