Sign in

penguinonepal.bsky.social

@penguinonepal.bsky.social
150 followers 400 following 92 posts

Anonymous US law student! Here to follow the convos on all types of law (and probably procrastinating)

PostsRepliesMedia
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 05/06/2026
Anyone know off the top of their head what the right cause of action is here? This doesn’t quite seem like a fraudulent transfer, but maybe? If she answered post judgment discovery without revealing that, probably sanctionable. Do you move to put her in a receivership or something?
100
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 12/05/2026
Don’t forget 11th! media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
media.ca11.uscourts.gov
001
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 03/05/2026
I also think it misses that yes, sometimes how “big” a case is depends on the vote count! Like “Supreme Court unanimously rejects totally insane theory that shouldn’t have made it to the Supreme Court,” that’s obviously less significant than “several justices ultimately adopt totally insane theory”
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 27/04/2026
Which, as a digression, struck me as a sort of odd note. I didn’t look deeply into it in the briefing to compare, but basically everyone except maybe Sotomayor sounded kind of skeptical of it, and he kept falling back on that argument when questioned too intensely on the merits.
030
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 17/04/2026
Thanks for the response and all of the recommendations! Much appreciated
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 17/04/2026
Out of curiosity (and sorry if this is in another comment), but what’s the best longer-form version of this critique? I think I mostly just disagree with some of the fundamental premises, but interested in reading the longer form versions!
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 25/03/2026
Deeply depressing the first appellate voices to squarely consider this have included Duncan, Jones, and Grasz
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 07/02/2026
Seems like that also has the advantage of letting it percolate a bit more in the 7th circuit and 8th circuit, so you’re not going up with only Douglas’s dissent [well, and a billion district court rulings] on the record for your position
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 30/01/2026
Dallas morning news had a story about one of these yesterday too ICE plans ‘mega’ Texas detention center in Hutchins to hold 9,500, agency doc shows www.dallasnews.com/news/immigra...
dallasnews.com
ICE plans ‘mega’ Texas detention center in Hutchins to hold 9,500, agency doc shows
An internal agency document reviewed by The Dallas Morning News identifies, for the first time, the address of the Hutchins warehouse and names three other...
001
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Cristian Farias @cristianfarias.com · 03/01/2026
Best thing I’ve read this morning, from a human rights lawyer in Mexico. Translation is in the ALT-text.
Twitter thread in Spanish by José Mario de la Garza, a human rights lawyer in Mexico, translated using Google Translate:

1. Overthrowing a dictator sounds morally right. No one mourns a tyrant. But international law wasn't built to protect the good, but to restrain the powerful. That's why it prohibits force almost without exception: not because it ignores injustice, but because it knows that if each country decides whom to "liberate" by force, the world reverts to the law of the strongest.

2. The problem is not Maduro. The problem is the precedent. When military force is used to change governments without clear rules, sovereignty ceases to be a limit and becomes an obstacle. Today it is “overthrowing a dictator”; tomorrow it will be “correcting an election,” “protecting interests,” “restoring order.” The law does not absolve dictatorships, but neither does it legitimize unilateral crusades.Cont’d:

3. The uncomfortable question is not whether a tyrant deserves to fall, but who decides when and how. Because history teaches something brutal: removing a dictator is easy; building justice afterward is not. And when legality is broken in the name of good, what almost always follows is not freedom, but chaos, violence, and new victims. The law exists to remind us of this, even when it makes us uncomfortable.Maduro isn't the problem: he's the face of the problem. Removing him from power would be merely opening the door. Behind him is the machine: Rodríguez, Cabello, the military command, the operators of repression and plunder. If you only change the person at the top and leave the system intact, what follows isn't democracy: it's a reshuffling.

And there's something even more difficult: Chavismo didn't just capture institutions, it captured daily life. Economy, media, bureaucracy, employment, fear, favors, blackmail. A country can't be "de-Chavistaized" by decree or by an electoral miracle. The real transition begins when that network is broken without setting the country ablaze.

