Cristian Farias
@cristianfarias.com
18K followers 600 following 2.8K posts
Legal journalist and beachgoer. I write about courts, the law, and the politics shaping them for @vanityfair.com, @newyorker.com, and @nymag.com. Host of The Bully's Pulpit. Signal: cristianfarias.33
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
cristianfarias.com
For @newyorker.com: I wrote a crash course on how John Roberts empowered the current destruction and lawlessness in Washington.

There’s a perception this began with the immunity ruling, but he has long been pushing the idea of an unrestrained, unchecked presidency. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
How John Roberts Has Empowered a Lawless Presidency
The Chief Justice’s rebuke of Donald Trump over his calls to impeach judges obscures Roberts’s own role in fostering the destruction in Washington.
www.newyorker.com
cristianfarias.com
Also: Democratic governance: Bad. Republican governance: Good.
Reposted by Cristian Farias
angryblacklady.blacksky.app
Skrmetti and Chiles are both cases we want to use to stick it to queer kids. - SCOTUS, basically
cristianfarias.com
Supreme Court on banning gender-affirming care for trans youth: Sure, that's fine, no constitutional violation.

Supreme Court on banning so-called conversion therapy for gay youth: No, can't have that, grave constitutional violation.

Here, Ketanji Brown Jackson gets to the bottom of it:
Excerpt of Supreme Court transcript in Chiles v. Salazar:

JUSTICE JACKSON: No, but here's what
I mean, right? In Skrmetti, we had a state
 that wanted to prohibit certain medical
 treatment, gender-affirming care, being given
 to minors in the form of medication.
And we said that was okay. And I
understand there are particulars with respect
to how the -- the arguments, the constitutional
arguments, worked, but the state can prohibit
that.

Here, we have a state that wants to
prohibit gender-related medical treatment in
the form of talk therapy, but we now have the
First Amendment that is inhibiting the state's
ability to do that.

And I'm just, from a very, very broad
perspective, concerned about making sure that
we have equivalence with respect to these
things.
Reposted by Cristian Farias
cristianfarias.com
Supreme Court on banning gender-affirming care for trans youth: Sure, that's fine, no constitutional violation.

Supreme Court on banning so-called conversion therapy for gay youth: No, can't have that, grave constitutional violation.

Here, Ketanji Brown Jackson gets to the bottom of it:
Excerpt of Supreme Court transcript in Chiles v. Salazar:

JUSTICE JACKSON: No, but here's what
I mean, right? In Skrmetti, we had a state
 that wanted to prohibit certain medical
 treatment, gender-affirming care, being given
 to minors in the form of medication.
And we said that was okay. And I
understand there are particulars with respect
to how the -- the arguments, the constitutional
arguments, worked, but the state can prohibit
that.

Here, we have a state that wants to
prohibit gender-related medical treatment in
the form of talk therapy, but we now have the
First Amendment that is inhibiting the state's
ability to do that.

And I'm just, from a very, very broad
perspective, concerned about making sure that
we have equivalence with respect to these
things.
cristianfarias.com
Will the panel be bound by Newsom II, now being appealed?
cristianfarias.com
Rational basis, says Skrmetti, but apparently not when “speech” therapy is involved. 🫠
cristianfarias.com
When all is said and done, the Supreme Court will be greatly responsible for creating a balkanized United States—where states will be able to regulate medical treatments the justices approve of, and others won't be able to regulate those the justices don't approve of.

See also: Dobbs.
cristianfarias.com
Supreme Court on banning gender-affirming care for trans youth: Sure, that's fine, no constitutional violation.

Supreme Court on banning so-called conversion therapy for gay youth: No, can't have that, grave constitutional violation.

Here, Ketanji Brown Jackson gets to the bottom of it:
Excerpt of Supreme Court transcript in Chiles v. Salazar:

JUSTICE JACKSON: No, but here's what
I mean, right? In Skrmetti, we had a state
 that wanted to prohibit certain medical
 treatment, gender-affirming care, being given
 to minors in the form of medication.
And we said that was okay. And I
understand there are particulars with respect
to how the -- the arguments, the constitutional
arguments, worked, but the state can prohibit
that.

Here, we have a state that wants to
prohibit gender-related medical treatment in
the form of talk therapy, but we now have the
First Amendment that is inhibiting the state's
ability to do that.

