The rule of law (still) matters & one district judge is shaping the ongoing dialogue over how to rein in this lawless administration & supine Supreme Court. With @lizdye.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...
HLS '97, ex-BigLaw Practicing lawyer and cohost of the @lawandchaospod.bsky.social podcast with @lizdye.bsky.social READ MY STUFF! lawandchaospod.com LISTEN TO MY STUFF! patreon.com/lawandchaospod he/him
10,987 followers 1,668 following 2,326 posts
view profile on Bluesky
The rule of law (still) matters & one district judge is shaping the ongoing dialogue over how to rein in this lawless administration & supine Supreme Court. With @lizdye.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...
Don't miss our latest post on Judge Breyer's ruling in California that Trump's troops dispatched to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act. It's a roadmap for what future cities can do when he tries it again. with @lizdye.bsky.social www.lawandchaospod.com/p/court-smac...
Ouch SCOTUS
So @lizdye.bsky.social is up with yet another invaluable explainer for @legaleagle.tv - this time bringing you up to speed in all of the latest developments in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Don't miss it! www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybvp...
"Be loud for America" is miles better than any other bullshit slogan we've been trying to make happen
Every lawyer calls Article 1 judges -- bankruptcy judges, admin law judges, etc. -- "judges" But this is why we often say on the show that going before an IJ is not the same as going before an Article III court & shorthand "they're not great." But it's SOME due process, which means Trump hates it.
RESEARCHING
Because Macbeth is actually quoted from & therefore cited ("Macbeth act 5, sc. 5, ll. 30–31"), whereas the lawyers did not quote directly from The Princess Bride, so you just get the comical "See, e.g., Inigo Montoya." I cannot tell you how much my deep-seated love of law geekery appreciates this.
hurtful but true
Today's show roadmaps the fast-moving developments in LGML v. Noem, where the administration has tried to remove 600+ Guatemalan children here in this country awaiting asylum hearings & other due process claims. Also: tariffs! Rudy! Elon Musk! We've got a jam-packed hour (75 mins for supporters!)
One of the few ways the courts have been able to push back against Trump's lawlessness on deportations has been to require the bare minimum of due process in immigration courts. If Trump can stack those courts with unqualified, deportation-friendly judges, it will further erode those protections.
7/ How funny is this brief? So funny that I DID NOT REPRODUCE THE LAWYER QUOTING FROM THE PRINCESS BRIDE. (You'll have to read it for yourself to find that one.)
6/ One more bit of humor and then I'll move on. It's common in briefs when you quote something with italicized or bold text to signal "(emphasis in original)" to let the court know. When Selzer quotes from Trump's absurdly-italicized briefs, it's with "overemphasis in original." Which is hilarious.
5/ Someday I want to use "Really?" in italics as a standalone interjection in the middle of one of my briefs. "Alvarez" is a reference to United States v. Alvarez, a 2012 Supreme Court opinion that is squarely on point, rejecting a claim that "false speech" does not enjoy 1st Amdt protection.
![Undaunted by this, and without the slightest whiff of legal authority, Plaintiff posits that “[a]mong the many species of fraud, false statements—whether on the pages of a newspaper or elsewhere—do not enjoy immunity from tort liability when the speaker makes the statements with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.” Pl. Opp. 13. Really? No court has ever said so, and Alvarez explained why it is illegitimate to mix and match theories as Plaintiff does here in an attempt to create a general category of unprotected false speech.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6cdw2mjawfdu73epojmnhrq3/bafkreifoweu72u6yaw6k2s6w2waixqe4m72ap723nxqc5cc6bm7ladow6y@jpeg "Click to view full size")
ME TOO
4/ I laughed out loud a LOT over this brief, but nowhere more so than the string cite supporting the proposition that "courts have granted motions to dismiss on First Amendment grounds in cases brought by Trump against perceived enemies in the media for over forty years."
3/ Trump's theory of the case is that polls are paid for, ipso fatso, they're commercial speech. That means if a poll is wrong, it's false commercial speech not protected by the First Amendment. As Corn-Revere puts it, this is essentially an argument that you can sue over "fake news." (You can't.)
2/ Selzer is repped by legendary 1st Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere, who calls out Trump's arguments as a tangle of unsupported assertions, partial citations, & "shopworn campaign rhetoric and fever-dream conspiracy theories." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
1/ While we wait for Trump to reminisce about Arnold Palmer's anatomy or how cool Hannibal Lecter is or whatever, now is a great time to remember that he's still in the middle of receiving an ass-kicking from Ann Selzer, whom he tried to sue in Iowa for the nonexistent tort of getting a poll wrong.
