#Circuits courts

[matsiro-be]

[achat] Des huîtres d'exception à Montpellier.

Chez Christine Henry de La Bel' de Thau, une ostreicultrice passionnée.

On aime :

le goût unique des huîtres charnues, le fruit d'un travail d'une seule personne pour un résultat irréprochable dans le respect de l'écosystème.

le prix raisonnable au regard de la qualité: 7,50€ la douzaine de calibre 2 et 6,50€ la douzaine de calibre 3.

les autres coquillages en fonction de la saison : moules, oursins, bulots,....

le sourire et la gentilesse de Christine, cette productrice présente sur le Marché paysan des Aubes à Montpellier.

Le vrai + : livraison possible pour certains quartiers de Montpellier !!!

Où la trouver :

Aux quartier des Aubes, au marché paysan tous les mercredis de 16h30 à 19h avec une vingtaine d'autres producteurs locaux.

Pour les livraisons, contact : +33 6 22 50 39 97. dejhuitre@gmail.com.

[saywhat-politics]

Louisiana’s controversial law requiring public schools and colleges to post the Ten Commandments violates the U.S. Constitution and cannot be enforced, a federal appeals court ruled unanimously Friday, upholding a lower court’s decision and raising the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in.

A three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law, which took effect Jan. 1, is "plainly unconstitutional." The ruling affirms a lower court’s order barring the state from enforcing the law, which says that Ten Commandments posters printed in “large, easily readable font” must be displayed in every classroom.

BREAKING: In a unanimous decision, a federal court of appeals has ruled that Louisiana's law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms is unconstitutional.

We’ll keep saying it: Public schools are not Sunday schools.

[zombiecowboy65]

TGR is just gonna be a bunch of flirting and running away on both ends. U have Mr I’ve never experienced love and Mr. I won’t let anyone close enough to love me. I am going to be seated with popcorn. Let the games begin.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will not hear Mckesson v. Doe. The decision not to hear Mckesson leaves in place a lower court decision that effectively eliminated the right to organize a mass protest in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Under that lower court decision, a protest organizer faces potentially ruinous financial consequences if a single attendee at a mass protest commits an illegal act.

It is possible that this outcome will be temporary. The Court did not embrace the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision attacking the First Amendment right to protest, but it did not reverse it either. That means that, at least for now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is the law in much of the American South. For the past several years, the Fifth Circuit has engaged in a crusade against DeRay Mckesson, a prominent figure within the Black Lives Matter movement who organized a protest near a Baton Rouge police station in 2016. The facts of the Mckesson case are, unfortunately, quite tragic. Mckesson helped organize the Baton Rouge protest following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling. During that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or similar object at a police officer, the plaintiff in the Mckesson case who is identified only as “Officer John Doe.” Sadly, the officer was struck in the face and, according to one court, suffered “injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head.”

Everyone agrees that this rock was not thrown by Mckesson, however. And the Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that protest leaders cannot be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant, absent unusual circumstances that are not present in the Mckesson case — such as if Mckesson had “authorized, directed, or ratified” the decision to throw the rock. Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

The reason Claiborne protects protest organizers should be obvious. No one who organizes a mass event attended by thousands of people can possibly control the actions of all those attendees, regardless of whether the event is a political protest, a music concert, or the Super Bowl. So, if protest organizers can be sanctioned for the illegal action of any protest attendee, no one in their right mind would ever organize a political protest again. Indeed, as Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett, who dissented from his court’s Mckesson decision, warned in one of his dissents, his court’s decision would make protest organizers liable for “the unlawful acts of counter-protesters and agitators.” So, under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, a Ku Klux Klansman could sabotage the Black Lives Matter movement simply by showing up at its protests and throwing stones.

The Fifth Circuit’s Mckesson decision is obviously wrong

Like Mckesson, Claiborne involved a racial justice protest that included some violent participants. In the mid-1960s, the NAACP launched a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi. At least according to the state supreme court, some participants in this boycott “engaged in acts of physical force and violence against the persons and property of certain customers and prospective customers” of these white businesses. Indeed, one of the organizers of this boycott did far more to encourage violence than Mckesson is accused of in his case. Charles Evers, a local NAACP leader, allegedly said in a speech to boycott supporters that “if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.”

