Tyler Bishop
@tlbishop.bsky.social
writer, listener, voting rights attorney
vanderbilt + stanford law grad
TX born, TN raised
vanderbilt + stanford law grad
TX born, TN raised
“In the United States of America, the President does not get to dictate the rules of our elections.”
Proud to represent clients who are not backing down. I’m not either.
Proud to represent clients who are not backing down. I’m not either.
Proud that my firm and I are representing Democrats in this fight!💪⚖️🗳️
"As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice."
"As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice."
Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections
The lawsuit accuses President Trump of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.”
www.nytimes.com
April 1, 2025 at 1:32 AM
“In the United States of America, the President does not get to dictate the rules of our elections.”
Proud to represent clients who are not backing down. I’m not either.
Proud to represent clients who are not backing down. I’m not either.
Reposted by Tyler Bishop
We’re suing the Trump administration.
Along with @demgovs.org, @electdemocrats.bsky.social, the DSCC, @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social, and @chuckschumer.com, we filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s illegal executive order that attacks the rights of married women, the military, and people voting by mail.
Along with @demgovs.org, @electdemocrats.bsky.social, the DSCC, @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social, and @chuckschumer.com, we filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s illegal executive order that attacks the rights of married women, the military, and people voting by mail.
April 1, 2025 at 12:12 AM
We’re suing the Trump administration.
Along with @demgovs.org, @electdemocrats.bsky.social, the DSCC, @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social, and @chuckschumer.com, we filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s illegal executive order that attacks the rights of married women, the military, and people voting by mail.
Along with @demgovs.org, @electdemocrats.bsky.social, the DSCC, @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social, and @chuckschumer.com, we filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s illegal executive order that attacks the rights of married women, the military, and people voting by mail.
Public opinion is not with the Trump Administration. There is no “mandate” for what’s happening. Far from it.
Keep speaking up and fighting lawless action. Convince Republicans who are vulnerable in 2026 to moderate.
Our system is being tested and we can’t give up.
Keep speaking up and fighting lawless action. Convince Republicans who are vulnerable in 2026 to moderate.
Our system is being tested and we can’t give up.
February 23, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Public opinion is not with the Trump Administration. There is no “mandate” for what’s happening. Far from it.
Keep speaking up and fighting lawless action. Convince Republicans who are vulnerable in 2026 to moderate.
Our system is being tested and we can’t give up.
Keep speaking up and fighting lawless action. Convince Republicans who are vulnerable in 2026 to moderate.
Our system is being tested and we can’t give up.
1. Remove officials who prevent conflicts of interest/corruption.
2. Replace with loyalists who promise allegiance.
3. Hand contracts to the billionaires who you put in charge.
4. Silence anyone who calls it out.
Oligarchy playbook, and it’s happening in broad daylight.
2. Replace with loyalists who promise allegiance.
3. Hand contracts to the billionaires who you put in charge.
4. Silence anyone who calls it out.
Oligarchy playbook, and it’s happening in broad daylight.
This is dangerous.
Trump wants to hand over FAA to Musk and SpaceX.
This means your taxpayer-purchased air traffic control facilities and equipment, packages, and emergency flights would be under control of SpaceX, which is unchecked by the flying public and U.S. military.
Trump wants to hand over FAA to Musk and SpaceX.
This means your taxpayer-purchased air traffic control facilities and equipment, packages, and emergency flights would be under control of SpaceX, which is unchecked by the flying public and U.S. military.
February 18, 2025 at 12:54 AM
1. Remove officials who prevent conflicts of interest/corruption.
2. Replace with loyalists who promise allegiance.
3. Hand contracts to the billionaires who you put in charge.
4. Silence anyone who calls it out.
Oligarchy playbook, and it’s happening in broad daylight.
2. Replace with loyalists who promise allegiance.
3. Hand contracts to the billionaires who you put in charge.
4. Silence anyone who calls it out.
Oligarchy playbook, and it’s happening in broad daylight.
mark my words: this is the turning point in this mess. idc if you’re a republican, a democrat, an independent, or a billionaire crony of the sitting president. we have a constitution and laws passed by congress. hands off unless you’re following them.
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING: A federal judge in New York barred Elon Musk and other allies outside the Treasury Department from accessing any sensitive payment records — and ordered any who have received such info to destroy it — until at least Feb. 14.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
February 8, 2025 at 9:50 AM
mark my words: this is the turning point in this mess. idc if you’re a republican, a democrat, an independent, or a billionaire crony of the sitting president. we have a constitution and laws passed by congress. hands off unless you’re following them.
9-0.
Yes, even that one.
Yes, even that one.
February 5, 2025 at 6:59 AM
9-0.
Yes, even that one.
Yes, even that one.
Reposted by Tyler Bishop
And it begins.
FBI class action lawsuit against the retaliatory purge.
