#Judicial Review Application

[lexlawuk]

Comprehensive Guide on Judicial Review

A judicial review is a vital legal recourse available to challenge decisions made in asylum, immigration, or human rights applications, often involving decisions by the Home Office or other relevant authorities. Unlike typical appeals, judicial review focuses on assessing whether the law has been correctly applied and if the proper procedures have been followed. When to Consider Bringing a…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: SEGM

Published: Aug 13, 2023

Near-zero regret” findings among adults suffer from a critical risk of bias and have low applicability to youth

Recent research published in JAMA Surgery evaluated satisfaction and regret among individuals who had undergone chest masculinizing mastectomy at the University of Michigan hospital. The average patient age at the time of mastectomy was 27 years; no patients who were under age 18 were allowed to participate in the study.

The participants reported high levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret at an average of 3.6 years following mastectomy. The study authors lauded the “overwhelmingly low levels of regret following gender-affirming surgery,” and framed their findings as in conflict with the “increasing legislative interest in regulating gender-affirming surgery,” referring to current legislative attempts to restrict or ban “gender-affirming” procedures for minors. Another group of authors provided an invited commentary on the paper, reinforcing the view held by the study authors, and asserting the presence of a “double standard:” “gender-affirming” mastectomies have come under undue scrutiny by states’ legislators, while other surgical procedures with higher regret rates do not appear to concern legislative bodies.

The study suffers from serious methodological limitations, which render the findings of high levels of long-term satisfaction with mastectomy among adults at a "critical risk of bias"—the lowest rating according to the Risk of Bias (ROBINS-I) analysis. ROBINS-I is used to assess non-randomized studies for methodological bias. The "critical risk of bias" rating signals that the results reported by the study may substantially deviate from the truth. The results also suffer from low applicability to the central issue the study and the invited commentary sought to address, which was whether legislative attempts to regulate “gender-affirming” surgeries are warranted in minors. Unfortunately, these highly questionable findings are misrepresented as certain and highly positive by both the study authors and the invited commentators, several of whom have significant conflicts of interest.

Below, we provide a detailed explanation of the key methodological issues in the study which render its claims untrustworthy and not applicable to the patient population at the center of the debate: youth undergoing gender reassignment. We also comment on the alarming trend: several prestigious scientific journals appear to have deviated from their previously high standards for scholarly work and instead have become vehicles for promoting poor-quality research, seemingly to influence judicial policy decisions rather than advance scientific understanding. We conclude with recommendations about how journal editors can restore the integrity of scientific debate and raise the bar on the quality of published studies in the field of gender medicine.

[ For in-depth analysis, see: https://segm.org/long-term-regret-satisfaction-mastectomy-critical-appraisal ]

SEGM Take-Aways

Although this study reports extremely high rates of satisfaction and low regret, the timeframe in which these outcomes were assessed is insufficient—just 3.6 years post-mastectomy on average. The sample is also highly skewed: 50% of the participants had mastectomies in the last 3.6 of the 30 years. This skewing of the length of time since surgery is expected, given the sharp rise in the number of people (especially adolescents and young adults) identifying as transgender and undergoing chest masculinization mastectomy. It is also a short time in which to assess regret, particularly since one quarter of study participants were younger than age 23 at time of surgery and the median age of first birth in the US is 30 years.

The conclusion of high satisfaction/low regret suffers from a critical risk of bias due to the high non-participation rate, important differences between participants and non-participants, and lack of control group. Problematically, the authors misuse the (critically-biased) results from adults to argue against regulations for irreversible body alternations for minors and do so with a decidedly politicized spin.

The only intellectually honest commentary is that we do not have good knowledge of the likely rates of detransition and regret following chest masculinization mastectomy, nor do we know how many people experience regret but remain transitioned. There is an urgent need for quality research in this area. Previously, detransition and regret rates were considered to be low: they may have indeed been low due to the much more rigorous screenings, or the results may have been biased by the notoriously high dropout rates that plague “regret” research. Regardless, there is now growing evidence of much higher rates of medical detransition.

A recent study from a comprehensive U.S. dataset with no loss to follow-up revealed a 36% medical detransition rate among females within just 4 years of starting hormonal transition. At least two recent studies suggest that average time to regret among recently-transitioned females is about 3-5 years, but there is a wide range. Much less is known about detransition among those who undergo surgery. A growing number of detransitioners now express regret associated with the loss of breastfeeding ability, with one case study detailing breastfeeding grief experienced some 15 years post-mastectomy.