With SCOTUS refusing to take up McKesson v. Doe, the 5th Circuit's insane anti-1st Amendment ruling that effectively bans mass protests remains in force for the 3 states covered in the 5th: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

[shu-of-the-wind]

summary of the ruling on whether trump can be criminally prosecuted below:

1) presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during their tenure in office

2) an act of congress may not criminalize the president's actions within his exclusive constitutional power (i.e. executive power)

3) not all of a president's official acts fall within his executive powers and that immunity doesn't extend to conduct in areas "where his authority is shared with congress"

4) at minimum a president must be immune from prosecution for an *official* act unless the government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no "danger of intrusion" on the function of the executive branch

5) no immunity for *un*official acts

6) so to hold a president criminally liable you need to determine first a) whether it was an official or unofficial action and b) whether the president had the authority to take that action in the first place, but you CAN'T INQUIRE INTO HIS MOTIVES FOR TAKING THOSE ACTIONS during that analysis because it would put presidents on trial ~for everything~ apparently

7) trump's discussions with the attorney general are "readily categorized in the light of the nature of the president's official relationship to that individual" because as president he's allowed to fire the AG if the AG doesn't do what he wants

8) while it's true that the p and vp are engaging in official conduct while discussing their responsibilities, the question then becomes "whether the presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances" i.e. it's the government's job to argue that applying a criminal law to this wouldn't "intrude on executive power"

9) trump's interactions with people outside the executive (state officials, the public) is a game of who can make the better argument of whether that was within his official or unofficial stance

11) same with public statements on twitter

12) good luck lower courts xoxo john roberts

i plan on reading the full opinion at lunch but i am gonna Throw Up Actually

[wiisagi-maiingan]

Love trying to research politicians for extremely local ballots. All I can ever find is badly made websites in red, white, and blue that all say the same things in slightly different ways and a handful of news articles that basically are just, "yeah, this person is running for some position no one has ever heard of, no we don't know who they are or anything they stand for, mind your own fucking business."

[trexalicious]

An arrest! An arrest! Finally an arrest! She's nobody but at least it sets the precedent to arrest any judge who feels they're above the law...

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Wow. Diplomatic pressure absolutely worked. Van Hollen got in, met with Mr. Abrego, and becomes the first person to have ANY meeting with any of the people sent to El Salvador on March 15.

* * * *

Another good day in the defense of democracy.

April 18, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

It was another good day for those hoping the forces of democracy will prevail over the forces of chaos and autocracy. Four major stories frame the effective resistance that is beginning to turn the tide against Trump.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rebuked Trump’s bad-faith effort to evade responsibility for returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia—and delivered a stirring defense of the rule of law!

Harvard stood firm even as Trump expanded his illegal targeting of Harvard by threatening to exclude tens of thousands of foreign students.

GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski broke the wall of silence behind which most of her Republican colleagues are hiding, chastising them for abandoning the Constitution.

Senator Chris Van Hollen met with Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the infamous El Salvadoran prison—a testament to his persistence, resistance, and creative thinking.

Concerned citizens across America are planning another weekend of protests against the unlawful and unconstitutional actions of the Trump administration.

Finally, the damage caused by Trump’s assault on the economy is driving markets lower, forcing Trump to make a desperate and illegal threat: Removing the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Jerome Powell. The threat is a sign of weakness and fear on Trump’s part.

Let’s take a look at these stories to understand why we should move forward with confidence in our defense of the rule of law.

Fourth Circuit panel rebukes Trump over Abrego Garcia while framing the constitutional showdown in an opinion written for the American people, the Supreme Court, and Trump.

The stakes in the Abrego Garcia case pending before Judge Paula Xinis are high. She has ordered the Trump administration to participate in discovery to learn why the government has refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.

