The Green Zebra
@thegreenzebra.bsky.social
I make this region of the universe worse. He/him
The NYT doesn't actually know if that was discussed by Rutte and Trump, they just reported what was discussed earlier by other pople. It literally says the officials don't know what was actually discussed.
January 22, 2026 at 1:36 PM
The NYT doesn't actually know if that was discussed by Rutte and Trump, they just reported what was discussed earlier by other pople. It literally says the officials don't know what was actually discussed.
That depends on how they rule and tge specific holding
January 20, 2026 at 8:16 PM
That depends on how they rule and tge specific holding
Maybe I missed it in the analysis, but don't see it. Kubilius also reiterated it a few days ago. The Commission is still a relevant institutional actor. (CJEU probably doesn't have jurisdiction because of the CFSP ouster, no?)
January 13, 2026 at 12:49 PM
Maybe I missed it in the analysis, but don't see it. Kubilius also reiterated it a few days ago. The Commission is still a relevant institutional actor. (CJEU probably doesn't have jurisdiction because of the CFSP ouster, no?)
It would be good to note that the Commission's position is that 42.7 TEU does apply to Greenland.
January 13, 2026 at 11:51 AM
It would be good to note that the Commission's position is that 42.7 TEU does apply to Greenland.
Where can the full transcript be found?
January 5, 2026 at 8:21 PM
Where can the full transcript be found?
I'm not however sure what statute applies, FSIA, the Vienna Convention, custom, something else???
January 5, 2026 at 6:19 PM
I'm not however sure what statute applies, FSIA, the Vienna Convention, custom, something else???
As far as I know sovereign and similar immunities go to subject matter jurisdiction, deference on jurisdiction is very weird doctrinally
January 5, 2026 at 6:18 PM
As far as I know sovereign and similar immunities go to subject matter jurisdiction, deference on jurisdiction is very weird doctrinally
He has a right to petition for certioari, not directly to review, right?
January 5, 2026 at 6:16 PM
He has a right to petition for certioari, not directly to review, right?
It seems no one cares, in the case I linked SCOTUS said that the guy being kidnapped isn't a problem
January 4, 2026 at 9:52 PM
It seems no one cares, in the case I linked SCOTUS said that the guy being kidnapped isn't a problem
Denial of immunity is probably appealable tho, so he can try to drag it out at least
January 4, 2026 at 9:32 PM
Denial of immunity is probably appealable tho, so he can try to drag it out at least
Unlawful arrest probably isn't viable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...
Seems immunity is his best chance, in the Panama/Noriega case the courts deferred to gov on who head of state is, that was 11th circuit, but they cited a lot of 2d circuit deference precedent, so probably low chance
Seems immunity is his best chance, in the Panama/Noriega case the courts deferred to gov on who head of state is, that was 11th circuit, but they cited a lot of 2d circuit deference precedent, so probably low chance
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
January 4, 2026 at 9:31 PM
Unlawful arrest probably isn't viable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...
Seems immunity is his best chance, in the Panama/Noriega case the courts deferred to gov on who head of state is, that was 11th circuit, but they cited a lot of 2d circuit deference precedent, so probably low chance
Seems immunity is his best chance, in the Panama/Noriega case the courts deferred to gov on who head of state is, that was 11th circuit, but they cited a lot of 2d circuit deference precedent, so probably low chance
There might be some jurisdiction/immunity fight tho, in the Panama Noriega case the judges deferred to gov on whether the guy was head of state, but that was a different circuit and 25+ years ago
January 4, 2026 at 9:22 PM
There might be some jurisdiction/immunity fight tho, in the Panama Noriega case the judges deferred to gov on whether the guy was head of state, but that was a different circuit and 25+ years ago
SCOTUS thinks it doesn't matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_... (the guy in this case actually got acquitted tho)
United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
January 4, 2026 at 9:17 PM
SCOTUS thinks it doesn't matter: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_... (the guy in this case actually got acquitted tho)
I would think attorney is more correct, since State Attorney's here have a duty to represent the state in all cases, even civil cases, not just prosecutions, but I'm not aware how the terms are used in other countries.