The challenge is enormous, and it's also a moral one: to unite without vengeance, but without impunity. Targeted justice for those most responsible, truth for the victims, guarantees that the rest will dismantle the system, and a plan for people to live again—not just survive. Because freedom doesn't come with a new president: it comes when the state ceases to be a threat.
3927961346
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 19/12/2025
Huh, that’s a really interesting fact! Thanks for the response and info!
010
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 18/12/2025
In this spirit, do you think there’s any good constitutional distinction based on the exercise of criminal vs civil powers? I believe this was in some of the responsive briefing. Was there even much of what we’d now consider civil enforcement at the founding/any good literature on this distinction?
130
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 21/11/2025
the Emmanuel Macron method
070
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Steven Mazie @stevenmazie.bsky.social · 26/09/2025
Justice Kagan writes a dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. The majority has “enabled the presidential usurpation of Congress‘s power of the purse”.
07033
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 03/08/2025
Do Democrats get anything out of not stopping these//not throwing more sand in the gears?
000
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Free Law Project ⚖ @free.law · 31/07/2025
Thanks Orin! Lots of details here for those interested: bsky.app/profile/free...
023
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Trump Litigation Bot @trumplitigation.bots.law · 24/07/2025
New filing: "State of Washington v. Trump (Birthright Citizenship (Appeal))" Doc #163-1: Opinion Download PDF | View Full Case #CL69621321
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 2 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 3 of the PDF linked above.Thumbnail of page 4 of the PDF linked above.
001
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Anne Joseph O’Connell @ajosephoconnell.bsky.social · 23/07/2025
Since @orinkerr.bsky.social asked, a thread, from limited information reported online, about how I see the US attorney mess in DNJ. 1. Trump picked Habba as interim US Attorney under 28 USC 546. Technically, the AG is supposed to pick, but whatever. She gets 120 days to serve.
12672174
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 20/07/2025
Anybody know what the source is here? Were these posted online elsewhere? Couldn’t easily track down an article with them. Would like to look at other proposals.
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 17/07/2025
I wonder if it’s worth trying for mandamus from the Supreme Court? Theoretically, the Barrett US v Texas (2024) concurrence suggests that a super long “administrative stay” like this *might* be reviewable, right?(Though, getting it in practice, for contempt, against this admin… probably bad odds)
000
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Charlotte Garden @charlottegarden.bsky.social · 14/07/2025
I'm not pollyannaish about the Court, but I'm still shocked by this - there will be an enormous amount of chaos, and damage that cannot be undone. And zero explanation from the 6 justices in the majority.
68924
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 11/07/2025
Oh, I’d totally missed that this panel had already made an earlier appearance on another motion! Thanks for the confirmation though!!
010
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 11/07/2025
At least, is this the first emergency panel we’ve had…maybe since the start of Trump II?…with 2 D appointees and only 1 R appointee?? (Though I’m not super familiar with Pillard or Millett’s voting records to know if that means as much as it otherwise might).
120
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
Are you excluding ones that stayed nationwide vacatur of a rule? E.g. Garland v. Vanderstock, Hippocratic Medicine got stayed (but that one’s a bit odd); also Biden v. Missouri in OT2021? (Though it obviously doesn’t change the overall point about the vast disproportion!!)
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
This is not on your direct topic, but ACUS has gathered some of the interesting work on AI in government more generally here www.acus.gov/ai; there’s also a neat and fairly recent NCSL roundup of state and federal developments here documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Tech...
acus.gov
Artificial Intelligence | Administrative Conference of the United States
010
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Blake Emerson @blakeprof.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
It’s like we get treated to two levels of arbitrary rule: first Trump, and then the Court, when they summarily stay lower court orders.
0305
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
Glad to see Justice Jackson making this really essential point. If only she wasn't making it alone.
The Court’s disregard for the District Court’s factfinding
(and also, apparently, for the applicable standards of re-
view) would be troubling enough when viewed through a
mere procedural lens. But it is all the more puzzling, and
ultimately disheartening, given the extraordinary risk of
harm that today’s ruling immediately unleashes.
No one seriously disputes that, if implemented, Executive
Order No. 14210 will lead to enormous real-world conse-
quences. This executive action promises mass employee
terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs
and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal
Government as Congress has created it. As the Ninth Cir-
cuit concluded, the statutory shortfalls likely to result from
implementation of this Executive Order will be immensely
painful to the general public, and the plaintiffs, in the in-
terim, causing harm that includes “proliferat[ing] food-
borne disease,” perpetuating “hazardous environmental
conditions,” “eviscerat[ing] disaster loan services for local
businesses,” and “drastically reduc[ing] the provision ofhealthcare and other services to our nation’s veterans.”
App. 94a. Preventing those kinds of calamities is just a
small slice of the work that federal employees do to carry
out Congress’s statutory mandates—work that the Execu-
tive Order immediately imperils if implemented.
Consider the harms to democracy, too, if it turns out that
the plaintiffs and the lower courts are right that the Presi-
dent is unilaterally changing the structure of the Federal
Government. What one person (or President) might call bu-
reaucratic bloat is a farmer’s prospect for a healthy crop, a
coal miner’s chance to breathe free from black lung, or a
preschooler’s opportunity to learn in a safe environment.
The details of the programs that this executive action tar-
gets are the product of policy choices that Congress has
made—a representative democracy at work. While the
President no doubt has the authority to manage the Execu-
tive Branch, our system does not allow the President to re-
write laws on his own under the guise of that authority.
010
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 08/07/2025
Out of morbid curiosity, I clicked on the preview of the story and... his theories are just “he tried but didn’t get into a competitive school” or “he and his family were too stupid to realize admission officers would check if he was related to a well-known professor”? Characteristically stupid.
