Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
300K followers 1.9K following 19K posts
Subscribe to www.lawdork.com for SCOTUS, Trump, LGBTQ, criminal justice, and other legal news. / Email: [email protected] / Signal: crg.32 / About me: Sober. Queer. Bipolar. Buckeye. / He/him.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
REMINDERS:
* Not every post is for every person; some are to inform legal folks of something.
* If I have time & if it matters, I say more, but I don't always have time & it doesn't always matter.
* If it's important, I usually cover it at Law Dork, where I work to make reports accessible to all.
Law Dork | Chris Geidner | Substack
The Supreme Court, law, politics, and more. Click to read Law Dork, by Chris Geidner, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.
www.lawdork.com
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
sherylnyt.bsky.social
FULL STORY HERE: Emails began flooding CDC inboxes late Friday night announcing dozens of layoffs. HR people brought back from furlough to oversee the RIFs. Disease detectives, entire Washington office, global health, injury prevention, MMWR staff among those hit.
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/u...
Trump Administration Lays Off Dozens of C.D.C. Officials
www.nytimes.com
Reposted by Chris Geidner
jaywillis.net
NEWS: I wish for death’s sweet release
We’re in the 15th My heart rate at 112
Reposted by Chris Geidner
histoftech.bsky.social
The Virginia Senate just told UVA it’s not getting state funding if it accepts the compact since UVA exists to serve Virginia, its residents, & their interests—not be a tool of the federal govt. Scoop from our student newspaper, who’ve been doing vital reporting www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2025...
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here is the promised opinion from Judge Perry in the Illinois troops case: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Case: 1:25-cv-12174 Document #: 70 Filed: 10/10/25 Page 1 of 51 PagelD #:994
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STATE OF ILLINOIS, a sovereign state; and the CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation,
Case No. 25-cv-12174
Plaintiffs,
Judge April M. Perry
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETER B.
HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense; UNITED STATES ARMY; DANIEL P. DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
No. Dupont. It’s in the alt-text.

(Also: The Guard isn’t in Maryland.)
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Also: I know we’re all over — including me: www.lawdork.com/p/the-trials... — the troop deployment litigation in Portland and Chicago, but, don’t forget what is going on in D.C.

It’s now been more than two months since Trump authorized this.
Evening DC commute with the troops. Four National Guard troops, two leaning against the wall by the Dupont metro. None have anything to do, but they’re still here.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Just to let folks know, I am seeing The Inheritance (Round House) and The American Five (Ford’s) this weekend, so will be in theaters for around 8.5 hours over the next three days. 🙃 I don’t know! But, if you don’t see me posting on some breaking news matter right away, that’s likely why!
Reposted by Chris Geidner
darthbluesky.bsky.social
the republican majority leader with a clear vision for the democratic party
atrupar.com
Thune: "If the Democrats had won the majority, they probably would've tried to nuke the filibuster. And then you'd have four new senators from Puerto Rico and DC, you'd have a packed Supreme Court, you'd have abortion on demand ... "
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The Supreme Court grants one new case, a circuit split over the effect and limits of a criminal appeal waiver.
CORDER LIST: 607 U.S.)
24-1063
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2025
CERTIORARI GRANTED
HUNTER, MUNSON P. V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This Court has recognized that "no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims." Garza v.
Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 238 (2019). But the Court has
"ma[de] no statement... on what particular exceptions [to appeal waivers] may be required." Id. at 238-39 & n.6.
In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent, holding that there are only two grounds on which defendants who sign general appeal waivers may challenge their sentence on appeal: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) claims that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopt a similarly narrow view of the exceptions to general appeal waivers. In stark conflict, the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits permit defendants who sign general appeal waivers to raise a broad range of constitutional challenges to their sentences beyond the limited exceptions recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the other courts on its side of the circuit split.
The Fifth Circuit below also reaffirmed its precedent holding that an appeal waiver applies even when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object to that advice.
Although other circuits agree with the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit squarely holds otherwise, releasing defendants from appeal waivers in identical circumstances.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory max-imum.
2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
“We want to put them in trauma.”
Russ Vought v @russvought
WHITE HOLSE
The RIFs have begun.
12:27 PM • 10/10/25 • 2M Views
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
That’s the legal standard.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Federal judge finds the Trump admin likely violated the First (viewpoint discrimination) and Fifth (vagueness) Amendments in a case over changed domestic violence grant conditions.

Preliminary injunction issued.

(A TRO previously was issued.)

