Somewhat strange to start a legal podcast hosted by one law professor and two employees (the development director and the director of marketing) at a conservative think tank.

Yes, it does. (Link is from Markey's site, but the press release mentions both Pressley and Markey.)

She'll probably resign if impeached and the Senate will drop it or vote against conviction on jurisdictional grounds. But it would be a helpful deterrent to disqualify her from ever holding another federal office.

As I read them, these different definitions have different implications, e.g., as to whether this liability would attach to individuals temporarily performing law enforcement functions that are outside their primary duties. (E.g., members of the military after use of the Insurrection Act.)

On its face, this statute looks like the exact type of state cause of action Judge Walker suggests would fall into the FTCA exception in his Buchanan concurrence (linked), citing @stevevladeck.bsky.social.

Although Maine attorneys will know better whether courts have interpreted it some other way.

There's also a statute that allows civil actions against any person for violations of rights secured by the federal constitution, "whether or not acting under color of law."

Could be a test case for the view that the FTCA exception for constitutional violations isn't limited to Bivens actions.

Two points:
1. Without the UET, IJs are already removable at will by the AG, who is removable at will by the President.
2. Courts may say that under UET only principal officers must be removable at will by the president. That could save article I judges on the Court of Claims or CAAF, ALJs, etc.

But concurring because he thinks the panel's other holding (that the alleged facts did not amount to deliberate indifference) was sufficient to affirm the district court.

Trump's only appointee to the 1st Circuit, Judge Dunlap, has issued an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel was wrong to hold that the anti-Zionist chants were not antisemitic (and that racist speech may help support a Title VI claim, without offending 1A).

Seems like the NM Supreme Court is implicitly considering that factor too, though. (Also, the linked MA case is on the related issue of who has the right to the ring after the end of an engagement. The facts are... interesting.)

This list of factors seems somewhat incomplete for decisions about whether to revise common law rules, which involve judicial policymaking. MA SJC considers another factor in such cases: "whether the prior court's rationale continues to be 'consonant with the needs of contemporary society.'"

Would be interested to read some more reporting about this part of the declaration.

There are versions of the UET under which only executive branch officers wielding substantial executive power must be removable at will. That would allow tenure protections for, e.g., Article I judges or ALJs.

Wouldn't help the admin here, since these admin warrants are signed by at will officials.

Well yes, and distinguishable in many ways. (Including crucially that this federal Bivens statute merely provides a remedy for conduct that is already unlawful.) But I could see some members of this Court concluding that imposing this type of retroactive liability violates due process.

Apfel recognizes a limitation on retroactive civil liability in some circumstances, either located in the Takings Clause (per the plurality) or the Due Process Clause (per Kennedy).

Breaking News: John Gotti does not intend to hurt rival don; thinks it would be "a real shame" if something happened.

Wouldn't it be hard to prove materiality given that the government was continuing to pay her with full knowledge of all the relevant facts?

Probably just seeing if they can fix the electrical issue and stay on AF1. If anything had happened, there would have been emergency vehicles waiting on the tarmac.