The Trump administration appealed Judge Xinis’s discovery order to the Fourth Circuit, repeating the government’s bad-faith arguments to justify its refusal to comply with the orders of Judge Xinis and the Supreme Court.

Trump then asked the 4th Circuit to stop the discovery proceedings designed to learn the “who, why, and how” of the government’s disobedience to the court’s order.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stop the discovery proceedings before Judge Xinis.

In denying the Trump administration’s request to stop the discovery ordered by Judge Xinis, the Fourth Circuit issued an extraordinary opinion that perfectly captures the conflict at the center of the Abrego Garcia case and describes the impending constitutional crisis that would be caused by Trump’s continued refusal to comply with the orders of Judge Xinis and the Supreme Court.

The relatively brief opinion by the Fourth Circuit deserves to be read in its entirety—and today, I am going to ask you to do just that. Rather than directing you to a different site to read the opinion, I have copied it below. I have removed legal citations and procedural references to make an easy-to-read opinion even more accessible.

The opinion by the Fourth Circuit perfectly frames the crisis to come while highlighting the underlying constitutional and democratic values that are at stake. I have bolded some portions of the opinion for emphasis. Otherwise, the words below are those of the Fourth Circuit in their entirety.

Abrego Garcia v Noem | No. 25-1404 | April 17, 2025

[READ MORE]

Robert B. Hubbell newsletter

[cubbihue]

mngrghghrghghghgearhgh

brainstormgmmingn... making varied fairies are hardd

[mckennalumley]

can’t stop thinking about Jeremy seeing Jean and Kevin interact up close for the first time like he knows them both separately and he’s seen first hand the way they care for one another (Kevin revealed one of his biggest secrets to Jeremy FOR Jean!! “You’re not like them. Kevin would not have sent me here if you were”!! and the classic “keep Kevin’s name out of your ignorant mouth” and the way Kevin tells Jeremy everything he can to help Jean’s transition be as easy possible and says “be careful with him”) he knows their trauma and he knows it stems from Riko but there’s no way he’s put together just how much that damaged their relationship with each other. He doesn’t know about “you didn’t have to slit my throat on the way out” for all Jeremy knows, Kevin day is going to come to California and Jean will be happy to see an old friend again and I have no idea what’s going to happen but I can’t wait to see it

[saywhat-politics]

A unanimous panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request to stay an order requiring the government to faciliate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Author: Jordan Fischer

Published: 4:24 PM EDT April 17, 2025

Updated: 5:17 PM EDT April 17, 2025

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court rejected a request by the Justice Department on Thursday to stay a district judge’s order that it facilitate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and cautioned the Trump administration its intemperance over the case was threatening a “crisis.”

In a unanimous order, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to “micromanage” the case being handled by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who earlier this week ordered the DOJ to prove it is taking steps to secure Abrego Garcia’s release from El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. Xinis’ renewed order came less than a week after the U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld a previous emergency order in a 9-0 vote.

[tomorrowusa]

Lock him up!

Bannon is a leading fascist strategist for Trump. It's too bad that their trials are in different jurisdictions. It would be fun to imagine them sharing a jail cell – material for a genuine reality show. 😝

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld former White House adviser Steve Bannon's conviction for criminal contempt of Congress. Bannon was sentenced in October 2022 to four months in prison on charges related to his refusal to testify before and provide documents to the Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. At the time, the judge also fined Bannon $6,500 but allowed the former Trump adviser to remain free while he appealed his convictions. According to Friday's order, the three-judge panel rejected Bannon's argument that he was not guilty because his "lawyer advised him not to respond to the subpoena" from Congress. Bannon could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices there previously did not help Peter Navarro, another Trump aide, to stay out of prison on similar charges.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum and Noel Sims at Popular Information:

President Trump nominated Emil Bove, his former personal attorney, to be a federal judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals — one of the most powerful judicial roles in the country. Announcing his nomination on May 28, Trump described Bove as "SMART, TOUGH, and respected by everyone." But an explosive new whistleblower disclosure released Tuesday alleges that, in his current position as a senior official in the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bove is willing to ignore federal law to give Trump what he wants.

