chrisgeidner

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Citing the My Lai Massacre in the retired military officials brief in Trump v. US was important, Kristy Parker said, because it shows “it would be even more difficult coming from the commander in chief him or herself, to actually defy [such an illegal] order.” https://www.lawdork.com/p/law-dork-video-trump-immunity-scotus

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

The new Law Dork Video is LIVE!

Lawyers Kathleen Hartnett and Kristy Parker and historian Holly Brewer have so much to bring to this discussion about Thursday's Trump v. US arguments at SCOTUS.

Check it out now. https://www.lawdork.com/p/law-dork-video-trump-immunity-scotus

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Cooley's Kathleen Hartnett explains that a brief she filed in Trump v. U.S. on behalf of retired military officials argues that Trump's presidential immunity claims, if successful, "would ... possibly increase the risk of people not disobeying an unlawful order." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI7pV7wPb74

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Breaking: Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors will remain in effect for now, as the full Seventh Circuit denies the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider the panel’s order allowing the law to go into effect. Four judges would have reconsidered the panel’s order.

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

I don’t like to refer to something as “a noxious dissent.” But, when it is justified, I will do so. And, Judge Agee’s dissent in defense of West Virginia’s anti-trans sports ban is noxious. But, also, it should not be ignored. https://www.lawdork.com/p/fourth-circuit-title-ix-west-virginia-sports-ban

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

How can conservatives lawyers lose at the Fifth Circuit? When they try to push the court far enough right to lose even a handful of conservative votes. At Law Dork, I lay out how it happened three times this week: https://www.lawdork.com/p/fifth-circuit-en-banc-denials

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

BREAKING: SpaceX LOSES its attempt to prevent the transfer of its challenge to an NLRB proceeding out of Texas.

On an 8-8 vote, with Judge Ho not participating, the full Fifth Circuit DENIES SpaceX's request for en banc review of a decision allowing transfer to C.D. Cal.

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

The first SCOTUS decision is in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, holding that you much show some harm in a Title VII claims based on a job transfer, but that it need need be "significant." Kagan has the opinion for the court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Breaking: Booksellers' challenge to Texas's book-ban regime succeeds at the Fifth Circuit.

Today, the full Fifth Circuit announced that the far-right judges of the court LOST a vote for rehearing en banc 8-9 after a 3-judge panel had previously upheld the dist ct's injunction.

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Without ruling on the constitutionality of Idaho’s ban or even the likelihood of the state’s success in defending the ban, the Supreme Court majority allowed new restrictions on transgender minors’ medical care in Idaho to go into effect on Monday.

Tonight, at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-idaho-gender-affirming-care-ban-stay

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

What did SCOTUS do with Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors today? It’s bad — but also complicated. At Law Dork, I explain. https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-idaho-gender-affirming-care-ban-stay

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

BREAKING: Over the liberals' dissent, the Supreme Court allows Idaho's ban on gender-affirming care to minors to be enforced during litigation, except as to the plaintiffs in the case and "the treatments they sought below." More to come at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

I had noticed his lack of questions so checked and here it is: Thomas is not on the bench today, with no reason given. (I am not at court today, because I have several things on my plate today.) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-misses-supreme-court-arguments-rcna147826

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Did you see my follow-up report on what happens now in Arizona after the Arizona Supreme Court's abortion ruling? There's a lot. Check it out at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/p/arizona-abortion-ban-enforcement-next-steps

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

Breaking: Trump asks Cannon to put deadlines in his Florida federal documents criminal case on hold until three weeks after his New York hush money criminal trial ends because he was unsuccessful at stopping the NY case from going forward. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.452.0.pdf

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

It's been a while since I can remember one SCOTUS argument sitting having so many notable arguments — including, of course, the Trump immunity case. I preview the upcoming sitting over at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/i/143461122/a-big-scotus-sitting

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

On Tuesday, Dick Durbin pushed back against the “baseless and bigoted attacks” being faced by Third Circuit nominee Adeel Mangi. Good for him.

The trio of Dems who have fallen for the attacks — Cortez Masto, Rosen and Manchin — should rethink things. https://www.lawdork.com/p/adeel-mangi-judicial-nomination-under-attack

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

The court so clearly did statutory interpretation ridiculously wrong here. It was maddening to read. https://www.lawdork.com/p/arizona-civil-war-era-abortion-ban-ruling

chrisgeidner, 1 month ago to random

BREAKING: Arizona Supreme Court, on a 4-2 vote, says that the state's near-total criminal abortion ban is enforceable in the wake of Dobbs — but keeps the law on hold while the trial court considers any further arguments. More to come at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/

existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 292 (2022). Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because § 36-2322 does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting § 13-3603’s operation. Accordingly, § 13-3603 is now enforceable. ¶3 When this litigation was initiated in 1971, the plaintiffs asserted a number of state and federal constitutional challenges to § 13-3603, in addition to those presented in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which was overruled by Dobbs. We remand the case to the trial court for consideration of those additional constitutional challenges if the plaintiffs wish to pursue them, and we temporarily extend the existing stay against enforcement of § 13-3603 so that the trial court may determine how to proceed.