Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 16h

My favorite “nobody”:

Anna Bower @annabower.bsky.social · 23h

“Anna is a nobody” — Roger Stone

Roger Stone @RogerJStoneJr
X.com
Kyle Cheney is a congenital liar and a propagandist and Anna is a nobody. Multiple attorneys who have examined this case describe it as air tight. By the way, Cheney is also a leaping bounding, screaming asshole.
2:16 AM • 10/10/25 • 188 Views

3 20

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 1d

Come for "how do we teach con law in an era of madness?" and stay for "what exactly IS stare decisis, and how badly has the Roberts Court butchered it??"

with @espinsegall.bsky.social and of course @lizdye.bsky.social

Liz Dye @lizdye.bsky.social · 1d

How can you teach law school when SCOTUS is setting fire to a new precedent every day? Here's hoping @espinsegall.bsky.social can explain it to us!

with @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...

Ep 172 — Law School In The Age Of Trump (Ft. Prof. Eric Segall)

Podcast Episode · Law and Chaos · 10/10/2025 · 1h 6m

podcasts.apple.com

2 10 42

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

Liz Dye @lizdye.bsky.social · 1d

Oh, lord that Ninth Circuit hearing was bad. Let's console ourselves with this nice TRO out of Chicago blocking ICE from gassing peaceful protesters and journalists

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Temporary Restraining Order
Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [21] against
Defendants. Having held hearings on October 6, 8, and 9, 2025, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
have met their burden to support the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. Accordingly,
the Court grants the motion and orders as follows:
1. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants,1 their officers, agents, assigns, and all
persons acting in concert with them (hereafter referred to as “Federal Agents”), are temporarily
ENJOINED in this judicial district from:
a. Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical
force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless
Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.
Defendants may order a Journalist to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement,

5 12 83

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

Liz Dye @lizdye.bsky.social · 2d

Let's play Where Is DOJ Getting No-Billed TODAY?

with @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

www.lawandchaospod.com/p/where-is-d...

Where Is DOJ Getting No-Billed Today?

Hint: We will celebrate with a shot of Malört.

www.lawandchaospod.com

1 14 66

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

8/ We'll know more tomorrow.

2 20

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

7/ So if you're reading the tea leaves, I think it's plausible to think that even this very conservative panel of the 9th Circuit might uphold Judge Immergut's findings.

That's because this admin stay suggests the court does NOT think it is irreparable harm for Trump to be unable to deploy the NG.

1 2 22

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

6/ Judge Immergut tore that argument a new one on Oct 4, ruling that *no* facts plausibly supported a determination that the President was unable to execute the laws in Portland & Trump's decision to federalize the NG was "not conceived in good faith."

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Finally, the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guardsmen further support that his determination was not “conceived in good faith” or “in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance.” Newsom II, 141 F.4th at 1051 (emphasis in original) (quoting Sterling, 287 U.S. at 399–400). Despite the “minimal activity” outside the Portland ICE facility in the days preceding September 27, 2025, Hughes Decl., Ex. 22, ECF 46-22 to Ex. 26, ECF 46-26, President Trump directed Secretary Hegseth “to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” Marshall Decl., Ex. 12, ECF 9-12. Two days before that directive, the President claimed that Portland has “professional agitators” who are “paid a lot of money by rich people,” “anarchists,” and “crazy people” who try to “burn down buildings, including federal buildings.” See Marshall Decl., ECF 9 ¶ 26. Whatever the factual basis the President may have for these allegations, nothing in the record suggests that anything of this sort was occurring “every night” outside the Portland ICE building or in the City of Portland in the days or weeks leading up to his September 27 directive. Id.

1 13

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

5/ If that's the case, it's hard to imagine a case with fewer supporting facts than this one. 12406(3) says that the President must be "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."

Whenever—
(1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

1 20

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

4/ It looks like the panel wants to consider the merits of the federalization argument.

