The Green Zebra
@thegreenzebra.bsky.social
I make this region of the universe worse. He/him
I would think attorney is more correct, since State Attorney's here have a duty to represent the state in all cases, even civil cases, not just prosecutions, but I'm not aware how the terms are used in other countries.
December 14, 2025 at 11:01 AM
I would think attorney is more correct, since State Attorney's here have a duty to represent the state in all cases, even civil cases, not just prosecutions, but I'm not aware how the terms are used in other countries.
The interesting thing seems here that the EPPO in its publications (in their ENG press release when they had issues with him taking their case which led to this in the Cro. Con. court) calls the Chief State Attorney of Croatia the attorney general, but the CJEU here seems to use Prosecutor General
December 14, 2025 at 10:59 AM
The interesting thing seems here that the EPPO in its publications (in their ENG press release when they had issues with him taking their case which led to this in the Cro. Con. court) calls the Chief State Attorney of Croatia the attorney general, but the CJEU here seems to use Prosecutor General
You guys probably know if you checked the website, but I only checked again today, there is now finally an English translation of the decision published on the curia website. (But the Croatian version seems to be truncated on the site lol) curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
curia.europa.eu
December 14, 2025 at 10:54 AM
You guys probably know if you checked the website, but I only checked again today, there is now finally an English translation of the decision published on the curia website. (But the Croatian version seems to be truncated on the site lol) curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
Per curiam doesn't really mean anything except that the majority wanted it to say per curiam
December 12, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Per curiam doesn't really mean anything except that the majority wanted it to say per curiam
And admin stays claiming to not be merits determinations is pretty much lying at this point
December 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM
And admin stays claiming to not be merits determinations is pretty much lying at this point
There probably isn't any chance for the en banc court to remove and admin stay but this is ridiculous, every step of the inquiry will be appealed (mandamused?) and take multiple rounds of briefing.
December 12, 2025 at 10:59 PM
There probably isn't any chance for the en banc court to remove and admin stay but this is ridiculous, every step of the inquiry will be appealed (mandamused?) and take multiple rounds of briefing.
This is the power under which this was adopted.
December 12, 2025 at 8:46 PM
This is the power under which this was adopted.
The treaty powers (Article 122) the decision is based on are intended for measures in economic emergencies. Ordinary sanctions require unanimity, this only requires a qualified majority. I think most sanctions could also be adopted as trade measures, but it doesn't seem to work here.
December 12, 2025 at 8:45 PM
The treaty powers (Article 122) the decision is based on are intended for measures in economic emergencies. Ordinary sanctions require unanimity, this only requires a qualified majority. I think most sanctions could also be adopted as trade measures, but it doesn't seem to work here.
She said to assume it was liquidated, he didn't concede.
December 8, 2025 at 5:44 PM
She said to assume it was liquidated, he didn't concede.
In the case below there is a nationwide class-wide (to comply with Trump v. CASA a class was certified) injuction, so there is no possibility of chaos.
December 5, 2025 at 7:18 PM
In the case below there is a nationwide class-wide (to comply with Trump v. CASA a class was certified) injuction, so there is no possibility of chaos.
This is referring to the South African Constitution. I don't know why anybody would use the Article 89 procedure except for political posturing. www.justice.gov.za/constitution...
www.justice.gov.za
November 28, 2025 at 9:06 PM
This is referring to the South African Constitution. I don't know why anybody would use the Article 89 procedure except for political posturing. www.justice.gov.za/constitution...
I think the closest would be South Africa today, the President both HoS and HoG, but is elected by a majority of Parliament. It seems in South Africa weirdly the pres can be removed by 2/3 of parliament (Article 89), but also has to resign if there is no confidence in him by majority (Article 102).
November 28, 2025 at 9:05 PM
I think the closest would be South Africa today, the President both HoS and HoG, but is elected by a majority of Parliament. It seems in South Africa weirdly the pres can be removed by 2/3 of parliament (Article 89), but also has to resign if there is no confidence in him by majority (Article 102).
There is a direct mandatory jurisdiction appeal to SCOTUS in 3-judge district court cases, no denying cert possible.
November 21, 2025 at 6:06 PM
There is a direct mandatory jurisdiction appeal to SCOTUS in 3-judge district court cases, no denying cert possible.
