Ellie Margolis
LightNews LightNews
banner
elliemargolis.bsky.social
Ellie Margolis
@elliemargolis.bsky.social
12K followers 1.2K following 8.6K posts
Law professor @TempleLaw, suburban gardener, avid reader. Happy to nerd out about legal writing anytime.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
msrosenberg.bsky.social
There are so many violations of our ethical rules here by government lawyers, but I want to highlight Rule 5.1, which MN has adopted. Supervisory lawyers have a duty to supervise, meaning they need to make sure juniors are performing competently, diligently, & in compliance w all other rules
/ ABA Groves / Center for Professional Responsibility / Publications / Model Rules of Professional Conduct April 17,2009 Rule 5.1: Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers Law Firms And Associations (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. | (b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. ( (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved: or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
February 4, 2026 at 2:22 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
msrosenberg.bsky.social
in short: YES you have to resign if you cannot practice competently despite your best efforts

BUT this is on the attorney-managers, who should also resign or face disciplinary action on their licenses

AND the rules do have quite a lot to say about safeguarding the rights of third persons
February 4, 2026 at 3:02 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
daniellecitron.bsky.social
This story demonstrates collapse of safeguards—our brilliant tech press being fired by tech oligarch and fired brilliant journalist exposing deliberate and knowing harms of tech oligarch run platform.
nitasha.bsky.social nitasha tiku @nitasha.bsky.social · 4h
My story on Elon Musk cutting safeguards at xAI is on the front page of today's @washingtonpost.com. I’m also among 100’s of reporters laid off. I absolutely loved my job my brilliant coworkers & the thrill of reporting @ the center of forces upending the world: AI & Silicon Valley’s political power
cover of The Washington Post on Wednesday Feb 4, 2026. Headline on bottom, right: Musk wanted to hook users; his chatbot got more sexual
February 4, 2026 at 8:10 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
shadesofgraylaw.bsky.social
This level of depravity simply breaks the brain
mekka.mekka-tech.com Mekka Okereke @mekka.mekka-tech.com · 18h
Kindergarten teacher called a prank ICE hotline thinking it was real. She called to report her 6 year old student to ICE to try to get them and their family deported.

6 years old.

She does not enjoy hearing her own words and actions played back to her.
Kindergarten teacher wants kindergartener deported
YouTube video by Ben Palmer
m.youtube.com
February 4, 2026 at 6:53 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
patrickbryant.bsky.social
Come work with me!

The Eastern District of Virginia Federal Public Defender's Office is hiring an appellate attorney! We're excited to find someone excellent to join our team doing the best law job around. Apply now!
www.fd.org/sites/defaul...
Hiring announcement for appellate attorney in the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, available at https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/public/Employment/Vacancy-Files/2026-02-02-ax-appellate-attorney-jwl-final.pdf
February 4, 2026 at 8:40 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
ladylawyerdiary.bsky.social
Here’s a link to the transcript fyi drive.google.com/file/d/1FnY2...
February 4, 2026 at 10:53 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
audrelawdamercy.bsky.social
I can now report that Judge Blackwell did not grant Julie Le’s request for a nap, and also noted that, as overwhelmed as she may be, the people who the Trump administration is detaining in violation of court orders have it worse

ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics...
February 4, 2026 at 11:04 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
gowder.io
Holy shit. Hard to think of anything lower than embezzling from the public defender

queenseagle.com/all/2026/2/3...
Former Queens Defenders boss admits to stealing over $100,000 from nonprofit — Queens Daily Eagle
The co-founder and former executive director of Queens Defenders on Tuesday admitted in federal court to stealing over $100,000 from the taxpayer-funded nonprofit that provides legal defense services ...
queenseagle.com
February 4, 2026 at 9:57 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
bradvivian.bsky.social
No university faculty should be hired for their political views. Doing so is true preferential treatment. Partisan political views have nothing to do with quality teaching or research; they should never be considered as part of responsible, merit-based hiring practices. That’s the news here.
IQ THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Sign In The Conservative Hiring Boom Right-leaning academics are in demand. Does that amount to intellectual diversity? chronicle.com THE CHRONICLE
February 4, 2026 at 2:29 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
amtappeals.bsky.social
It wasn’t so long ago that the richest people in the world used their wealth to create great things - foundations, universities, etc.