A+, no notes
Today on the show: Trump’s tariffs are illegal. A judge named Sparkle just lit Kristi Noem on fire for trying to kidnap hundreds of children in the middle of the night. And Rudy Giuliani is getting the presidential medal of freedom with @andrewtorrez.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...
Oh boy whatever happened in New Hampshire the other night must be horrible
Let me take a big swig of Diet Coke and crack open Twitter's trollsuit against Apple and OpenAI ... OWWW MY NOSE BURNS storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated Trump's sweeping retaliatory tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court held that Congress did NOT delegate the power to tax to the President, even in an emergency. Full 🧵below:
13/ We'll continue to monitor the docket (again linked below) to see when DOJ files the status report that these kids have been returned to ORR custody and aren't stuck on the tarmac terrified for their lives. This administration's cruelty knows no bounds. www.courtlistener.com/docket/71240...
12/ Judge Sooknanan says she will wait to see what the gov't briefs by Friday (at gov't request) but from what she saw it does not look like they're complying with the law. She reiterates that she tried to call the gov't in the middle of the night & could not reach anyone before entering the TRO.
11/ Judge Sooknanan takes the recess time to read the declarations attached to the TRO motions which are horrifying & she says "do not line up with what I'm hearing from the gov't." These kids express traumatic fear at being sent back to Guatemala. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
10/ ...and on cue, the hearing resumes & Ensign says the kids will be deplaned and returned to the custody of DHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) during the pendency of the TRO. Will file a status report later today confirming that.
9/ Here's a link to that filing. More TK as we await the resumption of the hearing. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
8/ There's a pending request for provisional class certification because of the Supreme Court's idiotic ruling in Trump v. CASA restricting the scope of nationwide injunctions. So we don't know yet how broad any injunctive relief would be. But for now, these 600 kids, at least, can't be deported.
7/ Ensign, for DOJ, insists that this has been a "monthslong" process of identifying appropriate children that apparently just so happened to get finished in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend. Proposes that the fact situation be resolved by submitting affidavits.
6/ Also, plaintiffs' counsel argues that even if 6 USC 279 applies, it requires due process & a hearing before an immigration judge. (I have not yet researched this issue & cannot comment on the law.)
5/ Plaintiffs' counsel says that's bullshit & that at least one of the lead class plaintiffs got a "strange call" from their parents that they were informed by the government that their child was about to be deported. Those parents did NOT request their child's return.
4/ The gov't argument is that EACH AND EVERY child they're trying to deport is at the request of their parents who are back in Guatemala & pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 279(b)(1)(H), which permits DHS to resettle minors "in appropriate cases" to rejoin their parents. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
3/Judge Sooknanan entered a TRO until the parties will brief an expedited preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiffs' counsel requested that the TRO hearing remain open until the kids are removed from the planes. (That's why we're in recess; Ensign says he's "trying" to reach his client.)
2/...to ship them to Guatemala. Drew Ensign, on behalf of DOJ, represents that (a) no children have been removed from the country; (b) that "perhaps" one plane took off but has since landed; and (c) that the planes are on the ground in Harlingen, TX and El Paso, TX **STILL LOADED WITH CHILDREN**
BREAKING - TRUMP ADMIN DEPORTING KIDS🧵 1/ Right now there is an ongoing hearing (in a brief recess) before Judge Sooknanan in federal court in DC. That dial-in number is below. In the middle of the night, the gov't loaded 600 unaccompanied minors on planes... www.courtlistener.com/docket/71240...
2/ On Friday’s show, we discussed the legal mechanisms that make it easier for Chicago as compared to Washington DC. (Also: major American cities like Chicago and DC are safer than ever.) With @lizdye.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...
1/ Chicago, under Mayor Brandon Johnson gears up to fight back against Trump’s impending occupation. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
It's very clear to me (as it was to the CIT & the Fed Cir) that what IEEPA authorizes the President to do is stuff like impound funds and freeze bank accounts. Which is how *every other President* who's ever invoked IEEPA -- and it gets invoked a lot! -- has used it.
The appellate ruling only covers the two (broad) tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under IEEPA. I cannot see how a court could possibly say "these litigants and these litigants alone are exempt from taxation." That seems... insane?
