Lest there be any doubt, I’ve long supported the concept of second chances, that even those people convicted of the most heinous and serious offenses be given a second look after a lengthy period of imprisonment to determine whether continued confinement is warranted. This isn’t to say they should get parole. Sometimes, the answer will be no, they do not deserve a second chance. But there is no harm in taking a look, particularly as sentences have been ratcheted up over the past few decades into absurdly lengthy sentences.

The sentence of life without parole has already been held too extreme to satisfy the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual sentences for juveniles, people who committed the crime when they were under the age of 18 years, because they were children, intellectually and emotionally, and should not be held to the standard imposed on adults. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has now held that the same should apply to a new category, “emerging adults.” Continue reading →

In dismissing the action after a bench trial, Northern District of Florida Judge Robert Hinkle was harshly critical of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ motive for ousting the two-time elected reform state’s attorney, Andrew Warren.

Last January, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida Robert Hinkle sharply criticized the DeSantis administration’s partisan motivations for suspending Warren, formerly the Hillsborough County State Attorney and one of the most prominent progressive prosecutors in the state. Continue reading →

To say that oral argument didn’t go well for Trump before the three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit is an understatement.

In one tough moment for Mr. Trump during the hearing on Tuesday, Judge Henderson rebutted Mr. Sauer’s argument that for more than 200 years, American courts had never sat in judgment over actions that a president had taken while in office.

Judge Henderson pointed out that until Mr. Trump was indicted, courts had never had to consider the criminal liability of former presidents for things they had done while in the White House.

Continue reading →

Two North Carolina paralegals, Morag Black Polaski and Shawana Almendarez, have sued to challenge the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law. It’s not that they want to play lawyer, but to engage in a business helping people fill out legal forms for a lesser expense than a lawyer would charge. They are claiming that the law violates their First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court in North Carolina that said the state courts give unrepresented litigants online forms for summary ejectments, absolute divorces, and protective orders — forms that are “not complicated,” but that “can still be confusing.” They said that many residents cannot afford to hire a lawyer to guide them through filling out the forms, and that many who fall into the “missing middle” level of income are too poor to hire a lawyer but not poor enough to qualify for free legal help.

Continue reading →

The New York Times published an excellent editorial about the upcoming election and Donald Trump. It’s not nearly harsh enough for those who despise him and too harsh for those who don’t, and it provides a surprisingly fair appraisal of who and what he is. If you don’t believe the times, believe his former Chief of Staff, John Kelly: Trump is the “most flawed person I’ve ever met.”

But for anyone reading this post, you already know this and have made up your mind about Trump, whether to be against him or wrong. Hey, it’s my blawg and I get to write that. But that’s not the point here. Rather, the point arises from many of the comments to the Times’ editorial which note its pointlessness. The people who need to read the editorial don’t. It’s just words bouncing off the wall of an echo chamber while old people write about what young people should do. Continue reading →

To no one’s surprise, the Supreme Court has granted expedited cert to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify Trump from the state primary ballot.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.

Continue reading →

Happy New Year, everyone! I thought it would be fun this week to share a couple of ideas I’ve been playing with for a while to amuse yourself at the expense of your friends and family. I make no claim of these ideas being mine—it’s just stuff I’ve been kicking around lately. As I’m not Claudine Gay, I’ll citie at least the people from whom I remember getting some of these ideas.

First, from Harry Anderson: Get a deck of cards. Tell your sucker the two of you are going to play poker with ten cards, but since it’s going to be a really easy game for them to win, you get to pick the cards the two of you will play with. Continue reading →

A few things can be true. Former Harvard president Claudine Gay was not the most qualified candidate for the job, but her race, gender and devotion to DEI trumped the quality and quantity of her scholarship. The targeting of Gay and the scrutiny of her scholarship following her poor and flagrantly hypocritical response under questioning by Rep. Elise Stefanik were a result of her devotion to DEI, which implicates, to a significant extent, her race and gender. It’s not necessarily false to say she didn’t deserve the post and was a serious serial plagiarist, but it’s also not necessarily false to say that she was targeted for her DEI positions.

When she refused to resign like Penn President Liz Magill, she essentially told her detractors, “make me.” They did. Continue reading →

You elect someone to office, and they come with staff. In the past, the staff understood their job to be to serve the person elected. After all, nobody voted for them to be anything. More recently, staff presumed their views to be sufficiently important that they were compelled to express them. Aren’t their opinions worthy of respect, as they were told? But when the elected person, candidate for office or both, decides that he’s going with his views instead of theirs, what is staff to do?

In a letter first shared with West Wing Playbook, 17 current Biden campaign staffers called directly on the president to push for a permanent ceasefire in the monthslong conflict. Continue reading →

Julianna v. United States, better known as the Kids Climate case, at first appeared to be one of those goofy cases that stood no chance of surviving. Began in 2015, the case was about a bunch of young people suing the federal government for violating their right to life by failing to prevent climate change. It wasn’t that they had no issue worthy of extreme concern, or even that they didn’t have a point, but what they never had is standing.

The Juliana litigation began in 2015, when a group of youth plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things, that the federal government’s failure to control greenhouse gases violates their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, including a right to a “stable climate system,” violates their right to equal protection, and failed to uphold its “public trust” obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.

Continue reading →