Not saying they were great people or didn’t earn their money in horrible ways. But they at least gave back a bit?

What happened?
February 4, 2026 at 3:54 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social
An exchange from CA5 oral arguments today:

Lawyer: Okay. I feel awkward walking away with some time, but I'm not going to waste your time.

Court: We feel grateful when you walk away.

Lawyer: I should have done it a little earlier.

Court: It's a sign of assurance. Thank you.
February 4, 2026 at 3:46 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
joegordon.bsky.social
Following on, she’s only not leaving because she can free some folks while there. Tough ethical quandary: leave, honorably, or stay, and get some amount of good through.

Unrelated: some good people are enablers because they don’t let things fall to chaos.
“It took a long, long, long time, and many orders to show cause to explain and let them know that if you don’t fix it, I’m going to quit and you’re going to be dragging yourself into court.” Le said that she submitted her resignation, but ultimately chose to stay at the U.S. Attorney’s Office because no one could be found to replace her. Le also said that after pushing through an order to release a juvenile from detention, she realized that she could affect positive change from the inside. “Wait Julie, stop,” Le said. “You need to go back and get more people out. That’s why I’m still here. I’m here because I’m trying to make sure that the agency understands how important it is to comply with all the court orders.” Blackwell did not hold Le or Voss in contempt.
February 4, 2026 at 1:20 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
alexbaumhardt.bsky.social
"In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated. In an authoritarian regime, that is not the case. Our nation is now at a crossroads"
oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2026/02/03/f...
Federal judge restricts agents' use of tear gas, munitions against crowds at Portland ICE facility • Oregon Capital Chronicle
The order is part of an ongoing lawsuit against the federal government brought by protesters and freelance journalists.
oregoncapitalchronicle.com
February 3, 2026 at 11:55 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
klonick.bsky.social
www.nytimes.com/interactive/... Unpopular opinion: Meme law is bad and if you have the New York Times movie and poetry critic writing your legal analysis it’s still the bad place even if the outcome is righteous.
Annotating the Judge’s Decision in the Case of Liam Conejo Ramos, a 5-Year-Old Detained by ICE
Our critic annotates the barbed wordplay of a decision challenging the Trump administration’s theory of executive power.
www.nytimes.com
February 4, 2026 at 12:01 AM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
swsworlds.bsky.social
THINK NOT OF THE BOOKS YOU'VE BOUGHT AS "TO BE READ" PILE. INSTEAD, THINK OF YOUR BOOKCASE AS A WINE CELLAR. YOU COLLECT BOOKS TO BE READ AT THE RIGHT TIME, THE RIGHT PLACE, AND THE RIGHT MOOD. @BECAUSEALLTHEBOOKS ©2023, 2026 LUC VAN DONKERSGOED @BECAUSEALLTHEBOOKS
February 4, 2026 at 12:03 AM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
radleybalko.bsky.social
Floored by this story. A man wrote a pollite email to a federal prosecutor objecting to the deportation of an Afghan seeking asylum. DHS responded with an administrative warrant to get the man's info from Google, then visited his home to intimidate him.
DHS Hunts Down 67-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Who Criticized Them in Email
The Department of Homeland Security is using a little-known tool to go after its critics.
newrepublic.com
February 3, 2026 at 11:14 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
rimaanabtawi.bsky.social
Not giving a newborn a Vit K shot puts them at risk of Vit K Deficiency Bleeding a dangerous, often fatal condition where the body can’t form blood clots. Without infants are over 80 Xs more likely to experience severe bleeding in the brain or intestines, leading to permanent brain damage or death
nathanhersh.bsky.social Nathan Hersh @nathanhersh.bsky.social · 1d
This is the worst first decision a parent can make. Seriously.

More Parents Are Rejecting a Lifesaving Vitamin Shot for Newborns www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/w...
More Parents Are Rejecting a Lifesaving Vitamin Shot for Newborns
www.nytimes.com
February 3, 2026 at 11:32 PM
elliemargolis.bsky.social
I’m not sure non-lawyers realize how unheard of this is.
danielsuitor.com Daniel Suitor @danielsuitor.com · 1d
This is unreal. An AUSA talking like that in open court is about as close as you can come to a total breakdown. Never heard of anything like it.
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep. @FOX9
February 3, 2026 at 9:43 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
danielsuitor.com
This is unreal. An AUSA talking like that in open court is about as close as you can come to a total breakdown. Never heard of anything like it.
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep. @FOX9
February 3, 2026 at 8:46 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
jbf1755.bsky.social
Apparently, Google Books deliberately removed search for previewed books??