The study and invited commentary exemplify three problematic trends that plague studies emerging from the gender clinics: problematic conflicts of interest of the authors; leveraging scientific journals to disguise politically-motivated pieces as quality research; and a conflicted stance by the gender medicine establishment on surgery for minors. We expand on each briefly below.

Conflicts of interest of study authors and commentators 

The significant conflicts of interest of the gender clinicians who study and report on the outcomes of “gender-affirming” interventions cannot be overlooked. These clinicians are conflicted financially, since their practices specialize in “gender-affirming” interventions, as well as intellectually. While conflicts of interest among experts are common, such experts should still attempt to be balanced in their discussions and should acknowledge and reflect on their conflicts of interest.

The interpretations of the data in the study is neither rigorous nor balanced, and both the study and the invited commentary have a decidedly political spin. Further, the invited politicized commentary does not disclose that at least one of the authors is a key expert witness opposing states’ efforts to regulate “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors. This role alone precludes the ability to provide a balanced commentary.

There is a fundamental problem with research emerging from gender clinic settings. The same clinicians provide gender-transitioning treatments to individual patients in their practice; serve as primary investigators and custodians of data used in research informing population health policies; and increasingly, provide paid expert witness testimony in courts defending the unrestricted availability of hormonal and surgical interventions for minors.

As a result, such clinicians cannot express nuanced perspectives. Since any balanced statements may be used against them in a court of law when they serve as expert witnesses, they must resort to the lowest common denominator of the "winner-takes-all" adversarial approach. Such an approach does not tolerate nuance. Unfortunately, this approach contributes to the erosion of the quality of the published work in the arena of gender medicine and accelerates loss of trust about the integrity of the scientific process.

Misuse of scientific publications to promote politically-motivated articles disguised as scientific research

That prestigious medical journals now serve as platforms for promoting misleading, politically motivated research that aims to apply a veneer of misplaced confidence in  highly invasive, irreversible treatment should worry everyone committed to evidence-based medicine and the integrity of science. Moreover, it impairs our ability to accurately assess and improve the long-term health outcomes of the rapidly growing numbers of gender-diverse and gender-distressed youths.

This is not the first time that a JAMA has been used as a platform for positioning advocacy for “gender-affirming” care as scientific research. In 2022, JAMA Pediatrics published a study that assessed bodily happiness in a group of subjects aged 14-24 three months after chest masculinization mastectomy. Despite the very short follow up and dropout rate of 13%, the authors argued that their findings supported the premise that there was no evidence to suggest that young age should delay surgery. They also asserted that their research would help dispel the misconception that such surgeries are experimental. The editorial commissioned to bolster the authors claims was descriptively titled, “Top surgery in adolescents and young adults-effective and medically necessary.”

Another troubling trend is the misuse of statistical tools to reframe research findings that contradict the author's own position. For example, a well-known study that claimed that access to puberty blockers reduce the risk of suicide disregarded the fact that individuals reporting use of puberty blockers use had twice as many recent serious suicide attempts as their peers who did not use puberty blockers. Like the finding cited above, the doubling of suicide attempts was not statistically significant due to a small underpowered sample—but the magnitude of the effect was striking and should have tempered the authors’ enthusiastic conclusion that puberty blockers prevent suicides. Another recent gender clinic study, widely and positively covered by major media outlets, claimed that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones led to plummeting rate of depression—even though the rate of depression among youth taking those medications remained demonstrably unchanged. More information about problems with research originating from gender clinics is detailed in this recent analysis.

Gender medicine’s stance on pediatric surgery

More generally, the gender medicine establishment is in a curious state of internal conflict about its stance on “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors.  On the one hand, it has become common for advocates of “gender-affirmation” of minors to insist that surgeries for minors are not performed and anyone who suggests otherwise is spreading “scientific misinformation” and “science denialism.”  On the other hand, gender clinicians publish mastectomy outcomes for minors in major medical journals, and laud surgeries for minors as “effective and medically necessary.” It is not uncommon for these opposing claims to be made by the same group of researchers and clinicians, as they test various arguments, searching for the "angle" that is most likely to convince judges and juries--and public at large--that scrutiny of the practice of pediatric transitions, which is increasingly occurring in European countries, is not warranted in the United States.