The 35-page letter was written by lawyers representing Erez Reuveni, formerly the DOJ's Acting Deputy Director for the Office of Immigration Litigation. In that role, Reuveni was tasked with defending the Trump administration's plan, under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), to summarily deport undocumented immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran prison known for torture and human rights abuses. During a March 14, 2025, meeting, Bove told Reuveni and others that "one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend" – meaning Saturday, March 15 and Sunday, March 16. According to the whistleblower disclosure, Bove stressed "the planes needed to take off no matter what." During the discussion, Bove raised "the possibility that a court order would enjoin those removals before they could be effectuated." In that eventuality, Bove stated that the “DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order." On March 15, the ACLU "filed suit on behalf of five Venezuelan men facing imminent deportation under the AEA and moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent their removal" and the removal of other similarly situated immigrants. During the hearing, two flights destined for El Salvador took off — one at 5:26 p.m. and the second at 5:45 p.m. After listening to arguments from both sides, the judge sided with the plaintiffs at approximately 6:30 p.m. Around 6:48 p.m., Reuveni emailed officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and advised them "the judge specifically ordered us to not remove anyone in the class, and to return anyone in the air." Over the next hour, Reuveni sent numerous emails with the same information to DOJ and DHS officials. He received no response. The court issued a written order "memorializing its TRO" at 7:23 p.m.

On March 16 at 12:23 a.m., Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told Reuveni that Bove had decided the flights could continue to El Salvador and "no violation of the court order had occurred because the two planes left U.S. airspace before the court's written …order." Further, "Bove had advised DHS that under the court order, it was permissible to deplane individuals on the flights that departed U.S. airspace" before the written order was issued. An order from a federal judge is binding regardless of whether it has been issued in writing. Bove followed through on his threat to ignore the courts so that the Trump administration could complete its scheduled deportations.

[...]

A corrupt bargain

On September 24, 2024, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was indicted on "bribery, campaign finance, and conspiracy offenses." The detailed indictment alleged that Adams "abused his power and position for nearly a decade, obtaining personal benefits and illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals, and others, giving them undue influence over him." In return for "illegal campaign contributions and luxury travel," the indictment alleges that Adams used his official position to benefit his patrons, including pressuring "the New York City Fire Department to facilitate the opening of a foreign government’s Manhattan skyscraper that had not passed a fire inspection." After Trump took office, Bove directed then-acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon to dismiss the charges against Adams. Bove suggested, without evidence, that Adams was indicted because he "criticized the prior Administration’s immigration policies." Bove said that, in exchange for the dismissal, Adams would provide support for the Trump administration's immigration policy. Sassoon refused to comply with Bove's directive. Instead, she submitted a resignation letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, stating that dismissing the charges against Adams was "inconsistent with my ability and duty to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor and to advance good-faith arguments before the courts." Sassoon said Bove appeared to be arguing that "Adams should receive leniency for federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position and can use that position to assist in the Administration’s policy priorities."

A second federal prosecutor, Hagan Scotten, also refused Bove's order. In his resignation letter, Scotten wrote, "[O]ur laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way."

[...]

Purging DOJ staff who upheld the law after January 6

Bove issued two memos that described the successful prosecution of hundreds of people who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a "grave national injustice." In furtherance of an executive order signed by Trump, Bove fired DOJ staffers who were involved in upholding the law.

Unethical Trump lackey Emil Bove has been nominated to a 3rd Circuit Court seat.

Call or email your Senators and tell them to reject the appointment of a dangerous MAGA judicial activist on the court!

See Also:

Talking Feds (Harry Litman): The Wrong Man for the Job

[theclockistickingwrite]

https://archiveofourown.org/works/65886094

The Devil's Loose Inside

Neil looks down. He says, in French, “are you ever going to stop being afraid when you look at me?”

It’s a cruel fucking question. Kevin says, “don’t ask when you already know the answer.”

(The Foxes, despite everything, still trapped and biting themselves bloody)