Right. The point of my post — and I apologize if this was already screamingly obvious to you — was that Lizard was joking about something that actually existed, not about a scenario he made up
Lizard is joking about Sealand. james.grimmelmann.net/files/articl...
Possibly using as a source someone who got it from Brimelow (or got it from someone who got it from him). But Brimelow seems to be where it started
Also, she's not in fact Jewish. Grim is picking up on a story started by Peter Brimelow (!), who confused her with a different person with the same name.
Not to mention that the right of noncitizens not to be deported without due process (much less sent without due process to a torture prison from which nobody had ever been released) is way more clearly established than the unconstitutionality of those maps
We had state-level prohibition laws as early as the 1850s, and the Supreme Court upheld them in Mugler v. KS (1887). We had to amend the constitution to do it nationally.
I can make predictions. Doesn’t mean I’m confident in them
Prediction: Unanimous in result, but some number of Justices taking the position that they needn’t decide the constitutional issue because challengers win on statutory grounds. (I wrote one of the briefs making the statutory argument.)
What’s with the non-chronological list and leaving out four of the last five years? (I’m fine with the takeaway, but the quoted data presentation is awful)
This last caveat is important: Techitat ha-meitim is "canonical" for the orthodox who make up 9% of U.S. Judaism. But a Pew Research survey broke out "Jews by religion" from "Jews of no religion," and even within the former group, only 1/3 believed in the God of the Bible. So what's canonical?
The problem here isn't that; it's the Court's 6-3 opinion in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez (2022), stripping the courts of the power to order class-wide injunctive relief in immigration detention cases. Otherwise, class certification would have gotten us past the bar on nationwide injunctions
The problem with Slotkin isn’t that “purity voters would stay home” and we’d lose; it’s that after we win, we’d be stuck with a VP who voted for the anti-immigrant Laken Riley Act and couldn’t bring herself just now to sign a brief supporting birthright citizenship
@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social is amazing. Another person who does terrific work is @austinkocher.com
The city doesn’t think that ICE’s building its own treatment plant will do the job. www.socialcirclega.gov/Home/Components/News/News/241/16
Here's the brief that Linus Chan, Doug Jensen and I just filed in the birthright citizenship litigation in the Supreme Court on behalf of 216 Members of Congress.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
100 years ago, the “Immigration Bureau” was part of the Labor Dept. In 1919-20, Assistant Sec'y of Labor Louis Post stood alone against anti-“Red" hysteria & blocked thousands of deportations. So J Edgar Hoover smeared him and tried to get him impeached. Post won. Victories are possible
I worked for the federal government (briefly) in the Olden Days, and people in EOP were treated as speaking for the President, bc if push came to shove the President would probably back them up, and it wasn’t in your interest to put that to the test
Even without any explicit remedies, people are often more reluctant to break explicit rules they’ve agreed to in an official-looking signed document than they are to disrespect norms
@austinkocher.com asks the right questions at austinkocher.substack.com/p/instead-of...
8 USC 1373 limits states’ abilities to tell their employees not to cooperate with immigration enforcement
17” of snow? You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, I guess
OP throwing a little shade on UM there . . .
An anthem for this moment of grief: Charles Yang (last year) singing A Change is Gonna Come. www.facebook.com/watch/?v=959...
But the catch will be the one we’ve already seen re granting asylum to white South Africans: No significant number of them will want to come.
There are ways for TX and FL to accommodate both "more skills training" and "fewer legal services for poor people," but they're unlikely to involve support for law school clinical education as it exists today. I expect rules favoring more externships, fewer clinics.
Badger Cath., Inc. v. Walsh (CA7 2010): ("A litigant who tries to evade a federal court's judgment—and a declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice—will come to regret it."). (2/2)
As to that, see Castillo v. Noem, No. CV-25-04867 (D. Ariz. (1/2/2006), responding to USG's argument that the order doesn't count because it provided declaratory rather than injunctive relief: "[A]s federal-government litigants, respondents' arguments . . . may be seriously flawed. See . . .
(1/x)
It can’t be overemphasized that part of the *reason* there are this many cases is because the Administration has directed immigration judges not to abide by the Maldonado Baptista nationwide class action order rejecting its position
Lawyers often tend to manage cognitive dissonance by coming to believe the positions they take as advocates. So there’s a conflict between the advocacy role and that of the prof as researcher; different people manage that conflict differently. (I’m a TT prof who does clinical and pro bono advocacy.)