Notably, none of the European countries that are enacting severe restrictions on the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for minors have ever allowed surgeries for youth under 18. That the U.S. gender affirmation professionals continue to fight regulation of these problematic procedures speaks volumes about how far the U.S. healthcare has drifted when it comes to "gender affirmation" of minors.

Final thoughts

While it is challenging to determine how best to reduce the temperature of the highly politicized nature of the debate in gender medicine, the editors of scientific journals can begin to restore balance by recognizing how far the field has drifted from the standards of quality scientific research, and begin to expand their circle of peer-reviewers to those with diverse views. Inviting those concerned with the state of gender medicine (and not just the practices’ advocates) into the peer-review and commentary process is the first essential step to improve the quality of research published in the field of gender medicine.

--

--

==

The activists are predictably - and consistent with the superficiality of their own ideology - upset that anyone should look below the surface. It seems to be more troubling that anyone would notice the shoddiness of the research, than that the research is shoddy.

If this is supposed to be "healthcare," you would think that they would want the best healthcare, and be more alarmed at the misrepresentations of the study, than by people finding those misrepresentations.

Could it be that this is ideological rather than medical? 🤔

The conflicts of interest and funding sources alone are remarkable.

[starseedpatriot]

🇨🇦 Breaking: Federal Court Declares Justin Castro’s Use of the Emergency Act Unconstitutional. 🇨🇦

The decision follows an application for judicial review launched by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and several other applicants in 2022 after the emergency measures were used to end the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa.

The measures controversially allowed the government to freeze the bank accounts of protesters, conscript tow truck drivers, and arrest people for participating in assemblies the government deemed illegal.

The court declared that the decision to issue the Proclamation and associated Regulations and Order was unreasonable and beyond the scope of the Emergencies Act.

https://theccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/EA-challenge-fed-court-reasons-FINAL.pdf

🥑 Please share: @davidavocadowolfe 🥑

[thewomenofwindsor]

Prince Harry was forced to apologise after breaking confidentiality rules in his own High Court case by sharing private information with Johnny Mercer.

Court documents reveal that the Duke of Sussex emailed the veterans minister confidential information concerning his security claim against the Home Office.

The Duke has long shared a close bond with Mr Mercer, with both having served in Afghanistan.

Mr Mercer is a vocal supporter of the Invictus Games and is spearheading the Government’s attempt to host the 2027 event in Birmingham. The pair were photographed drinking pints of beer together at last year’s event in Dusseldorf, Germany.

Mr Justice Lane revealed the Duke’s indiscretion in a costs ruling handed down on Monday concerning his failed application for a judicial review.

He said: “In November 2023, the claimant breached the terms of the confidentiality ring order by emailing certain information to a partner of Schillings, who was not within the confidentiality ring, and to the Rt Hon Johnny Mercer MP.”

The breach was almost immediately detected by the Duke’s own barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, who promptly informed his solicitor, Jenny Afia, who works for Schillings.

“She in turn informed the defendant (via the Government Legal Department) as well as taking action to minimise the effects of the breach,” the judge said.

The Home Office argued that such breaches, for which the judge said the Duke had apologised, caused it to incur unnecessary costs.

The judge said he did not wish to minimise the “seriousness” of the breach but concluded that it did not have any bearing on the overall determination of costs.

[singlecrow]

Yuletide this year! Firstly this:

In the Consul's Court of Archon's Glory // Applicant No. #001 (on the instigation of the Temple of the White Rat) (5971 words) by raven Fandom: The Saint of Steel - T. Kingfisher Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Characters: Zale (The Saint of Steel), Bishop Beartongue (The Saint of Steel), Galen (The Saint of Steel), Wren (The Saint of Steel) Additional Tags: Slice of Life, the Temple of the White Rat, no spoilers for Paladin's Faith, Yuletide Treat

Administrative public law concerns the proper relations between government and governed; or, to put it another way, Zale and Bishop Beartongue have had it with this shit.