For ANYONE doing research, this is a BIG deal.

Not to be able to search for specific things that you need? For books that will help? For references used by other authors?

My last book would have been impossible without it.
rickperlstein.bsky.social Rick Perlstein @rickperlstein.bsky.social · 1d
I don't mean to seem alarmed, but it appears Google's book search function is, just...gone.

In a sane country it would be a huge deal, front page news, that a privately owned utility that millions researches, from journalists to scholars, rely on every day to advance knowledge can just disappear.
February 3, 2026 at 7:43 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
statecourtreport.org
NEW: Florida's high court will hear arguments tomorrow in Hubbard v. State of Florida, a case challenging the legality of one of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s prosecutions of people with felony convictions who thought they were eligible to vote. @berrypatrick.bsky.social on what you need to know:
Florida High Court to Hear Arguments in Politicized “Voter Fraud” Case
The case challenges Gov. Ron DeSantis’s prosecutions of people with felony convictions who thought they were eligible to vote.
statecourtreport.org
February 3, 2026 at 5:39 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
gabrielmalor.bsky.social
3d Cir. holds that habeas corpus petitions challenging immigration detention are "civil actions," so prevailing noncitizens may be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Gonna be a loooooooooot of these.

www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242...
Today the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides that the prevailing private party “in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort)” brought by or against the United States is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs if the Government’s position was not “substantially justified” or “special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Adolph “Lee” Michelin and Adewumi Abioye prevailed in habeas actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their immigration detentions. The District Courts found the Government’s positions were not “substantially justified” and awarded the detainees fees and costs. The main question these consolidated cases present is whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from immigration detention under § 2241 is an EAJA “civil action.” We answer yes and thus affirm.
February 2, 2026 at 6:20 PM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
darapurvis.bsky.social
There was a time leading up to Obergefell where judges knew they were about to say their piece in the apex of a historical moment and wrote accordingly. This reminds me of that time, with the existential threat turned up to 11.
stevevladeck.bsky.social Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d
Even if you don't have time to read all 83 pages of Judge Reyes's opinion barring the Trump administration from rescinding Temporary Protected Status for 350,000+ Haitians, please at least check out the four-page introduction.

It's a tour de force:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
"On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1 More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (TPS statute). It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually. See Part VI. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. [screenshot of tweet]. So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program. And one of those (her word) “damn” countries is Haiti. Relevant here, three days before making the above post, Secretary Noem announced she would terminate Haiti’s TPS designation as of February 3, 2026. See 90 Fed. Reg. 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025) (Termination). Plaintiffs are five Haitian TPS holders. They are not, it emerges, “killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.” They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease, Dkt. 90 (Second Am. Compl. (SAC)) ¶ 1; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank, id. ¶ 2; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department, id. ¶ 3; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major, id. ¶ 4; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse, id. ¶ 5. They claim that Secretary Noem’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Government counters that the Court does not have jurisdiction, and, in any case, the Secretary did not violate the law. Plaintiffs seek to stay the Secretary’s decision under 5 U.S.C. § 705 pending the outcome of this litigation. See Dkt. 81 (§ 705 Mot.). To decide their motion, the Court considers first whether it has jurisdiction. It does. See Part II. It then considers: whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; whether they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; and whether a merged balance of the equities and public interest analysis favors a stay. See Part III. Each element favors Plaintiffs. See Parts IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down. See Section IV.A.2. Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record (CAR). See Section IV.A.3.a. She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A); see Section IV.A.1. Indeed, she did not consult other agencies at all. See id. Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so. See Section IV.A.3.b. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy. See id. The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability. See Section I.A. As to irreparable harm, the Government contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS holders are speculative. But the Department of State (State) warns [screenshot] Dkt. 100 (§ 705 Reply) at 20–21.4 “Do not travel to Haiti for any reason” does not exactly scream, as Secretary Noem concluded, suitable for return. And so, the Government studiously does not argue that Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if removed to Haiti. Instead, it argues Plaintiffs will not certainly suffer irreparable harm because DHS might not remove them. But this fails to take Secretary Noem at her word: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” See Section IV.B.2.b. Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay. The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste. Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our healthcare system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. 81.
February 3, 2026 at 1:12 AM
Reposted by Ellie Margolis
stevevladeck.bsky.social
Even if you don't have time to read all 83 pages of Judge Reyes's opinion barring the Trump administration from rescinding Temporary Protected Status for 350,000+ Haitians, please at least check out the four-page introduction.