December 14, 2025 at 11:01 AM
I would think attorney is more correct, since State Attorney's here have a duty to represent the state in all cases, even civil cases, not just prosecutions, but I'm not aware how the terms are used in other countries.
The interesting thing seems here that the EPPO in its publications (in their ENG press release when they had issues with him taking their case which led to this in the Cro. Con. court) calls the Chief State Attorney of Croatia the attorney general, but the CJEU here seems to use Prosecutor General
December 14, 2025 at 10:59 AM
The interesting thing seems here that the EPPO in its publications (in their ENG press release when they had issues with him taking their case which led to this in the Cro. Con. court) calls the Chief State Attorney of Croatia the attorney general, but the CJEU here seems to use Prosecutor General
You guys probably know if you checked the website, but I only checked again today, there is now finally an English translation of the decision published on the curia website. (But the Croatian version seems to be truncated on the site lol) curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
curia.europa.eu
December 14, 2025 at 10:54 AM
You guys probably know if you checked the website, but I only checked again today, there is now finally an English translation of the decision published on the curia website. (But the Croatian version seems to be truncated on the site lol) curia.europa.eu/juris/showPd...
Per curiam doesn't really mean anything except that the majority wanted it to say per curiam
December 12, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Per curiam doesn't really mean anything except that the majority wanted it to say per curiam
And admin stays claiming to not be merits determinations is pretty much lying at this point
December 12, 2025 at 11:00 PM
And admin stays claiming to not be merits determinations is pretty much lying at this point
There probably isn't any chance for the en banc court to remove and admin stay but this is ridiculous, every step of the inquiry will be appealed (mandamused?) and take multiple rounds of briefing.
December 12, 2025 at 10:59 PM
There probably isn't any chance for the en banc court to remove and admin stay but this is ridiculous, every step of the inquiry will be appealed (mandamused?) and take multiple rounds of briefing.
This is the power under which this was adopted.
December 12, 2025 at 8:46 PM
This is the power under which this was adopted.
The treaty powers (Article 122) the decision is based on are intended for measures in economic emergencies. Ordinary sanctions require unanimity, this only requires a qualified majority. I think most sanctions could also be adopted as trade measures, but it doesn't seem to work here.
December 12, 2025 at 8:45 PM
The treaty powers (Article 122) the decision is based on are intended for measures in economic emergencies. Ordinary sanctions require unanimity, this only requires a qualified majority. I think most sanctions could also be adopted as trade measures, but it doesn't seem to work here.
She said to assume it was liquidated, he didn't concede.
December 8, 2025 at 5:44 PM
She said to assume it was liquidated, he didn't concede.
In the case below there is a nationwide class-wide (to comply with Trump v. CASA a class was certified) injuction, so there is no possibility of chaos.
December 5, 2025 at 7:18 PM
In the case below there is a nationwide class-wide (to comply with Trump v. CASA a class was certified) injuction, so there is no possibility of chaos.
This is referring to the South African Constitution. I don't know why anybody would use the Article 89 procedure except for political posturing. www.justice.gov.za/constitution...
www.justice.gov.za
November 28, 2025 at 9:06 PM
This is referring to the South African Constitution. I don't know why anybody would use the Article 89 procedure except for political posturing. www.justice.gov.za/constitution...
I think the closest would be South Africa today, the President both HoS and HoG, but is elected by a majority of Parliament. It seems in South Africa weirdly the pres can be removed by 2/3 of parliament (Article 89), but also has to resign if there is no confidence in him by majority (Article 102).
November 28, 2025 at 9:05 PM
I think the closest would be South Africa today, the President both HoS and HoG, but is elected by a majority of Parliament. It seems in South Africa weirdly the pres can be removed by 2/3 of parliament (Article 89), but also has to resign if there is no confidence in him by majority (Article 102).