And I'm just, from a very, very broad
perspective, concerned about making sure that
we have equivalence with respect to these
things.
cristianfarias.com
I’m old enough to remember when Republicans in Congress sued President Obama, and a federal judge agreed with them, that he could not spend money to fund certain Obamacare programs without a congressional appropriation.

www.scotusblog.com/2016/05/judg...
cristianfarias.com
I, under no circumstances, want to "do" the news.
Reposted by Cristian Farias
sbagen.bsky.social
Feel free to attribute the following to a former OMB General Counsel: The supposed "new legal analysis" is, to use a technical legal term, horseshit. What the law actually says is that when Congress enacts a law ending a lapse, furloughed employees get paid at the earliest date possible. Period.
atrupar.com
Johnson: "It's true that in previous shutdowns, many or most furloughed employees have been paid for the time they were furloughed, but there is new legal analysis - I don't know the details, I just saw a headline - but there are some legal analysts saying that might not be appropriate or necessary"
Reposted by Cristian Farias
pwnallthethings.bsky.social
Tragic news from Canada where the Canadian Supreme Court has gone from the official dress on the left to the one on the right
Canadian Supreme court. Everyone is dressed in bright red wooly gowns, with a beige trim. It looks sort of like a Santa robe The Canadian Supreme court. Everyone is dressed in black gowns with a bright white kravat, and two thin red vertical lines on the side of the robe
cristianfarias.com
A murderers’ row, one might say.
dickius.bsky.social
ChatGPT, draft me up a resumé for a guy who would write an OLC memo opining that the president should murder people.
Mr. Gaiser clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States,
 Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Judge Edith H.
 Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In the private sector, Mr. Gaiser
 worked at the law firms Jones Day, Boyden Gray, and Gibson Dunn. He graduated from the
 University of Chicago Law School and Hillsdale College. He is also a husband and father.
cristianfarias.com
People love to hate on the Ninth Circuit, but it’s the best for remote access to things.
Reposted by Cristian Farias
lawrencehurley.bsky.social
The new Supreme Court term starts today, meaning that -- in a novel twist -- the justices will hear oral arguments in some cases before they issue rulings that actually explain what they are doing.
cristianfarias.com
Called it: Here’s the Illinois lawsuit. bsky.app/profile/nyti...
nytimes.com
Breaking News: Illinois sued President Trump over his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, expanding the multistate court fight challenging Trump’s authority to send military forces into American cities.
Live Updates: Illinois Sues Trump Over National Guard Deployments to Chicago
The lawsuit seeks to block the White House from sending Texas National Guard troops to Chicago. It came hours after a federal judge blocked deployments to Portland, Ore.
nyti.ms
cristianfarias.com
One data point worth noting: bsky.app/profile/andy...
andycraig.bsky.social
Immergut deposed Monica Lewinsky for Ken Starr, was a US attorney under Bush, and was appointed to the bench by Trump during his first term. This is not some left-wing judge.
annabower.bsky.social
Immergut: I'm handling this on expedited basis, but defendants haven't provided new info.

SHE RULES FROM THE BENCH: I grant the plaintiffs motion for a second TRO based on reasons stated in previous order...
Reposted by Cristian Farias
qjurecic.bsky.social
I truly don't understand what people thought was going to happen
marydudziak.bsky.social
Has Trump’s second term posed a greater or lesser threat to the rule of law than you expected? @nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/06/m...
Has Trump’s second term posed a greater or lesser threat to the rule of law than you expected?
Circular graph showing over half answered: much more than I expected, about a quarter: more than I expected, about an eighth: similar threat to what I expected, small sliver: much less threat than I expected.
cristianfarias.com
cristianfarias.com
No. The people who will likely be under oath are military and civilian personnel and functionaries, largely apolitical, following orders from on high. That’s not how these people roll.

Like the general who testified that a Trump appointee questioned his loyalty for raising operational concerns.
cristianfarias.com
I should note: J.B. Pritzker is denouncing the same deployment that Judge Immergut blocked in Oregon.

See Pete Hegseth order here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

So I expect the governor to follow in Oregon’s footsteps and file his own legal action to keep out the Texas National Guard.
govpritzker.illinois.gov
This evening, President Trump is ordering 400 members of the Texas National Guard for deployments to Illinois, Oregon, and other locations within the United States. No officials from the federal government called me directly to discuss or coordinate.