First Amendment
Violation of Due Process
Rights to Privacy
www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...
FBI class action lawsuit against the retaliatory purge.
First Amendment
Violation of Due Process
Rights to Privacy
www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...
February 4, 2025 at 6:04 PM
And it begins.
FBI class action lawsuit against the retaliatory purge.
First Amendment
Violation of Due Process
Rights to Privacy
www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...
FBI class action lawsuit against the retaliatory purge.
First Amendment
Violation of Due Process
Rights to Privacy
www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...
Reposted by Tyler Bishop
Oligarchy doesn’t even begin to describe what this is
February 4, 2025 at 2:38 AM
Oligarchy doesn’t even begin to describe what this is
“The president signaled [in a dinner with Zuckerberg] that the litigation had to be resolved before Zuckerberg could be ‘brought into the tent.’”
giving someone a windfall $$ in order to be “brought into the tent” is the definition of corruption. “bound to lose” is an understatement.
giving someone a windfall $$ in order to be “brought into the tent” is the definition of corruption. “bound to lose” is an understatement.
🚨🚨 Zuckerberg bends yet another knee and will pay Trump $25 million to settle a lawsuit that Trump was bound to lose. GIFT LINK:
www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...
www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...
Exclusive | Trump Signs Agreement Calling for Meta to Pay $25 Million to Settle Suit
The president had sued the social-media company after his accounts were suspended.
www.wsj.com
January 29, 2025 at 10:46 PM
“The president signaled [in a dinner with Zuckerberg] that the litigation had to be resolved before Zuckerberg could be ‘brought into the tent.’”
giving someone a windfall $$ in order to be “brought into the tent” is the definition of corruption. “bound to lose” is an understatement.
giving someone a windfall $$ in order to be “brought into the tent” is the definition of corruption. “bound to lose” is an understatement.
The Judge (Reagan appointee) just like the rest of us had difficulty “understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional.”
BREAKING, via The Seattle Times: Trump's executive order to restrict birthright citizenship is blocked for at least the next two weeks by a Reagan appointee in Seattle who eviscerated the Trump lawyers present defending the order. www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...
January 23, 2025 at 7:34 PM
The Judge (Reagan appointee) just like the rest of us had difficulty “understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional.”
Reposted by Tyler Bishop
Q: “Why did you pardon a man who drove a stun gun into the neck of a police officer?”
Trump deflects to murderers in LA who he says don’t get charged. (which is not true)
Trump deflects to murderers in LA who he says don’t get charged. (which is not true)
January 21, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Q: “Why did you pardon a man who drove a stun gun into the neck of a police officer?”
Trump deflects to murderers in LA who he says don’t get charged. (which is not true)
Trump deflects to murderers in LA who he says don’t get charged. (which is not true)
he included the violent ones
January 21, 2025 at 1:12 AM
he included the violent ones
don’t we think someone who made an awkward gesture that was not meant to be a “nazi salute” would immediately and unequivocally say as much?
bffr
bffr
January 21, 2025 at 12:41 AM
don’t we think someone who made an awkward gesture that was not meant to be a “nazi salute” would immediately and unequivocally say as much?
bffr
bffr
Reposted by Tyler Bishop
Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship by executive order is (1) unlawful; (2) predicated on conflating two entirely distinct legal arguments; and (3) doomed to fail in (even these) courts.
My “One First” explainer:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-112-...
My “One First” explainer:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-112-...
Bonus 112: Birthright Citizenship, "Invasions," and the Supreme Court
President Trump has vowed to go after birthright citizenship on his first day in office. He's going to lose, but in a way that may well provide cover for other controversial immigration measures
www.stevevladeck.com
January 20, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship by executive order is (1) unlawful; (2) predicated on conflating two entirely distinct legal arguments; and (3) doomed to fail in (even these) courts.
My “One First” explainer:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-112-...
My “One First” explainer:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-112-...
trump is ranting about needing to restrict voting.
every state has procedures to ensure integrity. audits and legal challenges have repeatedly showed no fraud.
what we do know is that trump’s party wants to keep likely dems from voting.
when asked by Justice Barrett in 2021, they admitted it ⬇️
every state has procedures to ensure integrity. audits and legal challenges have repeatedly showed no fraud.
what we do know is that trump’s party wants to keep likely dems from voting.
when asked by Justice Barrett in 2021, they admitted it ⬇️
January 20, 2025 at 7:07 PM
trump is ranting about needing to restrict voting.
every state has procedures to ensure integrity. audits and legal challenges have repeatedly showed no fraud.
what we do know is that trump’s party wants to keep likely dems from voting.
when asked by Justice Barrett in 2021, they admitted it ⬇️
every state has procedures to ensure integrity. audits and legal challenges have repeatedly showed no fraud.
what we do know is that trump’s party wants to keep likely dems from voting.
when asked by Justice Barrett in 2021, they admitted it ⬇️