A previous panel of the 9th Circuit held that the President's determination that the preconditions of 10 USC 12406 were met was due "great deference," but the facts supporting that decision were reviewable.

1 17

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

3/ Trump did NOT appeal that TRO, so the 9th Circuit couldn't stay it.

An administrative stay is (typically) very short in duration; the 9th Circuit has scheduled oral argument for 9 am Pacific Time TOMORROW, after which the court will decide whether to stay Judge Immergut's injunction or not.

1 21

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

2/ This does NOT permit Trump to deploy national guard units from Oregon or any other state on the streets of Portland.

That's because Judge Immergut issued a SECOND TRO on Sunday night enjoining the admin from sending Nat'l Guard units from any state to Oregon.

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...

Ep 171 — Can Trump Put Troops In Every City Simply By Shouting EMERGENCY?

Podcast Episode · Law and Chaos · 10/07/2025 · 1h 2m

podcasts.apple.com

1 1 19

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 2d

BREAKING - 9TH CIR ADMINISTRATIVELY STAYS ORDER TO PROTECT TROOPS "FEDERALIZED BUT **NOT** DEPLOYED** TO PORTLAND

1/ A 9th Circuit panel with 2 Trump appointees (Bade, Nelson) just entered an administrative stay of Judge Immergut's FIRST TRO issued 10/4.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

In the circumstances here, granting an administrative stay will best preserve the status quo. Prior to the October 4 temporary restraining order, Oregon National Guard members had been federalized but not deployed. The Memorandum authorized federalization of the Oregon National Guard members. An administrative stay of the October 4 temporary restraining order will maintain the federalization of Oregon National Guard members, because that order prohibits implementation of the Memorandum. Additionally, the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the deployment of National Guard members in Oregon. Thus, the effect of granting an administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed. Administrative Stay GRANTED.

3 12 45

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

Dr Amber, esq. @ambertutorslaw.bsky.social · 3d

I’m just a legal tutor

Standing in front of @lizdye.bsky.social and @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

Asking them to make a “Justin Baldoni teaches us civil procedure” supercut of Law and Chaos pods….

(Law students, it’s learning through snark!!)

1 2 10

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 4d

All the latest on Trump’s efforts to invade Portland & Chicago, the gov’t shutdown & our own lawsuit against the administration for lying to the courts about Judge James Boasberg!

With @lizdye.bsky.social

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...

Law and Chaos

Government Podcast · Updated Weekly · Ignorance of the law is no excuse! That’s true for a traffic stop, and it’s true if you want to participate in whatever’s left of American democracy. If the event...

podcasts.apple.com

1 4 19

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

Anna Bower @annabower.bsky.social · 4d

Ro recap: In July, DOJ filed a misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg. It was based on alleged comments he made at a judicial conference.

"Attachment A" was the only source cited as evidence of the comments.

But, per @lizdye.bsky.social, DOJ never even bothered to file the attachment...

Chief Judge Boasberg's Violations of Judicial Canons The Judicial Conference is the policymaking body of the federal judiciary. It operates strictly as an administrative body, focusing on policy matters related to court operations rather than substantive legal issues or specific cases. Its proceedings are designed to maintain the judiciary's institutional integrity by addressing only systemic administrative concerns that affect the federal court system as a whole, carefully avoiding any discussions that could compromise judicial neutrality or create the appearance of bias toward particular litigants. Common topics of discussion at these meetings include court security, budget, administration, facilities, and issues regarding
probation and pretrial services. On March 11, 2025, at one of the Conference's semiannual meetings, Judge Boasberg disregarded its history, tradition, and purpose to push a wholly unsolicited discussion about "concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts, leading to a constitutional crisis."? By singling out a sitting President who was (and remains) a party to dozens of active cases, Judge Boasberg attempted to transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration
would violate court orders.
Judge Boasberg's actions not only breached his duties, but they also defied reality and the law. First, the Trump Administration has complied with every court order-including the unlawful orders that appellate courts have subsequently stayed or reversed. Second, federal courts must begin from a "presumption of regularity"-the settled doctrine that executive officials "have properly discharged their official duties" absent clear evidence otherwise. By predicting non- compliance, Judge Boasberg turned that presumption on its head, contradicting both the evidence of past compliance and the governing law. These comments to …

20 150 510

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

Liz Dye @lizdye.bsky.social · 5d

Remember that judicial complaint against Judge Boasberg with the mystery Attachment A?