This is a treat for @naomitess, and I’m pretty sure a bunch of people guessed it was me just from the summary. Anyway it was a delight to do! and an interesting process in its way. I loved the idea of Bishop Beartongue inventing judicial review but it struck me right away that it couldn’t be American judicial review. It’s not fancy, like American judicial review is - none of this testing of lower court holdings and whatnot in high-profile whatevers. What she’s invented is ordinary administrative judicial review: the idea that any action taken by a public authority must be rational, legal and procedurally correct. Which is, I think, an interesting thought in the context of the White Rat. Because, you know, large-scale generation-defining constitutional law is fine. (It’s ok i guess. fine.) But my training and everyone’s training is one-man-and-a-dog JRs. I had probably done hundreds of them before I did the big stuff you’ve heard of. So none of this means that Bishop Beartongue and Zale can’t topple the Archon, it’s only that if they do, it begins with one person, some phallic mishaps and a horrendous stone gargoyle, and a whole bunch of other apparently inconsequential things. So that was great fun, and it turns out Beartongue is still my favourite. I wish someone would write me 50k of her just doing her thing.

The other story is my assigned story and the one that got wildly out of hand. It’s for a piece at McSweeney’s called We Are a Picturesque Small Town And We Refuse to Be The Setting For Your Romantic Comedy. That piece is delightful and hilarious! It’s 500w! And somehow I ended up writing a 9000-word romantic comedy that's essentially original f/f SF. If you like my pro work you will probably like it. At least I hope you do, I enjoyed writing it very much.

spirit falling (a ship's proper motion) (8723 words) by raven Fandom: We Are A Picturesque Small Town And We Refuse To Be The Setting For Your RomCom - Rachel McKenny Characters: Original Characters, Medical Practitioner (Picturesque Small Town), Chet Anderson (Picturesque Small Town) Additional Tags: Romance, Alien Cultural Differences, Telepathy, Alternate Universe - Science Fiction, Alternate Universe - Space, Romantic Comedy

While the aliens are on board, there will be no romance on the good ship Spirit Falling.

None.

Zero.

(Everything is fine.)

[mus1g4]

Thank you for your wonderful pictures! I was wondering what do you think about people who have actually been to prison? Will this prevent me from going to Hampton?

You're very welcome. I love doing this blog.

Anyone who has been to prison has had one Hell of a trauma. And, I also recognize that errors can be made in our judicial system. Finally I believe we all make mistakes in varying degrees. Because of that, I make individual judgements on people who have been to prison.

We review every application for our role play and specifically ask if you have served prison time. We make individual assessments on an applicant, but will reject anyone convicted of a violent crime, a crime involving weapons, or personal injury.

Question about History of Real Prison Time in Role Play

[allthecanadianpolitics]

A group of Canadian conservationists says it has launched a legal challenge against Ottawa's $2 billion plan for an expanded container terminal in Delta, B.C.

The David Suzuki Foundation, Georgia Strait Alliance, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Committee say they have filed an application for a judicial review in federal court under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 

"The federal government has failed Canadians by approving this new terminal. Their own environmental review showed this project could condemn southern resident killer whales, and the chinook salmon they depend on, to extinction," said Jeffery Young, senior science and policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation.

The 2020 report by a federal review panel found a new terminal would result in the destruction of the protected killer whale's critical habitat.

But in April, Ottawa announced it had approved the expansion plans — which would see an additional 2.4 million 20-foot shipping containers go through the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 each year — saying the move will open up Canada's throttled marine supply chain. [...]

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Cathy Wilcox, Sydney Morning Herald

* * * *

GOP in full panic mode.

June 6, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Republicans are scared. They understand that Trump's conviction for election interference is a devastating blow that threatens their prospects in November. If they lose—and they should—their eight-year delirium will come crashing to an end like a bad acid trip. MAGA extremism will not recede entirely, but its high-water mark will be in the past.

That prospect frightens MAGA to its core because they understand they have no vision, no organizing principles, no plan other than revenge—Trump's revenge to be exacted in a second term. If they lose that dark animus, the GOP’s reason for existence evaporates.

The surest sign of the GOP’s panic is the apoplectic rage that characterizes the ugly threats of Republican officials and surrogates after the guilty verdicts. They have lost their collective minds and their grip on reality, history, humanity, decency, and rationality. Their threats are a sign of weakness—not strength! Like the threats of schoolyard bullies everywhere, they emerge from deep-seated fear and insecurity; they are designed to conceal the underlying panic of imposters worried they will be found out for who they really are.

