Jamie Fox
LightNews LightNews
banner
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Jamie Fox
@whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
600 followers 560 following 1.7K posts
Law professor. A skeptic, not a cynic. https://www.stetson.edu/law/faculty/home/james-fox.php
Posts Replies Media Videos
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
It was Scalia's raging, homophobic dissent that clipped the Moreno quote. Today's Court basically does to Moreno what Scalia wanted to do to it in Romer. 11/
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "'bare ... desire to harm' " homosexuals, ante, at 634, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion's heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court.
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Compare how the Court in Romer (overturning state constitution amendment barring local anti-discrim ordinances from protecting LGB people) used Moreno - with the *full quote*. 10/
A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Here is how Moreno originally phrased the "base" quote. Note how different this is from today's new Ashton Orr language. 6/
For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Here is Roberts in Hawaii. Note that only the last half of the pull quote used in Ashton is from Moreno. The "lack any purpose other than" standard is Roberts' add-on language. What he used semi-descriptively in Hawaii now elevates to the legal test in Ashton. 3/
On the few occasions where we have done so, a common thread has been that the laws at issue lack any purpose other than a “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Department of Agriculture v. Moreno,
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Here's the new animus standard the Court applied in its unreasoned shadow docket case - Ashton Orr. With the artful use of omitting quotes, this hides the original source of this language (Moreno). As we will see, this Court *needs* to bury Moreno, and so it does by making Hawaii its source. 2/
And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585U. S. 667, 705 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
This thing
November 6, 2025 at 1:53 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
The last line makes that point clear. But so does this statement from FNS in *2024 (Biden admin): "This equal treatment provision prohibits both negative treatment (such as discriminatory practices) as well as preferential treatment (such as incentive programs)." www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-022124 3/
Summary SNAP equal treatment provisions at 7 CFR 278.2(b) and 7 CFR 274.7(f) require that SNAP recipients receive treatment equal to that received by other customers at all stores authorized to participate in SNAP with the exception that sales tax may not be charged on eligible foods purchased with SNAP benefits. This equal treatment provision prohibits both negative treatment (such as discriminatory practices) as well as preferential treatment (such as incentive programs). Pursuant to Section 4008 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115–334 (2018 Farm Bill), individual SNAP authorized retailers (or private organizations or governmental entities, which partner with authorized stores) may request that FNS waive the SNAP equal treatment provisions in order to be allowed to implement an incentive program the meets the requirements under 7 USC 2018(j) to encourage SNAP recipients to purchase healthier foods. Most SNAP authorized stores that offer incentives to SNAP recipients are either farmers' markets or part of a federally funded grant program that is authorized by statute, including the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) administered by the USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and the Healthy Fluid Milk Incentive (HFMI) project administered by the Food and Nutrition Service.
November 2, 2025 at 9:03 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Plainly the admin is using a provision designed to *help* recipients to instead harm them. The problem is the reg's language may support that result. Here is the regulation. Note the final sentence: "No retail food store may single out coupon users for special treatment in any way." 🧵1/
7 CFR 278.2 (b): Equal treatment for coupon customers. Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons. However, nothing in this part may be construed as authorizing FNS to specify the prices at which retail food stores may sell food. However, public or private nonprofit homeless meal providers may only request voluntary use of SNAP benefits from homeless SNAP recipients and may not request such household using SNAP benefits to pay more than the average cost of the food purchased by the public or private nonprofit homeless meal provider contained in a meal served to the patrons of the meal service. For purposes of this section, “average cost” is determined by averaging food costs over a period of up to one calendar month. Voluntary payments by SNAP recipients in excess of such costs may be accepted by the meal providers. The value of donated foods from any source shall not be considered in determining the amount to be requested from SNAP recipients. All indirect costs, such as those incurred in the acquisition, storage, or preparation of the foods used in meals shall also be excluded. In addition, if others have the option of eating free or making a monetary donation, SNAP recipients must be provided the same option of eating free or making a donation in money or SNAP benefits. No retail food store may single out coupon users for special treatment in any way.
November 2, 2025 at 9:03 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Lincoln’s bathroom, originalism version www.waymarking.com/gallery/imag...
November 1, 2025 at 2:09 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Justice Sotomayor dissenting in Trump v US: Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
October 24, 2025 at 12:40 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
As the framers intended.
This painting by Tom Freeman for the White House Historical Association shows the burning north and west facades of the White House when it was set aflame by the British soldiers on August 24, 1814 during the War of 1812. British soldiers can be seen in the foreground. It was commissioned during George W. Bush's presidency, but depicts events that occurred during James Madison's.
October 21, 2025 at 12:17 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Erez Reuveni: And Ensign says to Boasberg, I don't know. Now Ensign was at the same meeting that I was at the day before, where we were told in no uncertain terms that planes were taking off over the weekend, that those planes needed to take off no matter what. And he says, I don't know. Reuveni says that moment in court was "stunning." Erez Reuveni: It is the highest, most egregious violation of a lawyer's code of ethics to mislead a court with intent.
October 20, 2025 at 12:09 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Gotta be this guy. external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%...
October 19, 2025 at 4:49 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
DOD: hurricane season, what even is that?
