LightNews LightNews
banner
bsfox.bsky.social
@bsfox.bsky.social
1.3K followers 2.1K following 130 posts
Nature-lover. Always & forever blue.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
mjsdc.bsky.social
Gorsuch, concurring, once again says SCOTUS should abandon the Katz "reasonableness" test and return to the common law understanding of the Fourth Amendment. I feel like it's way too late in the day for that, but OK. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
It should come as no surprise that our decision today might accord with the accumulated learning of the common law—just as it should come as no surprise that our application of the Fourth Amendment ought to be informed by the common law’s lessons rather than mere intuition. For a period, to be sure, the miasma created by this Court’s Katz era led some to think the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment depend on nothing more than current judicial instincts about “reasonable expectations of privacy.” See Carpenter, 585 U. S., at 394–395, 405–406 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). But that confusion cannot last forever, for no one should think the rights of Americans hang on so thin a thread. Instead, and as Justice Story recognized, the Fourth Amendment is made of sturdier stuff, representing “the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law.” 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 748 (1833).
January 14, 2026 at 3:10 PM
Reposted
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
As I mentioned earlier this week, the last time a deportation officer died from a violent offense in the line of duty was 1949.

About 15 years ago an officer had a heart attack during a foot chase.
January 14, 2026 at 2:14 PM
Reposted
emptywheel.bsky.social
As I noted earlier, Ryan Ribner told the AUSAs that he believed protestors were "vicious, horrible people."

www.emptywheel.net/2026/01/12/d...
DHS Assaulting Protesters Because Goons Believe They Are "Vicious, Horrible People" - emptywheel
On the collapsing criminal case against SEIU CA President David Huerta.
www.emptywheel.net
January 14, 2026 at 1:53 PM
Reposted
emptywheel.bsky.social
Worse still, why are you using a popular definition of doxxing when the statute defines it differently?

The difference is critically important bc DOJ is *dismissing* the charged doxxing, bc the defendants didn't reveal HIS address. They revealed his neighborhood

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
(a)In General.—Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available— (1)with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person; or (2)with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
January 14, 2026 at 10:17 AM