Still, Trump and his surrogates' parade of threats and lawless actions is difficult to bear—especially when they pile upon one another as they did on Wednesday. But as we review those actions, remember that they are signs of desperation and fear by a party on the run. All it took to put the GOP into full panic mode was a verdict by twelve randomly selected citizens who heard the truth about Trump's corruption.

We should not dismiss the revenge fantasies of the Convicted Felon and his pathetic homunculi. But we must keep them in perspective. For all the wild talk about retribution, House Republicans could not impeach Joe Biden despite holding control of the House for the last two years. And after a four-year investigation of Hunter Biden, the best (or worst?) the Trump-appointed special counsel could do was allege that Hunter denied he was an addict on a standard form gun purchase application and paid four years of taxes late.

So, we should take the Convicted Felon’s threats seriously, but we should recognize that MAGA has a dismal track record of delivering on their revenge fantasies.

With that preface, let’s look at the various ways that MAGA extremists are seeking to protect Convicted Felon Trump after 34-guilty verdicts.

Speaker Mike Johnson floated the idea of defunding special counsel Jack Smith, something he rejected in early May (before the guilty verdicts).

Senate Republicans have signed a letter vowing not to cooperate on any legislation that does not directly relate to public safety.

Convicted Felon Trump said that “it’s very possible that it’s gonna have to happen”—referring to locking up his political enemies.

Steve Bannon—a surrogate of the Convicted Felon—said that District Attorney Alvin Brag “should be—and will be—jailed.”

Bannon also said that “media allies” of Biden should be “investigated.”

The Felon’s architect of the Muslim ban—Steven Miller—asked, “Is every House committee controlled by Republicans using its subpoena power in every way it needs to right now? Is every Republican DA starting every investigation they need to right now.”

GOP Rep. Ronny Jackson said “he would encourage Congress to ‘aggressively go after’ President Biden and his family.”

The Felon’s judicial allies are also doing their best to protect him from further criminal jeopardy:

First, the US Supreme Court continues to delay its ruling on Felon Trump's baseless claim of presidential immunity for his attempted coup and insurrection. Every day that the Court delays its decision makes trial in the DC election interference case less likely. The Court’s glacial response to a matter of national urgency is reprehensible. And transparently partisan.

Second, the Georgia court of appeals issued a stay of the trial proceedings in the state RICO prosecution of Felon Trump for interfering in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election. See CNN Politics, Donald Trump election subversion conspiracy case indefinitely paused by Georgia appeals court.

The stay of the Georgia case is worrisome. Per the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the court of appeals issued a stay on its own motion. AJC writes:

Because none of the defendants had requested a stay, this means the appeals court decided on its own to issue the stay, leading some observers to speculate the court may ultimately reverse McAfee’s decision and disqualify Willis and her office. The appeals court, if it agrees to hold oral arguments, has indicated it will do so some time in the fall, and it must issue its decision by mid-March [2025].

As Joyce Vance noted,

“Unlike federal courts where judges are appointed for life, Georgia elects its judges in races that are non-partisan in name only, with predictable results.”

So, unless and until a different prosecutor replaces Willis, the Georgia case is going nowhere. And if Fani Willis removes herself, it is not clear that a different prosecutor would pursue the case. I do not know how Willis would be replaced if she voluntarily steps down, but per NBC,

Under a 2022 Georgia law, when a district attorney is disqualified, the case is referred to the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, who is tasked with finding another prosecutor for the case.

If Willis is disqualified on appeal, we should expect the appointment of a prosecutor who will dismiss the case.

Third, Judge Aileen Cannon has dropped all pretense of presiding over a criminal trial involving unlawful retention of defense secrets and is converting her courtroom into a theater-in-the-round for right-wing attacks on the special counsel appointment process. In a move so unusual it has never happened before, Judge Cannon invited strangers to the Trump defense secrets case to submit briefs and present oral argument over a day-and-a-half hearing.

The challenges to the appointment of Jack Smith are baseless. Similar challenges have been rejected numerous times. But Cannon seems intent on fabricating a record to justify removal of Jack Smith. See Salon, "Not normal at all": Legal experts say Judge Cannon's "absurd" ruling shows she's an "absolute hack".

Meanwhile, Cannon has not ruled on Jack Smith’s request for a protective order to protect FBI agents and other witnesses from Felon Trump's dangerous accusations that they had orders to “shoot to kill” him during the search of Mar-a-Lago.

