As Eugene Volokh explains, it may violate the First Amendment. But why, one has to wonder, would the Encinitas Union School District believe treading along, and over, the line of constitutionally protected speech and expression was so important that it would not merely take the risk, but take the risk at the expense of a fifth grade buddy?

The school activity at issue occurred in the context of the buddy program, a weekly class pairing younger and older students. The buddy program is a mandatory part of the school curriculum. P.D. and S.E., both fifth graders, were each paired with a kindergartener. In this program, “students in the older classroom mentor students in the younger classroom.” Continue reading →

In a curious lapse from her attacks on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, Linda Greenhouse raises an interesting question. Should reporting about federal judges include the president who nominated them?

Back when I was a reporter covering the Supreme Court in the early 2000s, journalists in the nation’s capital had begun routinely to identify judges by the presidents who appointed them. I argued vigorously against this approach. The practice was reductive and corrosive, I would say. It implied to readers that a given judge was doing politics rather than law — a serious accusation and in most cases an unfair one. To the extent that journalism plays a role in civics education, as I believe it does, it seemed to me that portraying the legal system in such a misleading way amounted to journalistic malpractice.

Continue reading →

So what if it comes on the bone-spurred heels of Trump buying a luxury golf resort in Qatar? So what if its legality was approved by Qatar’s former $100,000 per month lobbyist, now Attorney General of the United States? After all, it’s free and isn’t that what really matters?

So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane.…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 12, 2025

The way this is supposed to work is that a Boeing 747-8 Jumbo Jet, described as a flying palace, will be given to the defense department to serve as the new and improved Air Force 1 and, after completion of his term of office, will be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library and Market, where he would then might be permitted to use it because, well, he’s Trump. And as emphatically noted, it’s a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” which pretty much sums up all relevant concerns from the White House, other than what he might have mentioned when he earlier toured the plane.

Trump had previously toured the plane, which is so opulently configured it is known as “a flying palace,” while it was parked at the West Palm Beach International Airport in February.

What would a Qatari royal do when the president says “nice plane you got here”? There are, of course, some security concerns involved, such as the outside possibility that there might be a bug or two built in, or perhaps a small explosive device should the royals be annoyed. But the defense department will inspect the plane to be sure it’s safe and silent when it’s outfitted to be AF1 with the requisite Trump gold-plated toilets. If you can’t trust Hegseth to make sure the plane is operationally secure, who can you trust?

But is it legal?

One might think this gift raises legal issues. Administration lawyers apparently have those bases covered:

sources told ABC News that lawyers for the White House counsel’s office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution’s prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts “from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

Sources told ABC News that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump’s top White House lawyer David Warrington concluded it would be “legally permissible” for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump’s presidential library before the end of his term, according to sources familiar with their determination. . . .

Both the White House and DOJ concluded that because the gift is not conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery, the sources said. Bondi’s legal analysis also says it does not run afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on foreign gifts because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, the sources said.

And, indeed, it would appear on the surface to have been structured in such a way as to circumvent the Emoluments Clause and not constitute a bribe, it’s value notwithstanding and the lack of an explicit quid pro quo, even though Qatar has not been shy about offering money for influence.

One might also think a gift of this sort could raise security concerns, particularly given the Qatari government’s efforts to influence U.S. policy (and universities). Apparently such concerns will be addressed when the plane is modified to meet the requirements for presidential use.

And did I mention it’s a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” which has always been Trump’s favorite price?

It would appear, from a technical perspective, that the legal analysis may be correct. It’s not a gift to Trump, personally, even if he gets to use it both as president and, afterward, as beneficiary of his presidential library’s largesse. It’s unseemly as can be, but unseemly doesn’t make it unlawful. And, to be fair, contributions to president’s inauguration and library are similarly unseemly when it comes to the appearance of buying influence and a dinner in the White House, winter or summer, or buy a few million dollars worth of $Trump meme coins.

What distinguishes this “gift” is both the face value of it, which suggests that Qatar isn’t gifting Trump a plane because he’s such a cool guy to whom royals just want to give stuff, and that despite any refitting to turn it into Air Force 1, it exposes huge security risks that are unlikely to be overcome no matter what.

Perhaps the most underdiscussed aspect of his gift is its opulence, that it’s a flying palace if not a flying Emolument Clause. Granted, Trump has already redecorated the Oval Office in early bordello, adding gold doodads to the room reminiscent of one of the Kings Louis more than George Washington. Should president’s be flying in palaces? Is there nothing that says “I am a servant of the people” more than opulence? Then again, given the tastes of a guy whose toilets are gold-plated, perhaps we should be happy that he has yet to paint pubic hair on statues. And after all, it’s a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” and isn’t that what really matters?

