Notices by Chris Geidner (chrisgeidner@journa.host), page 4

This was a three-judge panel of all Republican appointees. The decision smacking down Llano County, Jonathan Mitchell (defending Llano, of course), and Duncan comes from Judge Jacques Wiener, a GHWB appointee born during the Great Depression who opens by quoting Walt Whitman.

"Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge, dissenting."

You truly do love to see it.

NEWS: In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit orders Llano County to put back several books on their library's shelves that they had removed based on content and viewpoint.

The panel modifies but affirms the district court's injunction against the county. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213042/gov.uscourts.ca5.213042.164.1.pdf

Judge Leslie Southwick, a GWB appointee, joins Wiener on the law — affirming that aspect of the injunction — and many of the books, but Southwick did part with Wiener as to the application of the law to some of the books. So, a few are not going back now. Footnote from Wiener:

Two more things, both about Duncan.

One: Stop this shit. Write a dissent like a human who lost a panel vote.

For *some* background, I wrote about this case at Law Dork previously in the context of Mitchell's involvement: https://www.lawdork.com/p/jonathan-mitchell-is-too-busy

Last thing here: Subscribe to Law Dork. Tell your friends. Seriously. This shit is too serious, and there's a free option, so, please, if you're not already there, get on it. https://www.lawdork.com/

Finally, Duncan quoted Stephen King to close his dissent, and Wiener was *pissed* on King's behalf. First image is from Duncan and second is Wiener:

On Justice Alito’s recusal refusal letter: “Alito lashed out in defiance and with a tone that can only suggest that he believes we are all stupid — including, possibly, his colleagues.”

Read and subscribe to Law Dork now: https://www.lawdork.com/p/sam-alito-believes-you-and-perhaps

BREAKING: Justice Sam Alito refuses to recuse himself from Jan. 6 cases or Trump cases in letter to Congress.

"My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not," he writes.

Background at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/p/sam-alito-is-a-problem

OK. A lot happened over the long weekend, if you were blessedly off with a job of beach or something similar.

First up, The Washington Post acknowledged that it knew about the (first) Alito flag story since Jan 2021, and I had some questions. https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washington

BREAKING: Judge Cannon DENIES the special counsel's motion to modify the conditions of Trump's release b/c, she writes, the special counsel's office did not "confer" sufficiently with Trump's counsel before filing. She denies Trump's motion to strike and for sanctions as well.

On Saturday, the Washington Post revealed that it had known about the Alito upside-down flag but had not reported it.

The revelation raises many questions. I went into them over at Law Dork. https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washington

I cannot get over how many times in recent years the Washington Post had to decide *not* to share that they knew the Alito household flew an upside-down flag in the immediate aftermath of Jan 6 before reporting it today. https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washington

Saturday's Washington Post report raises many questions — several relating to the fact that the Post, at least passively, made the decision not to reveal the (first) Alito flag story many times since 2021. https://www.lawdork.com/p/washington-post-bombshell-washington

LAW DORK EXCLUSIVE: Justice Alito sold Bud Light stock amidst anti-trans boycott effort https://www.lawdork.com/p/alito-bud-light-stock-sale-anti-trans-boycott

I get that people on the left want to celebrate good things happening, but when the SCOTUS conservatives do something with voting rights and all of the liberals disagree, it's probably good to stop and take a moment before you decide what it means. https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-louisiana-redistricting-congress-vra-epc

Yes, this appears odd at first glance. Based largely on Jackson's dissent, this happened bc of (1) the majority's decision to invoke Purcell & (2) the dissent's concern about that and view of whether the district court should have been allowed to issue its remedial map in June.

NEWS: SCOTUS allows Louisiana congressional map with two majority-Black districts to be used in 2024 elections, citing the closeness in time to the election. Notably, the three liberal justices disagreed with the order. Jackson writes. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a994_7mip.pdf

What happened here is much more than the headlines. Tonight at Law Dork, I take you through it: https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-louisiana-redistricting-congress-vra-epc