It is difficult to describe how inappropriate and unprecedented Cannon’s actions are. While we should avoid falling into conspiracy theories, it seems doubtful that Cannon came up with the stagecraft of a right-wing assault on the special counsel in her courtroom on her own. A plausible explanation is that she is being coached by political operatives working for Convicted Felon Trump.

All the above reeks of desperation to protect Trump from further political damage. Those who humiliate themselves and undermine democracy to protect Trump will be remembered by history alongside those faithless servants who abandoned America during prior crises. In the meantime, recognize that their angry outbursts are signs that they are running scared. They can visualize life after the Convicted Felon has been defeated and they understand they have given up everything for the worst president in American history.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[mariacallous]

so what's next in American Judicial Antics? 5th circuit issuing a nationwide injunction requiring everyone to vote for trump? SCOTUS ruling that corporations have a constitutional right to poison the water?

Here's the cases SCOTUS agreed to hear (so far) and will issue rulings on by next June:

Williams v. Washington, No. 23-191

Issue(s): Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466

Issue(s): (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.

Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852

Issue(s): (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621

Issue(s): (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.

Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 23-713

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.

Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677

Issue(s): (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Medical Marijuana v. Horn, No. 23-365

Issue(s): Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, No. 23-583

Issue(s): Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-753

Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Delligatti v. U.S., No. 23-825

Issue(s): Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra, No. 23-715

Issue(s): Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980

Issue(s): Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.

E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, No. 23-217

Issue(s): Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Kousisis v. U.S., No. 23-909

Issue(s): (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”

NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, No. 23-970

Issue(s): (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., ex rel. Todd Heath, No. 23-1127

Issue(s): Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, No. 23-861

Issue(s): Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

Republic of Hungary v. Simon, No. 23-867

Issue(s): (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975

Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, No. 23-900

Issue(s): Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, No. 23-997

Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.

U.S. v. Miller, No. 23-824

Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.

U.S. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477

Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

President Trump Special Counsel “Election Interference Case” in DC Suspended Indefinitely

February 2, 2024

In the ridiculous federal election interference case in D.C., President Trump’s attorneys argued to the DC Circuit appellate court that President Trump holds inherent constitutional immunity. In essence, because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of claims he incited or instigated the January 6, 2021, events, lawyers arguing under the constitution that only impeached and removed presidents can be criminally prosecuted.

From the Comments:

The initial 3-judge panel of the court has taken up the appeal, and all subsequent lower court activity was suspended until the constitutional issue is resolved. Again, if President Trump does not have immunity, then all preceding and future presidents can be criminally prosecuted for any/all events and decisions while holding office. This is a core issue, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has to tread very carefully with these ramifications at the forefront.

The decision of the 3-judge panel could also be followed by a full en-banc review by all judges in the circuit. Then, depending on their decision, it could -likely will- go even higher to the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this takes time, and the initial 3-judge appeals court have not provided any hints on their timeline.

Apparently, as a consequence, the entire trial of the case has been removed from the lower DC court docket. The removal took place within the last few days, and the Washington Post noticed the removal. This removal means the timing of the case, if at all, is completely unknown now.

WASHINGTON – Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.

The change did not appear on the official criminal case docket before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has made clear since Trump filed his appeal on Dec. 7 that all trial deadlines would be suspended while he challenges the case. On appeal, Trump is arguing that the government does not have authority under the Constitution to bring charges against him for actions he took while president after the 2020 election through the Jan. 6, 2021. (read more)

In addition to the challenges within these core issues, the Lawfare approach by Jack Smith, Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann, faces multiple additional hurdles.  These are all issues that surface when Lawfare, the application of twisted legal theory intended to manipulate public opinion, runs into the reality of ever-increasing scrutiny from courts.

Combine these fraudulent legal theories with the reality that President Trump’s status is almost certainly “presumptive presidential nominee” in the eyes of the entire judicial branch, and things change.  The pretending justification for the Lawfare claims now hit the non-pretending and visible reality of political intent.

The judicial scrutiny gets even more focused, and the explanations demanded as justifications to target President Trump increase.  As the calendar of the November election gets closer Jack, Mary and Andrew will have to rely on ideologically aligned black robes to maintain their Lawfare pretense.  Some of the robes will not be comfortable with the demands of Jack, Mary and Andrew.

Some of the robes may not pretend, and that poses a problem for Jack, Mary and Andrew.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Judges in the United Kingdom have expressed concerns over church leaders being misled or "duped" by asylum seekers who convert to Christianity to evade deportation.