Greetings, Simple Justice readers! Your humble humorist, Chris Seaton, is back to sling some Friday funny at you, and this week we’re diving headfirst into the Lycra-clad, obstacle-dodging, sweat-soaked spectacle that is American Ninja Warrior. Because nothing screams “American Dream” like grown adults flinging themselves at warped walls and praying they don’t faceplant on national television. Grab your protein shake, folks, and let’s get to it.

For the uninitiated, American Ninja Warrior is a show where people who spend more time at the gym than in their own homes attempt to conquer an obstacle course designed by a sadist with a PhD in physics. Think Wipeout, but with less foam and more existential dread. Contestants—ranging from firefighters to accountants who moonlight as parkour enthusiasts—tackle things like the “Quintuple Steps” (a fancy name for “stairs that hate you”) and the “Salmon Ladder” (which sounds like a fishy sex move but is actually a pull-up bar from hell). If they make it to the end without slipping into a pool of water or their own tears, they get to hit a buzzer and scream like they just won a lifetime supply of kale. Continue reading →

It’s unfair to argue whether the now-withdrawn nominee, Ed Martin as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, is worse than the new nominee, former Westchester, NY, County Court judge and District Attorney, Jeanine Pirro. As discussed here, Martin is incompetent, by experience, intellect and temperament, to be US Attorney, whether in DC or elsewhere. In contrast, Pirro is batshit crazy atop incompetent, and thus reflects the nadir of prosecutorial choices. But that’s just me.

Continue reading →

Step aside Max Headroom, Chris Pelkey is in the courtroom. Well, not really, but close enough for Judge Todd Lang in Arizona.

Chris Pelkey was killed in a road rage shooting in Chandler, Arizona, in 2021.

Three and a half years later, Pelkey appeared in an Arizona court to address his killer. Sort of.

Pelkey, 37, was shot to death by 50-year-old Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, who was in the car behind him. When an unarmed Pelkey approached Horcasitas, he pulled his weapon and killed Pelkey. Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter, and time came for sentence. So too did Chris Pelkey. Continue reading →

It was surprising to learn that ICE and Homeland Security Secretary and model, Kristi Noem, were demonizing the wrongly renditioned Kilmar Abrego Garcia based on domestic violence allegations that had long since been dismissed. On the one hand, it was irrelevant to the violation of the immigration judge’s hold and denial of due process. On the other hand, he hadn’t been convicted, so it was merely an accusation. But on the third hand, it was dismissed, and while I’m unfamiliar with the nuances of criminal procedure in Maryland, how would there be access to a dismissed case?  That couldn’t happen in New York.

Under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50, a dismissed case is automatically sealed, except in the very rare instance where the prosecution seeks, and the court grants, a motion to prevent sealing. Back in the good old days, before records were computerized, the defendant’s booking photographs and fingerprints were physically sent back, either to the defendant or his lawyer. We would know the cops didn’t have them because we did. Continue reading →

He’s smarter than the generals. He’s smarter than the doctors. But he’s clueless when it comes to law?

Is there any acceptable answer to the question of whether “persons” are entitled to due process other than “yes”? And yet, when pressed, his answer remained the same. Continue reading →

The invocation of power by calling anything an emergency or national security problem was a gaping hole in Congress’ sloughing off responsibility and authority to do its job to the president. It presumed that the president wouldn’t be so shameless and abusive as to lay claim to power when there was no basis for it by merely incanting the magic words that would empower the president to take action whenever the whim struck.

And, to be fair, it worked out much of the time, although there were always exceptions that should have reminded Congress and the American people that it’s not good enough to just trust the president not to abuse his authority. And these exceptions, such as Biden’s attempt to forgive student loans as an emergency response to Covid, were flagrant enough that a functional Congress would have put a stop to it immediately. Unfortunately, we didn’t have a functional Congress then, and certainly don’t have one now. Continue reading →

It’s one thing to pardon or commute the sentence of every defendant involved in the insurrection of January 6. It’s another to propose the return of restitution by the insurrectionists, the “roughly $400,000 collected” to cover the roughly $3 million in damage they caused during their Day of Love. But why, oh why, would the government settle a claim for excessive force for the killing of Ashli Babbitt?

The Department of Justice has agreed in principle to settle a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Ashli Babbitt, the woman fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer during the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

Continue reading →