Turns out it was never there!

with @andrewtorrez.bsky.social

www.lawandchaospod.com/p/this-judic...

This Judicial Complaint Could Have Been An Email

But it would still be missing the attachment.

www.lawandchaospod.com

11 130 540

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

National Security Counselors 🕵 @nationalsecuritylaw.org · 5d

OK, a little context is important here.

The Civil Division Federal Programs Branch is--or was--like the DOJ A-Team for civil litigation. The best of the best. They were the ones who stepped in and handled cases that had nationwide importance or threatened severe consequences for the federal govt.

Anil Kalhan @akalhan.bsky.social · 5d

1 15 45

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 7d

Great Q, too complicated for bsky, will answer on Tuesdays show. Key point here is that FSS remains jointly & severally liable for the SH families debt, so the creditors can attach the assets no matter who owns the liabilities

2

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 7d

I think it’s just the equity; i.e., the 100% membership interest in FSS, LLC, which is subject to a billion-plus dollars in liability and therefore not salable

1 4

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

Liz Dye @lizdye.bsky.social · 8d

Yeah, there have been a few GFYS orders. Judge Young and Judge Cobb, off the top of my head.

@andrewtorrez.bsky.social pulled the memo — judges can order them to move forward, even in a shutdown

www.justice.gov/jmd/media/13...

U.S. Department of Justice FY 2026 Contingency Plan | United States Department of Justice

www.justice.gov

2 3 16

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 7d

What’s weird is that Baldoni’s seems to be winning the PR war, albeit filtered through tabloids and garbage right-wing media sources friendly to Bryan Freedman like Megyn Kelly. It’s truly bizarre.

1 2

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 9d

indeed it does not

1

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 9d

FNORD

2

Reposted by P. Andrew Torrez

National Security Counselors 🕵 @nationalsecuritylaw.org · 9d

Hey @lizdye.bsky.social @andrewtorrez.bsky.social I found Ellyn Garofalo's missing word

Brad Johnson @climatebrad.hillheat.com · 9d

The @washingtonpost.com's Emma Uber & @teoarmus.bsky.social caught @mayorbowser.dc.gov in a bald-faced lie. On Tuesday, she said "ICE is not patrolling with MPD." Confronted that day with video of ICE patrolling with MPD and abducting people handed to them by MPD, she was forced to change her tune.

During an unrelated news conference Tuesday, when asked to clarify what was happening on the ground between D.C. police and ICE, Bowser said, “I am aware of what’s been happening on the ground and ICE is not patrolling with MPD.”
In follow-up comments later in the day to The Post, Bowser reiterated that D.C. police were not on patrol with federal immigration authorities. “Ask federal immigration, don’t ask us ... they’re not patrolling with us,” she said. “MPD is not giving the federal government anybody.”
The Post shared the videos, police report and DHS statements with the mayor’s office on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the mayor acknowledged that D.C. police have been patrolling with immigration authorities, saying “We never wanted MPD to patrol with Homeland Security agencies, but they are part of the task force, and that should change.” (The Department of Homeland Security includes ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and Homeland Security Investigations.)

1 1 19

P. Andrew Torrez @andrewtorrez.bsky.social · 10d

5/ One plug: Kel is doing this pro bono. If you can support the work he's doing, please throw a couple of bucks towards someone who's been *relentless* doing the hard work in the trenches to hold this administration accountable in all the ways, big and small.

www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/donate

"BECOME A SHADOWY PATRON OF OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY" donation link

1 5 28