A series of judicial decisions reveal investigators questioned whether clergy and lay leaders did enough to scrutinize the motives of supposed converts before supporting their asylum applications.

Immigration tribunal decisions reviewed by The Telegraph show the Home Office has repeatedly questioned the depth to which religious leaders are probing migrants’ intentions behind converting from Islam to Christianity...

[lexlawuk]

Judicial Review: Pre-Action Protocol

Embarking on the journey of challenging a decision made by the Home Office can be a complex and daunting endeavour. Whether it’s about obtaining entry clearance, leave to remain, or settlement rights, individuals often find themselves entangled in legal intricacies. Understanding the Pre-Action Protocol is crucial in navigating this process smoothly. This protocol, enshrined within the Civil…

[noirandchocolate]

Judge whose opinion I'm reviewing today has a major Thing about sprinkling Latin phrases around but then not citing to any cases within this jurisdiction to support his application of those concepts.

"Applying the canon of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the court finds . . . ." Okay boss but that canon doesn't exist in a vacuum and you should really cite a New Jersey case that says we apply it. We DO, but...this is a judicial opinion that's going to be published. You need to cite actual sources not nebulous concepts.

EDIT: I have just realized that, even worse, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" isn't even the most appropriate phrase for what he's trying to say.

[sabakos]

I tried to find out if Derrida had ever responded to the open letter where several analytic philosophers requested that Cambridge not award him an honorary degree on the basis that his work was nonsense, and found this instead:

In 1990, Derrida signed an agreement to donate his scholarly papers to [UC Irvine], where he taught part time. But after his death in 2004, Derrida’s heirs began questioning the pact. The university tried to negotiate, then sued three months ago, a maneuver that outraged professors in California and beyond.

Oh huh, that sounds pretty serious. Wonder what that was about...

According to multiple sources, Derrida wanted UCI to halt its investigation of a Russian studies professor, Dragan Kujundzic, who was accused of sexually harassing a 25-year-old female doctoral student. So he tried to use his archives as leverage to derail the case, they said. UCI officials declined to comment on Derrida’s letter or Kujundzic last week. But court records from a lawsuit filed by the doctoral student might fill in some of the gaps. The 2004 sexual harassment lawsuit contends that Kujundzic, who taught a popular class on vampires and signed his e-mails with a colon to symbolize Dracula bite marks, used his position as the student’s advisor to manipulate her into a series of sexual encounters.

Well, that's certainly an ethics violation at least, which at least ought to be grounds for dismissal if the allegations could be proven. Unfortunately for Derrida, there wasn't much plausible deniability.

Kujundzic, 47, who left Irvine in 2005 for a job at the University of Florida, told campus investigators the fling was “voluntary and consensual.” The student said she felt coerced to engage in sex or risk having her academic career ruined.

But of course it gets worse. The letter Derrida wrote to UCI's chancellor itself was online until recently, because some of Derrida's colleagues were somehow under the impression that this would help "clear things up" with regards to how Derrida has been misrepresented by the LA times.

These are some highlights of what Derrida's supporters thought would make him look favorable.

I will begin by making it unequivocally clear that I fully approve the principles of all rules meant to prevent, or even to repress, the kinds of behavior defined in the United States as “sexual harassment.” In their principle, these laws seem to me just and useful. But everyone knows that, in practice, they can give rise to applications that are abusive, capricious, or even perverse and deceitful—often devastating for the person, reputation, and career of those who are unjustly victimized by frequently malevolent maneuvers and sometimes by judicial errors.

I have especially heard said that, without even envisaging all sorts of intermediary stages, the provision of a whole range sanctions or warnings, a recommendation has already been made to apply the worst possible sanction of last resort: the exclusion of our colleague from UCI. Why has such a precipitous action been considered? Why go so quickly and so far?

The truth is this:  if the scandalous procedure initiated against Dragan Kujundzic were not to be interrupted or cancelled, for all the reasons I have just laid out, if a sanction of whatever sort were allowed to sully both his honor and the honor of the university, I would sadly be obliged to put an end, immediately, to all my relations with UCI.  The somber and tragic hypothesis of such transgressions (which I wish still to exclude) would mean, quite obviously, that I would neither attend nor participate in the widely international conference in October that is devoted to me and was organized, precisely, by Dragan.