110
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 07/07/2025
Definitely no expert, and it’ll be contested, but parts seem distinguishable. At times they get close to the rejected “doctor standing,” but they do prescribe the vaccines and some allege economic injuries, unlike the Hippocratic Medicine plaintiffs. Also, the “relational impact” theory seems new?
020
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 06/07/2025
If you've not seen it, there's a really interesting paper that was shared on here recently on exactly this, suggesting that states could create "converse 1983" statutes for use against federal officials papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com
Of State Remedies and Federal Rights
The Supreme Court has repudiated Bivens on the grounds that it arrogated legislative power to the federal judiciary. As the Court steps back, Congress is free t
150
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 05/07/2025
Definitely an important and imo undercovered part of the bill. Possible that in the long run it reduces some costs, but I think only at the expense of lots of people getting screwed over in the meantime—I didn’t go to a T14 & had a good scholarship and I would’ve struggled with these types of caps.
040
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 04/07/2025
Oh definitely!! Just adding on in the general train of thought of the rest of the thread (esp. because I think I've seen a few posts elsewhere wondering why he didn't just go ahead and grant the relief now, and can imagine more if Murphy concludes he has to do the same).
010
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 04/07/2025
In addition, feels worth acknowledging that none of this is the judges' fault here either (Moss or Murphy); they've done their best to deal with a wholly unexplained SCOTUS order that they can't disobey, but don't have enough information to comply with. All fault rests with SCOTUS here.
110
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 04/07/2025
Genuinely extremely interesting! Do you happen to know of any books or articles that recount this whole history at greater length? (Perhaps not, I imagine it’s a pretty niche topic, but sometimes there are surprises!)
020
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 03/07/2025
But ultimately, is there a way to design a system of government that doesn’t ultimately require good faith from leadership? Parts of the US system certainly may make it easier, but is any setup really even mostly authoritarian proof? [gen q for reading recs on what better systems may look like!]
000
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/07/2025
"Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial."
648283
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 01/07/2025
meat tax!!! [this would absolutely be like, top 20 least politically popular things done recently, just absolutely infinitesimal constituency] www.nyuelj.org/wp-content/u...
nyuelj.org
030
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 28/06/2025
Thanks for the reply, and fair enough!! Agreed that it’s definitely reasonable to at least contemplate the other financial constraints in response, even though security probably shouldn’t be one to cut.
000
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 28/06/2025
But won’t conservatives be disproportionately seeking universal vacatur, while many of the things liberals are challenging right now are already barred—Franklin, Heckler, Norton, Lincoln—which this only makes harder, while further giving the Court the ability to selectively bless whatever it wants?
030
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 27/06/2025
I mean I also support a more active role for a Dem Congress here and dislike these decisions, but giving judges and justices more security to reduce the risk of them potentially getting assassinated just seems imminently prudent? It also seems quite doubtful this even sent the message you suggest
100
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 27/06/2025
It’s really bad, but I think the first couple of cases that come up to the Court in the posture of an injunction for a large class are going to be the real determinant for exactly how sweeping this is and how strict the courts have to be on enforcing Walmart against 23b2s.
040
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 27/06/2025
One potential concern is that universal vacatur (which this leaves untouched?) still gets right-wing challengers much of what they'd want against a D administration in a universal fashion, since they're more likely to challenge agency action/traditional admin law. (Also, SCOTUS bias generally ofc).
000
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 23/06/2025
I'm writing this post in high dudgeon because what the Court endorsed today is unamerican and contemptuous not just of the role of the judiciary but also of the responsibility we have as a nation to those in our custody and those we subject to punishment. I'm mad as hell. You should be too.
251904439
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 23/06/2025
in more reasonable hands, one wonders if this might not suggest less about the positive qualities of the paper than about the negative qualities of Ho/DOJ’s argument
This analysis leads the author to three conclusions.
First, the author would read Article IV, Section 4 to permit the states to play a role to prevent the "invasion" of migrants. (This section more-or-less tracks Judge Ho's concurrence, and arguments advanced by the Trump DOJ.) Second, the author would allow the courts to
1130
Reposted by @penguinonepal.bsky.social
Bobby Kogan @bbkogan.bsky.social · 22/06/2025
The third traunche of Byrd bath results is out! Unsurprising but very welcome news - Republicans may not limit the ability of federal courts to issue preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-memb...
budget.senate.gov
More Provisions in Republicans’ “One Big, Beautiful Bill” Are Subject to Byrd Rule, Parliamentarian Advises | U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
The Official U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
732283
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 22/06/2025
Yeah, and it feels like a lot of the early takes on this are assuming the politics play out in an unfavorable way for Trump which actually seems highly contingent on the Iranian response
010
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 17/06/2025
And California’s responses were oddly weak here imo. Lots of procedural arguments that almost seemed to amount to “actually this might be fine if they’d thought about it a little harder and asked nicer.” Totally failed to offer a clear explanation of “here’s what the rule should actually be and why”
070
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 13/06/2025
Ah alright! Figured it’d be something like that, and maybe that’s even for the best from an administrability angle, but thought there was a chance of contrary precedent. Thanks!
010
penguinonepal.bsky.social @penguinonepal.bsky.social · 13/06/2025
More of a law than budget question, but can the Byrd rule be raised later to attack the provision by litigants? Or is it something that courts defer to Congressional interpretations of? (I.e. imagine it passes and plaintiff brings a claim, argues no bond needed because law invalid per Byrd rule)
100