It's a tour de force:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
"On December 2, 1783, then-Commander-in-Chief George Washington penned: “America is open to receive not only the Opulent & respected Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions.”1 More than two centuries later, Congress reaffirmed President Washington’s vision by establishing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (TPS statute). It provides humanitarian relief to foreign nationals in the United States who come from disaster-stricken countries. It also brings in substantial revenue, with TPS holders generating $5.2 billion in taxes annually. See Part VI. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has a different take. [screenshot of tweet]. So says the official responsible for overseeing the TPS program. And one of those (her word) “damn” countries is Haiti. Relevant here, three days before making the above post, Secretary Noem announced she would terminate Haiti’s TPS designation as of February 3, 2026. See 90 Fed. Reg. 54733 (Nov. 28, 2025) (Termination). Plaintiffs are five Haitian TPS holders. They are not, it emerges, “killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.” They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease, Dkt. 90 (Second Am. Compl. (SAC)) ¶ 1; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank, id. ¶ 2; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department, id. ¶ 3; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major, id. ¶ 4; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse, id. ¶ 5. They claim that Secretary Noem’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Government counters that the Court does not have jurisdiction, and, in any case, the Secretary did not violate the law. Plaintiffs seek to stay the Secretary’s decision under 5 U.S.C. § 705 pending the outcome of this litigation. See Dkt. 81 (§ 705 Mot.). To decide their motion, the Court considers first whether it has jurisdiction. It does. See Part II. It then considers: whether Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; whether they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; and whether a merged balance of the equities and public interest analysis favors a stay. See Part III. Each element favors Plaintiffs. See Parts IV, V, and VI. Plaintiffs charge that Secretary Noem preordained her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely. Secretary Noem has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk—twelve countries up, twelve countries down. See Section IV.A.2. Her conclusion that Haiti (a majority nonwhite country) faces merely “concerning” conditions cannot be squared with the “perfect storm of suffering” and “staggering” “humanitarian toll” described in page-after-page of the Certified Administrative Record (CAR). See Section IV.A.3.a. She ignored Congress’s requirement that she “review the conditions” in Haiti only “after” consulting “with appropriate agencies.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A); see Section IV.A.1. Indeed, she did not consult other agencies at all. See id. Her “national interest” analysis focuses on Haitians outside the United States or here illegally, ignoring that Haitian TPS holders already live here, and legally so. See Section IV.A.3.b. And though she states that the analysis must include “economic considerations,” she ignores altogether the billions Haitian TPS holders contribute to the economy. See id. The Government’s primary response is that the TPS statute gives the Secretary unbounded discretion to make whatever determination she wants, any way she wants. And, yes, the statute does grant her some discretion. But not unbounded discretion. To the contrary, Congress passed the TPS statute to standardize the then ad hoc temporary protection system—to replace executive whim with statutory predictability. See Section I.A. As to irreparable harm, the Government contends that, at most, the harms to Haitian TPS holders are speculative. But the Department of State (State) warns [screenshot] Dkt. 100 (§ 705 Reply) at 20–21.4 “Do not travel to Haiti for any reason” does not exactly scream, as Secretary Noem concluded, suitable for return. And so, the Government studiously does not argue that Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if removed to Haiti. Instead, it argues Plaintiffs will not certainly suffer irreparable harm because DHS might not remove them. But this fails to take Secretary Noem at her word: “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” See Section IV.B.2.b. Finally, the balance of equities and public interest favor a stay. The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste. Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight. She complains of strains to our economy. Her answer? Turn employed lawful immigrants who contribute billions in taxes into the legally unemployable. She complains of strains to our healthcare system. Her answer? Turn the insured into the uninsured. This approach is many things—in the public interest is not one of them. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Stay Under 5 U.S.C. § 705, Dkt. 81.
February 3, 2026 at 1:06 AM