To close: Subscribe to Law Dork, and chip in with a paid subscription if you can — because I've been the only person bringing you this in-depth coverage of the Title IX rule challenges. It's been a lot of work, but it's important. https://www.lawdork.com/subscribe
The wildest part of this request is that LaCour and his Consovoy buddies went to the Eleventh Circuit with a request that, in its intro section alone, makes at least two claims that Axon explained were wrong or misleadingly incomplete. This is substantive — and bad.
If you want legal reporting that gets the stakes and doesn't spout bullshit — and also trusts you enough to tell you the facts, not dumb it down, and link to the documents — subscribe to Law Dork now: https://www.lawdork.com/
Harris tells attendees at her Zeta Phi Beta Sorority speech that she will sign legislation when Congress passes it "to restore those freedoms" taken away when Trump's SCOTUS appointees overturned Roe v. Wade.
"We are not playing around. (Laughter and applause.)"
"As Biden puts the finishing touches on his legacy, Harris needs to let us know that future legacies remain in front of us — and that we protect that future, in part, by closing the door on Trump."
Judge John Broomes, a Trump appointee, issued a nationwide Title IX rule injunction covering all children of "Moms for Liberty" members this week. That's bad enough, but the procedural/notice mess he made of it is also really absurd: https://www.lawdork.com/i/146289012/the-latest-title-ix-rule-ruling
In case after case, the Supreme Court has whispered, “We’ll hold off to see whether Donald Trump finds his way back into office,” even as the justices acted — repeatedly — to make that possible, if not more likely.
Time and time again, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that this SCOTUS term was a term of contingent planning, leaving open two paths depending what happens with the election.
I mentioned the spinelessness of Chief Justice John Roberts on Strict Scrutiny last week, and I haven't been able to get it out of my head. So, I wrote about it today at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/p/the-spinelessness-of-john-roberts
There are so many stories to write about this Supreme Court term — the conditional and hypocritical nature of its rulings, the damage it has done, and the warning it leaves with us. I am glad we are entering a period where I will be able to do some of that work. But, it's dark.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court holds, 6-3, that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution for actions within their "conclusive and preclusive" authority and presumptively immune from prosecution for all official acts.
As to Trump: - Absolutely immune from prosecution for DOJ discussions. - Presumption of immunity for efforts to pressure Pence, but could be rebutted on remand. - Discussions w state actors and Jan. 6 comments must be determined if they are official or not on remand.
Sotomayor is reading from her dissent. You cannot hear it because, despite having the capacity to do so, the Supreme Court does not livestream opinion announcements.
Thomas concurs to question the constitutionality of the special counsel's appointment.
Barrett concurs in part because she does not join a part of the court's opinion not allowing evidence of any official acts even to be admitted as evidence.