Bluesky post on military build up in Caribbean, with map tropical report weather map showing possible storm development in Caribbean
October 18, 2025 at 1:50 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Mishandling classified documents, you say?
Classified documents at Mar-a-lago Classified document boxes in bathroom at Mar-a-lago
October 17, 2025 at 12:11 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Steve is such a treasure. Excellent piece on the Court’s current practices and its defenders. To me this is a key point - revealing the fundamental lawlessness of its behavior. Literally, it is not applying the relevant law. There is no defense of this that any law professor should condone.
The question is why the justices can’t be bothered to even briefly (1) identify the proper standard for granting the relief the Trump administration is seeking; and (2) explain why proper application of that standard to the case at hand warrants granting the requested relief, even on an interim basis.
October 13, 2025 at 12:21 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Pope Leo’s statement on poverty is quite a banger. Highly recommended. www.vatican.va/content/leo-...
94. We need to be increasingly committed to resolving the structural causes of poverty. This is a pressing need that “cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely provisional responses.” [97] I can only state once more that inequality “is the root of social ills.” [98] Indeed, “it frequently becomes clear that, in practice, human rights are not equal for all.” [99] 95. As it is, “the current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance, does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented to find opportunities in life.” [100] The same questions keep coming back to us. Does this mean that the less gifted are not human beings? Or that the weak do not have the same dignity as ourselves? Are those born with fewer opportunities of lesser value as human beings? Should they limit themselves merely to surviving? The worth of our societies, and our own future, depends on the answers we give to these questions. Either we regain our moral and spiritual dignity or we fall into a cesspool. Unless we stop and take this matter seriously, we will continue, openly or surreptitiously, “to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.” [101]
October 11, 2025 at 2:07 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
In addition to the racist nativism here, Trump and the GOP in fact are the ones prohibiting pregnant women from getting essential care at the ER.
ACLU Press Release 6/3/25: WASHINGTON — Today, the Trump administration rescinded guidance that reaffirmed hospitals’ obligation under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide health-saving and lifesaving abortion care to patients experiencing medical crises. The rescission of the guidance is yet another clear sign the administration is caving to its anti-abortion allies and reneging on President Trump’s campaign promises that his administration would not interfere with abortion access. Story in The Guardian 4/19/24: One woman miscarried in the restroom lobby of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her to the hospital. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound, and the baby later died. Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from US emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, federal documents obtained by the Associated Press reveal. The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care, especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can legally provide. “It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care – this is inconceivable.”
October 8, 2025 at 5:01 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
...that I dislike the weird tonal stuff. Both the postcard preface and the gratuitous critique of Trump at the end I fear will detract from the well-reasoned analysis within. It makes the reasoning less persuasive, and it makes the judge quite vulnerable to a recusal demand. 3/
I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will notstand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct?
September 30, 2025 at 7:38 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Or this passage where he dismisses the entire history coverture and its effect on women’s daily lives.
If you had asked a person on the street how marriage was defined, no one would ever have said, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, where the woman is subject to coverture.” The majority may be right that the “history of marriage is one of both continuity and change,” but the core meaning of marriage has endured.
September 29, 2025 at 5:18 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Apparently it is illegal at Texas Tech to teach constitutional law. Here is SCOTUS from June in Skrmetti. Can you assign the fact section of the case? Talk about it?
September 27, 2025 at 12:18 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Further note to baby lawyers: if you work for this admin...

bsky.app/profile/john...
When presidents use criminal law to pursue political enemies, they assault the very foundation of our justice system. The Justice Department was designed to stand apart from politics precisely because law enforcement is too powerful to be wielded as a weapon of revenge. Prosecutors have the ability to ruin lives. That power must be exercised with restraint, fairness and independence. If prosecutors instead become instruments of the president’s political will, then no citizen is safe. Tomorrow it could be a journalist, a business competitor or an ordinary person who criticized those in power. Once the rule of law is replaced by the rule of men, the promise of equal justice under law is gone. What we are witnessing now is not law enforcement. It is retaliation. We are inviting an era in which every president prosecutes their enemies and protects their friends. Irrespective of political affiliation, the American people must demand a return to the principle that justice is blind.
September 24, 2025 at 5:49 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
And United States foreign aid goes to…
Children receiving USAID assistance Argentine President and pseudo-libertarian Javier Milei with a cartoonish expression
September 24, 2025 at 12:02 AM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
He joined an NRA-side amicus brief in Vullo. Jawboning for me but not for thee is quite the constitutional principle. manhattan.institute/article/amic...
screenshot of Ilya Shapiro promoting Manhattan Institute joining amicus brief in NRA v Vullo, including this highlighted statement: "The Manhattan Institute has now joined Advancing American Freedom and 30 other organizations on a brief in support of the more expansive view of private speech rights, and against old-fashioned government jawboning of the pre-tech-era variety."
September 18, 2025 at 4:11 PM
whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Fun fact: on the album cover of Even in the Quietest Moments, the sheet music on the piano has the title "Fool's Overture." Fool's Overture is in fact a song on the album (a gloriously bloated 10 min art rock piece) but the actual notes depicted on the sheet music are from the Star-Spangled Banner.
Cover of Supertramp album, a snow-covered grand piano on a mountaintop.
September 15, 2025 at 4:55 PM