Far be it for me to argue that an assistant United States attorney wouldn’t lie. Some would. Some have. Some do. That said, the lies generally aren’t of the nature of making things up out of whole cloth. They are also not of the nature that could be readily disproven, whether by written evidence or the testimony of a room full of people with similar claims to credibility. Career AUSAs do not tend to lie, or even massage the truth, when there is a strong possibility that they will get nailed to the wall.

Career assistant Erez Reuveni had been on the job for almost 15 years, long before the current administration and throughout Trump 1.0. It wasn’t until he was given the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a matter of such significant profile that it wouldn’t be handed to the office goofball, that a problem arose. Reuveni did the one thing that his DoJ superiors found intolerable. He told Judge Paula Xinis the truth, that the rendition of Abrego Garcia was a mistake. The Trump DoJ doesn’t make mistakes. Or to be more precise, it doesn’t admit to the mistakes it makes. Continue reading →

Why? Who knows. It’s not as if the 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court explained its reasoning. In staying Boston District Judge Brian Murphy’s preliminary injunction against ICE removing aliens to third-party countries without notice or due process, those nifty/nasty details the Court previously admonished Kristi Noem to provide to Kilmar Abrego Garcia and others similarly situated, the Supreme Court did not consider it worthwhile to provide either explanation or guidance.

Or perhaps it did not because, well, there just wasn’t anything rational to say. Continue reading →

The first two sentences of Richard Fausset’s article in the New York Times leaves nothing to the imagination.

Preston Damsky is a law student at the University of Florida. He is also a white nationalist and antisemite.

Remember the old Checkov quote, “Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass”? Fuggedaboutit. Fausset leaves nothing to chance, lest you not realize who’s the bad dude in the story before you find out why he’s the bad dude. Damsky took a seminar taught by “Trump-nominated” (and, unmentioned, former federal defender) federal judge, John Badalamenti, which concluded with a paper worth  65% of the grade. Continue reading →

Not too long ago, many people believed the “predictions” of Nostradamus that the world would end in 2025, and that it would come from war in the middle east, where certain nations were bent on the destruction of the decadent west. Whether or not one was inclined to buy into the metaphysical, there was good reason to fear war in the middle east. One thing that was clear to all, at least then, was that Iran, now under the religious rule of an Ayatollah and the primary supporter of radical Islamic terrorism, could not be trusted to have nuclear weapons.

Was Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons? Who knows? Bibi Netanyahu has been saying so for years. Whether he was right or wrong, and that Iran’s weapons program was set back by Israeli intervention, is unknown. Much of this, by its nature, is unknown, which is a huge issue following George W. Bush’s assurances that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Trust, once squandered, is lost and hard to find again. Continue reading →

Hello again, friends! Welcome back to the Friday Funny, where we dive into the absurd, the awkward, and the downright questionable with a smirk and a raised eyebrow. As kids, we were told there’s no such thing as a stupid question. Those people were liars. Stupid questions flood the universe every second—some whispered in boardrooms, others shouted in comment sections. But there’s another breed of question: the ones we avoid asking, not because they’re dumb, but because they’re… delicate. They tiptoe on the edge of decorum, threatening to topple into a social minefield.

Well, today, we’re throwing caution to the wind. This is a safe place, folks! Let’s unpack some of those questions I’ve been dodging, with a bit of wit and a lot of curiosity. Continue reading →

It’s a given in the legal academy that publication in the Harvard Law Review is prestigious. Whether it’s the most important law review is a matter of debate, but that it is important is beyond question. Law profs submit their articles to this student-run journal because it accomplishes two important things. First, it establishes their bona fides as a legal scholar. Second, it means their article is taken seriously, Given the desperate need of most prawfs to be taken seriously rather than fade into the universe of legal background noise, it’s one of the few places where they can “matter.”

But as Aaron Sibarium writes in the Washington Free Beacon, articles that make the cut at HLR might not reflect important legal thought, but rather that they checked the woke boxes of race, gender and sexuality. Continue reading →

After Justice Neil Gorsuch’s muddled opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, the door seemed at least ajar, if not wide open, to ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio to argue that discrimination against transgender people violated the Equal Protection Clause, and that like sex discrimination in Bostock, it deserved higher scrutiny than rational basis analysis if a state was to enact a law that discriminated against transgender people.

The State of Tennessee prohibited medical procedures, characterized as “gender-affirming care” by its advocates and supporters, and more precisely as puberty blockers and hormones as surgical intervention was already off the table, for minors. The catch was that the same medical treatment was permissible for other reasons, such as precocious puberty, but not for gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria, of course, is the diagnosis that gives rise to someone being transgender, although being transgender is not limited to gender dysphoria. Continue reading →

A mayor. A congresswoman. A judge. A senator. And now, the New York City Comptroller and candidate for mayor. There is a response to the government’s actions against all of them, that no one is above the law, which is both objectively false and subjectively simplistic. Each of these situations was different, involved different legal issues and raised different questions of culpability.

But they all share one common theme: the government, primarily ICE but also the other alphabet agencies whose function has been reduced to ICE’s anti-immigrant handmaidens, is actively pursuing state and federal officials who get in their way. Often, as was the case with California Senior Senator Alex Padilla and now Brad Lander, with the use of some degree of force. Continue reading →

Buried in the House version of the most Trumpian-named omnibus reconciliation bill ever, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” was that dubious nugget that would preclude courts from holding the government in contempt for violating court orders. The Senate was having nothing of it, and seized the opportunity to take the House’s ham-handed effort and . . . make it worse.

As Sam Bray explains at Divided Argument, the House version went after the courts’ authority to hold the government in contempt for violating a court injunction, making it replete with constitutional issues as well as having a practical flaw that would allow judges to fix the required bond at $1, thus defeating the effort and allowing the president to violate the Constitution with impunity. Continue reading →

It was beyond absurd that the Democratic National Committee believed it was a good idea, having just lost to Trump, to make David Hogg its vice chair. That they believed they were losing the youth vote was understandable. That they believed Hogg was the solution was nuts. Who was this kid, whose only claim to fame was surviving a school shooting? His public utterances, primarily on twitter, consisted almost entirely of infantile rantings that were roundly ridiculed by anyone with a basic knowledge of history and governance. And he was going to save the Democrats?

Hogg then did the unthinkable, putting together a PAC for the purpose of challenging Democratic incumbents who he decided were too old or too institutional to meet his radical vision. Continue reading →