Today's show! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...
11/ That goes back to the Court of International Trade (CIT) that issued the injunction in the first place. We'll analyze the law later, but I don't see how a court can award complete relief to the plaintiffs before it (the CASA standard) without invalidating Trump's tariffs entirely. We'll see.
10/ BUT there's one lifeline for Trump. While this case was pending, the Supreme Court made up yet another new rule in Trump v. CASA that severely restricted the use of so-called nationwide injunctions. So the Fed Cir vacates the original injunction & remands to consider the scope in light of CASA.
![We need not decide whether the CIT abused its discretion by only articulating its analysis of the eBay factors some days after it issued its original opinion on the merits, nor whether the Government has shown any prejudice from the delay. Nor need we evaluate the sufficiency of the CIT’s explanation. This is because vacatur of the universal injunction is warranted based on the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540 (2025). In CASA, the Supreme Court considered the Government’s challenge to three universal injunctions issued by different district courts prohibiting enforcement of the President’s policy with respect to birthright citizenship. Id. at 2549. While the Court held that the universal injunctions at issue “likely exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts,” id. at 2548, it “decline[d] to take up . . . in the first instance” arguments as to the permissible scope of injunctive relief, id. at 2558.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6cdw2mjawfdu73epojmnhrq3/bafkreiham2zscdfosz4qy4kagzbl66trsjinozmqq6o2zckmrufzb4xycy@jpeg "Click to view full size")
9/ The Fed Cir said Trump couldn't just pick and choose the parts of Yoshida II it liked; that case did give Nixon limited tariff authority but was explicit in saying that TWEA did NOT delegate "unbounded tariff authority" to the President. That means the challenged Trump tariffs are out.
8/ Next, the court distinguishes a 1975 case, Yoshida Int’l v. United States, 526 F.2d 560 (called "Yoshida II" in the text). Yoshida II held that Pres. Nixon could impose limited reciprocal tariffs under a predecessor statute to IEEPA (the Trading With the Enemy Act); it's the gov's best case.
7/ The major questions doctrine, by the way, is in my view our best hope of this opinion surviving at the Calvinball Supreme Court that Donald Trump has on speed dial. SCOTUS has a right-wing activist agenda of its own & undercutting the thing it invented to gut the EPA isn't on it.
6/ ...if that would give the executive the power to resolve "major questions" (whatever that means). The power to reshape the world's economy is obviously a "major question" in that it is both "transformative" & "unheralded." So if Congress intended to give it to Trump, it should have said so.
![The tariffs at issue in this case implicate the concerns animating the major questions doctrine as they are both “unheralded” and “transformative.” Id. at 722, 724; see also id. at 725 (“[J]ust as established practice may shed light on the extent of power conveyed by general statutory language, so the want of assertion of power by those who presumably would be alert to exercise it, is equally significant in determining whether such power was actually conferred.” (quoting FTC v. Bunte Bros., Inc., 312 U.S. 349, 352 (1941)).17](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6cdw2mjawfdu73epojmnhrq3/bafkreiclank2skifwhhcyzx5hpvv5msi3ox724x3k37xaflrg6exuwlox4@jpeg "Click to view full size")
5/ Next up, the MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE! (Drink.) This is a completely bullshit rule of interpretation made up by the Roberts Court to stop executive branch agencies from doing stuff like forgiving student loan debt. It says courts don't read Congressional grants of authority broadly...
4/ Read in context, IEEPA gives the President the power to "regulate imports" in the sense of freezing assets owned by foreign nationals and governments. (That's how previous Presidents have used the law.) That's not anywhere near the power to impose taxes.
3/ The Fed Cir rejected the argument. "Adjust" is not "regulate" and fees are not Congress's core power of *taxation*. If Congress wants to delegate that to the President, it must do so explicitly. And that was Trump's *best* textual argument.
2/ The gov't made an argument that in *one* instance (Sec. 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962), Congress used the phrase "adjust the imports of" & the Supreme Court later construed that as giving the Prez the power to impose license fees in a 1976 case called Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG.
TARIFFS 🧵 1/ I'm delving into the Fed Circuit's analysis. The question is whether the phrase "regulate... importation" in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., should be interpreted as including the power to impose tariffs even though it doesn't SAY that.
