rmht.bsky.social
@rmht.bsky.social
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
The Roberts Court two-step is always:
1. Stop overreacting; we expressly say that nothing in today's decision overrules X.
2. Remember that case from a few years ago? It turned X into a desiccated husk. So no stare decisis and X is overruled.
1. Stop overreacting; we expressly say that nothing in today's decision overrules X.
2. Remember that case from a few years ago? It turned X into a desiccated husk. So no stare decisis and X is overruled.
December 8, 2025 at 7:03 PM
The Roberts Court two-step is always:
1. Stop overreacting; we expressly say that nothing in today's decision overrules X.
2. Remember that case from a few years ago? It turned X into a desiccated husk. So no stare decisis and X is overruled.
1. Stop overreacting; we expressly say that nothing in today's decision overrules X.
2. Remember that case from a few years ago? It turned X into a desiccated husk. So no stare decisis and X is overruled.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Well, Season Three of Andor is going to be brief.
September 18, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Well, Season Three of Andor is going to be brief.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
"Obedience must of course be secured for the command of a court. . . . But courts should be explicit and precise in their commands and should only then be strict in exacting compliance. To be both strict and indefinite is a kind of judicial tyranny."
#SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter, February 1949
#SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter, February 1949
tile.loc.gov
September 10, 2025 at 1:24 PM
"Obedience must of course be secured for the command of a court. . . . But courts should be explicit and precise in their commands and should only then be strict in exacting compliance. To be both strict and indefinite is a kind of judicial tyranny."
#SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter, February 1949
#SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter, February 1949
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
This formulation is popular: contrasting SCOTUS' intolerance of race as an admissions factor with SCOTUS' tolerance of race as a detention factor. There are, in fact, doctrinal, historical, and logical distinctions between the positions, that one could use to dismiss this comparison.
But...
/1
But...
/1
"Harvard can't use race as a factor in admissions, but ICE can use race as a factor in detentions" is a retrenchment essentially to a pre-Civil War understanding of the Constitution. It's vanishingly few steps removed from "Latinos have no rights which the white man is bound to respect."
September 9, 2025 at 6:15 PM
This formulation is popular: contrasting SCOTUS' intolerance of race as an admissions factor with SCOTUS' tolerance of race as a detention factor. There are, in fact, doctrinal, historical, and logical distinctions between the positions, that one could use to dismiss this comparison.
But...
/1
But...
/1
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Apologies, the previous chart was incorrect. I missed that SCOTUS granted emergency relief in Murthy v. Missouri after the appellate court's stay. I also missed FDA v. Alliance.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
July 9, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Apologies, the previous chart was incorrect. I missed that SCOTUS granted emergency relief in Murthy v. Missouri after the appellate court's stay. I also missed FDA v. Alliance.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
The updated rate of lifted injunctions for the Biden admin is 10% (2 of 21), not 0%.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Whoa. Spicy footnote from Justice Jackson, dissenting in the ADA case. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insuf
ficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an
unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative
task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And,
indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is
imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia
of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A method
ology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—
and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand
the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to
achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing
judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and
not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources
of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own pref
erences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insuffi
ciently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s
its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexi
ble enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f4d76fjna5nxqsy2fu6cgmp3/bafkreicg7mx5lddzyvnoguvadwnojtm7xcu2sf34hhizuapfesk46w7kli@jpeg)
June 20, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Whoa. Spicy footnote from Justice Jackson, dissenting in the ADA case. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
This is some classic Clarence Thomas B.S. He reiterates his belief that kids have no First Amendment rights at school—but says the court should extend free speech rights to a kid who wants to wear anti-LGBTQ shirts in the classroom. You can't have it both ways! www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
![JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969), this Court held that publicschool officials may not restrict a student’s freedom of
speech unless his behavior “materially disrupts classwork
or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of
others.” Id., at 513. I have previously explained why
Tinker’s holding is “without basis in the Constitution” and
should be “dispense[d] with . . . altogether.” Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 410, 422 (2007) (concurring opinion);
see id., at 410–422; Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., 594
U. S. 180, 216–217 (2021) (dissenting opinion). But, unless
and until this Court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent
that lower courts must faithfully apply.
For the reasons explained by JUSTICE ALITO, the First
Circuit decision below flouts Tinker and its progeny. Post,
at 6–13 (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari). Petitioner L. M. plainly did not create a “materia[l] disrupt[ion],” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 513, by wearing t-shirts
reading “There Are Only Two Genders”—and, later, after
his school barred that shirt—“There Are CENSORED Genders,” 103 F. 4th 854, 860 (2024). In holding otherwise, the
First Circuit distorted this Court’s First Amendment case
law in significant ways that warrant this Court’s review. I
therefore join JUSTICE ALITO’s opinion and respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreifa7qpitbti5quurnvivdrypygib7jt3o4l7muaanhiinsphsn2ja@jpeg)
May 27, 2025 at 1:39 PM
This is some classic Clarence Thomas B.S. He reiterates his belief that kids have no First Amendment rights at school—but says the court should extend free speech rights to a kid who wants to wear anti-LGBTQ shirts in the classroom. You can't have it both ways! www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Clay Davis ass quote
Trump on getting a free luxury plane from Qatar: "I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer."
May 12, 2025 at 2:59 PM
Clay Davis ass quote
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
/6 Also if you are ever inclined to open non-ironically with “this is probably an unpopular opinion, but…” just fucking don’t. Say what you think or don’t say what you think but spare the special pleading and mattress-laying.
April 18, 2025 at 7:56 PM
/6 Also if you are ever inclined to open non-ironically with “this is probably an unpopular opinion, but…” just fucking don’t. Say what you think or don’t say what you think but spare the special pleading and mattress-laying.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Reading Judge Wilkinson and then reading Judge Ho tells you everything you need to know about what has happened to the conservative legal movement over the past 10 years.
CA5 Judge Ho uses a concurrence in death penalty case - not related to Trump in any way I can see on the face- to sketch out his position on the district courts straining to control Trump’s unlawful actions.
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
April 17, 2025 at 11:47 PM
Reading Judge Wilkinson and then reading Judge Ho tells you everything you need to know about what has happened to the conservative legal movement over the past 10 years.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
I don't really care what the "political consequences" are of fighting for the proposition that *everyone* is entitled to due process before they are removed from the United States and sent to a Salvadoran prison.
It's not really a principle if you only adhere to it when it's politically expedient.
It's not really a principle if you only adhere to it when it's politically expedient.
April 18, 2025 at 3:57 PM
I don't really care what the "political consequences" are of fighting for the proposition that *everyone* is entitled to due process before they are removed from the United States and sent to a Salvadoran prison.
It's not really a principle if you only adhere to it when it's politically expedient.
It's not really a principle if you only adhere to it when it's politically expedient.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Legal research is hard, kids.
April 15, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Legal research is hard, kids.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
If the U.S. government is going to take the position that, once removed from the United States, folks can’t be brought back, then it sure seems to me that federal courts should be reflexively and categorically barring *all* removals until they’re 100 percent certain that the removals are lawful.
April 14, 2025 at 5:54 PM
If the U.S. government is going to take the position that, once removed from the United States, folks can’t be brought back, then it sure seems to me that federal courts should be reflexively and categorically barring *all* removals until they’re 100 percent certain that the removals are lawful.
Reposted by rmht.bsky.social
Some fantastic new legal scholarship from Prof. Michael Smith of St. Mary’s University School of Law. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
April 10, 2025 at 10:20 PM
Some fantastic new legal scholarship from Prof. Michael Smith of St. Mary’s University School of Law. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....