The link is to an ECHR issue, should it be this?: www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2...
www.supremecourt.uk
November 19, 2025 at 3:19 PM
The link is to an ECHR issue, should it be this?: www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2...
That is, I don't think there could be quo warranto if the admin claims the office is vacant. So mandamus seems best bet. Here is the 19th century discussion I mentioned, from In re Sawyer. It seems to foreclose SCOTUS holding there is no remedy or only backpay, but who knows what they will hold.
September 23, 2025 at 1:19 PM
That is, I don't think there could be quo warranto if the admin claims the office is vacant. So mandamus seems best bet. Here is the 19th century discussion I mentioned, from In re Sawyer. It seems to foreclose SCOTUS holding there is no remedy or only backpay, but who knows what they will hold.
Off course, this wouldn't even be possible before a replacement is appointed. Some courts have held they would grant mandamus in event an injuction wasn't available. Here is discussion from the case SCOTUS granted. It's weird because injuctions and mandamus are both disfavored over other remedies.
September 23, 2025 at 1:16 PM
Off course, this wouldn't even be possible before a replacement is appointed. Some courts have held they would grant mandamus in event an injuction wasn't available. Here is discussion from the case SCOTUS granted. It's weird because injuctions and mandamus are both disfavored over other remedies.
some weird DC Circuit precedent that private parties can't use anyway back when some people tried to sue Obama over birther conspiracy theories. (Even tho it's in DC Code it was enacted by Congress.)
September 23, 2025 at 1:12 PM
some weird DC Circuit precedent that private parties can't use anyway back when some people tried to sue Obama over birther conspiracy theories. (Even tho it's in DC Code it was enacted by Congress.)
I'm not sure whether they still do, but gov used to argue exclusive remedy is DC Code quo warranto (sometimes that sometimes only backpay) and Gorsuch and Alito seemed to agree with that in the MSPB Special Counsel case. Plaintiffs don't use it because it requires waiting for the AG, and there is...
September 23, 2025 at 1:08 PM
I'm not sure whether they still do, but gov used to argue exclusive remedy is DC Code quo warranto (sometimes that sometimes only backpay) and Gorsuch and Alito seemed to agree with that in the MSPB Special Counsel case. Plaintiffs don't use it because it requires waiting for the AG, and there is...
There is also a 19th century SCOTUS case that says there can't be an injuction, but there can be relief through mandamus, so mandamus or quo warranto might be possible legal remedies (at law)
September 23, 2025 at 12:54 PM
There is also a 19th century SCOTUS case that says there can't be an injuction, but there can be relief through mandamus, so mandamus or quo warranto might be possible legal remedies (at law)
@stevepeers.bsky.social @profpech.bsky.social do you know/are you interested in this stuff
September 16, 2025 at 11:55 PM
@stevepeers.bsky.social @profpech.bsky.social do you know/are you interested in this stuff
There seemed to be some internal drama with judges who wanted to send more questions but the plurality was unwilling to consider it. IMO their questions seem to be duplicative, so not a great problem, but they complain about the draft decision being rigid and bad communication
September 16, 2025 at 11:53 PM
There seemed to be some internal drama with judges who wanted to send more questions but the plurality was unwilling to consider it. IMO their questions seem to be duplicative, so not a great problem, but they complain about the draft decision being rigid and bad communication
sljeme.usud.hr
September 16, 2025 at 11:49 PM
The putative class is only for ND Texas AFAIK. On second thought this may be more akin to admin stays to preserve status quo, except that lower courts refused to act here. But still I don't think use of AWA is very notable, it's just authority for everything on the shadow docket.
April 19, 2025 at 2:57 PM
The putative class is only for ND Texas AFAIK. On second thought this may be more akin to admin stays to preserve status quo, except that lower courts refused to act here. But still I don't think use of AWA is very notable, it's just authority for everything on the shadow docket.
They may be some AWA authority for issuing orders for preserving authority without looking at the merits (as used in recent habeas cases), but I think it is much more likely they were just going thru the ordinary stay/injuction factors
April 19, 2025 at 2:52 PM
They may be some AWA authority for issuing orders for preserving authority without looking at the merits (as used in recent habeas cases), but I think it is much more likely they were just going thru the ordinary stay/injuction factors