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Case 1:25-cv-00342-MRD-PAS
Document 72
1683
Filed 10/10/25 Page 1 of 39 PagelD #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND COALITION
AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 25-cv-342-MRD-PAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Melissa R. DuBose, United States District Judge. Over twenty non-profit coalitions that receive federal grant money to help
support survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault as well as members of
society who are unhoused or without stable housing filed suit against the United
States Departments of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") as well as various administrators and subagencies who fall
under and within these agencies (hereinafter the "Coalitions" or the "Plaintiffs").
Compl. at 1-4. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are springing new conditions
on them as grantees and are requiring compliance with new spending restrictions on grant funds (the "Grants"), all in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (the
"APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706, the U.S. Constitution's clearly articulated separation of
Case 1:25-cv-00342-MRD-PAS Document 72
1684
Filed 10/10/25 Page 2 of 39 PagelD #:
powers principles such as the Article I Spending Clause, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment. Id. 11 4, 66-89. The new
conditions and certifications foisted upon the grantees are focused on compelling
compliance with sweeping changes imposed by the executive branch by way of Executive Orders ("E.O.s") aimed at eliminating programs that are perceived as promoting gender ideology; diversity, equity, and inclusion; elective abortions; and
antidiscrimination. Id. 11 21-31, MPI at 73-74. IV. CONCLUSION
As stated, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have met their burden as
to the preliminary injunction factors and finds them entitled to relief. Pursuant to Section 705 of the APA, the Court finds that it is necessary and appropriate to grant
the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary stay of the Challenged Conditions.
See 5
U.S.C. § 705 (permitting a reviewing court to "issue all necessary and appropriate
process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or
rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings on such conditions as may be
required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury").
38
Case 1:25-cv-00342-MRD-PAS Document 72 Filed 10/10/25 Page 39 of 39 PagelD #:
1721
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Melissa R. DuBose
United States District Judge
October 10, 2025
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Two judges denied DOJ's shutdown case stay requests this morning, in NY v. DOJ (over new funding conditions), and Doe v. Noem (over parole termination).

Opinion in the latter case: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
TEXT ORDER: DENIED. The Court is required to continue its constitutional

functions, and therefore the Motion is Stay 69 is DENIED. Department of Justice

contingency plan states: "If a court denies such a request [to stay or continue] and

orders a case to continue, the Government will comply with the court's order, which

would constitute express legal authorization for the activity to continue.". So

Ordered by District Judge Mary S. McElroy on 10/10/2025. (Potter, Carrie) Weighing the competing interests in this case, the court finds that the harm to Plaintiffs in
staying the proceedings would outweigh the harm of denying the stay, particularly given, per Department of Justice policy, that attorneys may continue to work on this matter following the
denial of this Motion.
I.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Stay of Proceedings [Doc. No. 183] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 9, 2025
/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge
Reposted by Chris Geidner
jimdaleywrites.bsky.social
I'm at the scene where ICE abducted multiple people from Lincoln and Foster this morning.

A WGN producer was among the people taken, allegedly because she was among a group of bystanders who tried to intervene. ICE agents hit this car while making their getaway.
Reposted by Chris Geidner
reuters.com
'When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognize courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist,' the Norwegian Nobel Committee said as it announced Maria Corina Machado as the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
I get why you posted that but it often isn’t about “innocence.” There are many other reasons why the state having the power to kill is bad.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Tonight’s no-media-admitted execution in Indiana was the 35th execution in America this year.

It has been since 2014 that so many executions were carried out in one year — and that was the total for the year.
Reposted by Chris Geidner
sababausa.bsky.social
The history books having to explain cartoon frog = fascist, inflatable frog = anti-fascist…
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here it is. It was almost more enraging because they were having this whole discussion about the two TROs and then Nelson asked about the 14-day distinction, but to ask if they need to rule by then! More worried about mootness than jurisdiction!
JUDGE NELSON:
So can I ask about the 14 day nature that's also different than California. California didn't have the district court did not put the 14 days in there. Does that mean we need to rule before the expiration of that? I mean, do we know whether the district court is going to extend that? Can the district court extend it if we don't rule within 14 days? Does this all become moot? What's your view on all that?
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Enh. I mean, they are effectively arguing that these TROs act like PIs, despite being time-limited. They're not going to get sanctioned for conduct that virtually every court is going along with.

First things first, actually fight the jurisdiction.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
I feel like it vaguely came up once — but in an almost more enraging way. Maybe Nelson(?) asked about whether the time limitation was a meaningful distinction from Newsom.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
UPDATE: DOJ filed a notice that it is appealing the 14-day TRO, an order that is not generally appealable. This will go to the Seventh Circuit. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STATE OF ILLINOIS and the CITY OF CHICAGO,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:25-cv-12174
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., in their official capacities,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Defendants in the above-captioned case hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from this Court's October 9, 2025, Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. ECF No.
67.