Cosimo's wife, Catherine MacDonald Cairns, was Scottish by birth but by law became Italian when she married Cosimo in 1872 (jus matrimoni). Despite this, their son was a natural-born Scot (jus soli) under common law.

The immigration “judge” allegedly sua sponte — meaning without any request by a party, which is obviously a lie given the circumstances — “corrected” the 2019 order to fix a “scrivener’s error” and order Mr Abrego Garcia deported.

Not surprisingly, Judge Xinis blocked that. What a corrupt act.

my thought: yikes.

for clarity: no case or controversy to get an injunction (you'd have an action for damages, but SCOTUS tells us we need to evaluate standing for each remedy)

One example would be if they stopped infringing, you then had no case or controversy (so you'd have to dismiss, but it would be w/o prejudice), but then they start up again. (this is in theory, I'd be surprised if that is what happened here, but it is possible)

*technically, I think each sale would be a new infringement, I just exaggerated the fact pattern to make it clearer.

So you can imagine if they filed suit on day X+15, that would not include infringement on day X+20 if they dismissed on day X+17

Reading between the lines a bit here, but it seems what they're saying is more along the lines of this sort of fact pattern:
Day X - infringing goods being sold
Day X+10 - no longer being sold
Day X + 20 - infringing goods being sold again (constituting a new infringement*)

Still wondering about whether this could be a waiver of privilege…

And if you can't make it, considering bidding on some great items in our silent auction: www.32auctions.com/FoodForThoug...

Ha yeah. But I’ve seen references to Brady disclosures so *shrug*? @marciahofmann.com help please!