Mark Joseph Stern

This is a fantastic development and long overdue. Wonderful news!

A shocking number of people responding to this video clearly did not watch the video. David is extremely opposed to the Trump administration's terrorization of immigrant communities. He is describing serious problems with the current laws which make accountability difficult.

Former military lawyers say use of JAG lawyers in Minnesota violates the Posse Comitatus Act Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases.

BREAKING: Former military lawyers say use of JAG lawyers in Minnesota violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases.

New, at Law Dork:

The DC Disciplinary Counsel has filed ethics charges against DOJ pardon attorney Ed Martin over the letter he sent Georgetown on its DEI policies, court filings show The charges, filed Friday but made public Tuesday, allege he violated the 1st & 5th amendments of the constitution by using his position to threaten not to hire Georgetown students unless the school ceased teaching DEI

Another reason why Bondi is trying to block state bars from investigating DOJ attorneys accused of ethics violations (which is itself illegal): slate.com/news-and-pol...

LINK!

Jordan Fox, the special attorney who admitted that her office violated a ton of court orders, was in fact serving illegally the whole time ... slate.com/news-and-pol...

His opinion was pretty mild in comparison to the others though, with the message of letting bygones be bygones

There is a very good chance that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will have a 6–1 Democratic majority by 2027.

At that point, the one remaining conservative justice would be Brian Hagedorn. He is a good guy and genuinely principled jurist; I'm not convinced Democrats should even try to oust him.

Justice Ziegler just announced that she won't run for re-election next year. With no incumbent, Democrats may have an easier time scooping up this seat. www.wkow.com/news/top-sto...

Some justices are afraid of applying the Sixth Amendment to supervised release violations because it would render these no-jury, no-reasonable-doubt trials unconstitutional. SCOTUS came one vote away from doing so with full force in US v. Haymond. Gorsuch is still pushing for it, rightfully so IMO.

Bypassing juries, trials, and the reasonable doubt standard in this way may hold some obvious advantages for prosecutors. But whether this arrangement can be squared with the Constitution is another thing. Under the Sixth Amendment, this Court has held, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 (2000) (emphasis added); see also Erlinger v. United States, 602 U. S. 821, 833 (2024); United States v. Haymond, 588 U. S. 634, 644 (2019) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases). The Court’s failure to grant review to address whether what happened to Mr. Burnett complies with that Sixth Amendment rule is unfortunate. I can only hope we will take up another case like his soon—and that, in the meantime, lower courts will more carefully consider the Sixth Amendment’s application in this context. Respectfully, I dissent

Gorsuch dissents from the Supreme Court's refusal to consider whether a judge (not a jury) can extend a person's prison sentence by finding, by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt), that he violated supervised release. (I agree with Gorsuch.) www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

Issue: (1) Whether the federal government’s submission to a state or territorial regulator of an application to renew a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) permit is “final agency action” that is immediately reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (2) whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment.

The Supreme Court takes up one new case today, a challenge to the Air Force's disposal of toxic waste on a beach that's vital to Guam's endangered wildlife and local population. SCOTUS will review a lower court ruling against the Air Force.
www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

Or how about the secretary of state hanging out with a guy convicted of seditious conspiracy against the US?

U.S. sub sinks Iranian warship off Sri Lanka, killing 87 and expanding war zone A U.S. submarine sank an Iranian warship off the southern coast of Sri Lanka, killing dozens of sailors and dramatically widening Washington's pursuit of the Iranian navy.

A US submarine sinking a lonely, dinky Iranian surface ship an ocean away from the theater of the main conflict—and 9000
miles from North America—makes it pretty clear the US is fighting a general war, without the declaration required by the Constitution. www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...

(And for the record, I do have concerns about the NY court's order in the Malliotakis on the merits. I'm not at all convinced it's correct. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court can concoct jurisdiction out of thin air to intervene prematurely when that authority plainly does not exist.)

I would feel the same way if the Supreme Court issued a "liberal" shadow docket decision halting a conservative lower court order when it clearly lacked authority to do so. This is pretty basic stuff—it's hard to say SCOTUS is still functioning as a court when it acts without jurisdiction.

I agree, quite apart from the merits of the case. Alito could only defend the Supreme Court's authority to intervene by grievously misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that there's no plausible argument SCOTUS had the power to do what it did. Why didn't that matter to six justices?

NJ argued that NJ Transit was entitled to "interstate sovereign immunity" and could not be sued in other state courts. Today SCOTUS unanimously says no, NJ Transit isn't part of the state, so it can't claim that immunity, and CAN be sued in other state's courts. Big win for plaintiffs.

The second, final Supreme Court decision is Galette v. NJ Transit. Per Sotomayor's unanimous opinion, NJ Transit is NOT an arm of NJ and thus NOT entitled to sovereign immunity.

This is a very good ruling that allows civil suits against NJ Transit! I'm surprised www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

This is a win for the government and a loss for the immigrants, though certainly a very technical case. There will be more opinion(s)!

The Supreme Court's first decision is Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Per KBJ's unanimous opinion, the INA requires application
of the substantial-evidence standard to the BIA's conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.

'UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY': Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointeee from NY, thrashes DHS' treatment of a man who came to the US at 9 as an abuse/neglect victim, has no criminal record and became a college grad.

"The laws of decency condemn such villainy." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

2022: We worry that substantive due process lets judges impose their policy preferences under the guise of “fundamental rights” that don’t appear in the Constitution

2026: Surprise! The due process clause requires schools to out trans students to their parents. We found it hidden there all along!

Exactly right: “We’re long past the point at which there are neutral legal principles that can be deployed to persuasively reconcile all of the Court’s behavior … It makes the Court at least look like what so many regularly accuse it of being: a font of partisan political power, and not much more.”

As Kagan notes in her dissent, the Court opted not to hear the due process parental rights argument against bans on gender-affirming medical care in Skrmetti, basically setting up a regime where parents can force their trans children back into the closet but cannot help them out of it

A disturbing and hypocritical ruling on so many levels. Especially the due process holding.

The court JUST said there’s no deeply rooted right for women to control their own bodies. But there is a deeply rooted right for parents to know if their kids question their gender at school? Come on.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A914 NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY No. 25A915 PETER KOSINSKI, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [March 2, 2026] The applications for stay presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court are granted. The January 21, 2026 order entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 164002/2025, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting from grant of stay. The Court's 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: "Rules for thee, but not for me." Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an elec-tion. Today, the Court says: except for this one, except for this one, and except for this one. Ignoring every limit on federal courts' authority, the Court takes the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court's decision in a re-districting dispute on matters of state law without giving the State's highest court a chance to act. Because that order violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism, and equity, I respectfully dissent.

BREAKING: SCOTUS blocks New York state court redistricting order, over the strong dissent of the Democratic appointees.

Exclusive | Trump Administration to Drop Defense of Law Firm Sanctions The Justice Dept. plans to abandon its defense of the president’s executive orders that targeted Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey.

WHOA: WSJ reporting that DOJ is dropping its appeals of the four law firm executive order rulings as soon as today. www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...

This problem persists in their cited authorities. They cite only five legal cases and two constitutional provisions. At the same time, they have eleven entries for “Sacred Scripture” and citations to Aquinas and Augustine. There are references to the Code of Canon Law, a pontifical council, and nine different popes. Interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment through the lens of Pope Francis is nothing if not novel. Call it Critical Catholic Theory.

So you agree? You think theology shouldn't play a role in Supreme Court rulings?? firstthings.com/what-the-usc...