So in addition to both rebutting good faith attempts at engage with his "work" by Searle and others, and subsequently ignoring all other future negative reviews and criticisms, he apparently found the time to try to throw his weight around the UC system to get them to drop an investigation into his colleague, despite said colleague admitting guilt! And UC Irvine, for their own lack of taste or seriousness, still maintains his archive up until 1998, while the last six years of Derrida's life are presumably still held by his estate.

[girlactionfigure]

Hat tip to 

@DanielLiv109

 - nothing could be more irrelevant to the well-being of Israel right now than the antics of the Squad, what Ken Roth tweets, etc.  The country is in the midst of its greatest political crisis in decades, and appears to be on the cusp of a bona fide security crisis.  

Reasonable people can disagree about judicial reform, but in a country without a Constitution, checks and balances have to be calibrated very carefully, and it is my strong view that this should only happen on the basis of broad consensus - not be crammed down by a narrow parliamentary majority (that hinges on extremists like Ben Gvir and Smotrich).  The Supreme Court's current power of judicial review is too extensive and subjective in application, but neutering it is not the answer.  

Yes, elections have consequences, but this is akin to a narrow U.S. Congressional majority amending the Constitution to seriously curtail the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.

That said, the country still requires defending.  The degradation of the battle readiness of the IDF from widespread cessation of reserve service will be difficult to recover from.   

If G-d forbid Israel came under attack, I do trust that the great majority of objectors would resume their duties, but it's not like flipping a switch.

Evil men in Tehran, the southern suburbs of Beirut, the Beqaa valley, the Syrian Golan, Gaza, Jenin and elsewhere watch and salivate.

One positive note - while Israel is manifestly on the cusp of becoming less democratic, the great hue and cry we are seeing is a testament to the conscientiousness and love of country of the people of Israel, and far from signaling fundamental weakness, the fact that the mass protests are so sustained and peaceful must be a source of admiration in a region still marred by the deep scars of Arab Spring violence and decades of authoritarian rule.

@K_AminThaabet

[pardoncaptainkidd]

We have news to share - The Ministry of Justice has responded with a denial for Captain Kidd’s Royal Prerogative of Mercy application. 

This does NOT mean we are done here! Mr./Ms. E Peck was kind enough to provide an outline when cases like this typically are approved:

“Use of Royal Prerogative powers are subject to the common law duties of fairness and reason and to support effective administration. There are a number of longstanding conventions that I consider when reviewing an application. These are:  

it is impractical for the case to go to court, or all other judicial routes have been exhausted. 

new evidence has come to light which demonstrates conclusively that either no offence was committed or that the defendant did not commit the offence. 

taking into account all the circumstances in the grant of a full pardon, that the person was morally and technically innocent of the crime.”

With this in mind, the Pardon Captain Kidd movement can confidently state that new evidence HAS indeed come to light proving Captain Kidd did not commit piracy. 

Additionally, E Peck was helpful in providing their thoughts on this movement and suggestions of other revenues we can take:

“I have considered whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that he exercise his powers under section 16 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to refer your application on behalf of Captain Kidd for an exercise of the RPM to the CCRC. However, I have not found a compelling reason to make such a recommendation and I am mindful of the Commission’s finite resources which in my view are better utilised in considering current cases rather than a case which concluded 300 years ago and where there appears to be no public interest in the Commission devoting its limited resource investigating it at the expense of current cases.” “Until the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has been approached and made a finding on Captain Kidd’s case, the full range of judicial routes cannot be held to have been exhausted. It is convention that no recommendation of RPM will be made whilst there remains a judicial route available.”

This tells us that RPM does not consider this movement worth their time and resources. However, with both the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Secretary of State mentioned, we think gathering more general interest and precise delivery of the new evidence for Captain Kidd’s innocence is still a hopeful revenue. Additionally, the Law Centres Network was recommended as an outlet to us as well.

SO WHAT’S NEXT? The Pardon Captain Kidd movement has more letters to submit - to the Secretary of State and to members of the Law Centres Network. Follow us here for more updates on this!

HOW CAN YOU HELP? We are once again requesting anyone interested in showing their backing and interest in this movement to please submit their full names for letters to these revenues. You can do so by filling out our contact form on our site here.

We also take donations that help us pay for supplies for physical letters and postage on our GoFundMe.