BREAKING US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit AFFIRMS lower court ruling, holds, 7-4, that Trump DOES NOT have emergency powers under IEEPA to raise tariffs more TK storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
I will continue to lobby Liz for the show titles to be 100% ABBA puns for the foreseeable future
Next time anyone is thinking of trying to appease this demented administration, try and remember that his footsoldiers won’t settle for anything less than “total victory” (their words)? Thanks. www.cnn.com/2025/08/28/b...
Liz commented that Trump fired half the Park Service. That may have sounded hyperbolic, nut the actual truth is that 90% of the Parks Service in DC has been fired (from 200 to just 20 workers in DC)
Trump wants to “fix” Chicago the way he “fixed” DC. He can’t. And Chicago is doing just fine, thank you very much. With @lizdye.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...
Can Trump ban flag burning? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Can we laugh at him? ABSOLUTELY. Explore all the legal issues with this fascinating new video for @legaleagle.tv from the one and only @lizdye.bsky.social www.youtube.com/watch?v=elBE...
Thank you for the kind words and this is an A+ screen name
To lose one grand jury to a no bill, Ms. Pirro, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness. Three, however, reeks of gross incompetence. h/t @seamushughes.bsky.social storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Judge Thomas Cullen, the Trump appointee in VA sitting by special designation after the admin sued ALL THE JUDGES in MD, has *had it* with these bullshit attacks on the judiciary. Case dismissed. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Wondering what's going on with Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Or redistricting in Texas? Or whether Trump can *really* ban flag burning? It's a Disco Inferno with @lizdye.bsky.social ! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...
Solid counterargument
Pritzker: To the members of the press who are assembled here today and listening across the country, I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story.
HAPPENING NOW: At 2:00 p.m. ET, Judge Paula Xinis is set to hold a telephone conference regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia's newly-filed lawsuit challenging his removal to Uganda. Abrego was detained by ICE earlier today. I plan to live-post the hearing for @lawfaremedia.org. Follow along ⬇️🧵
Nope we cover that!
What’s going on with Kilmar Abrego Garcia? He’s back in Maryland and fighting to avoid being renditioned to Uganda. We break that down for you here. With @lizdye.bsky.social www.lawandchaospod.com/p/abrego-is-...
I don't know Roblox from K'nex or Schlep from... uh, anyone. But you know who does? @lizdye.bsky.social! Liz's latest video at @legaleagle.tv skips the internet drama & discusses the oppressive economics of Robux that leads to... well, you'll see. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaEz...
Start your weekend with www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-159-new... Check out @andrewtorrez.bsky.social excellent impression of
Trump gets a cash windfall in NY & a legal windfall from the 5th Circuit. Meanwhile, Alina Habba is sent packing & much, much more. With @lizdye.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...
BREAKING: Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been freed from a Tennessee jail so he can rejoin his family in Maryland while awaiting trial.
It’s that time again
Crack vs powder redux
The law prohibits you from collecting information on those under 13, which you violated by not collecting information on those under 13 to make sure that you were not collecting info on those under 13. I swear state AGs are the absolute worst. (The explanation of COPPA is wrong in multiple ways)
ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL??!? (We are. Well, the law part, anyway. Did you know the NFL maybe schedules sham Rooney Rule interviews?) With @lizdye.bsky.social
Today's episode welcomes back @lizdye.bsky.social & is jam-packed with all the stories we could handle, including whether the Onion can *maybe* finally buy Infowars after all??? Don't miss it! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...
If you find yourself arguing that human beings shouldn't be provided with toothbrushes and toothpaste, you are the 1000% the baddies. The lawyers making this argument for the government should be shunned. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The odds of getting at least two Trump appointees on any given random draw is ~30%. I’m thinking about the last time I walked by a roulette wheel and saw 11 of the last 13 numbers to hit were red. EVERY FIBER of my being wanted to bet on black even though I *know* it’s a fallacy. So I feel this!
Did you know that the Founders were so vehemently against having a standing army that might do what Comer is calling for that they explicitly wrote into the Constitution that Congress has to reauthorize the existence of the Army every two years or the entire thing has to disband?
New ICE data show that the court order banning profiling reduced ICE arrests in LA by 66%! In other words, ICE is effectively admitting that TWO THIRDS of LA arrests were unconstitutional profiling. Did they admit this to the court? NO! They lied to the courts...
small brain: retrocession of dc to maryland medium brain: dc statehood galaxy brain: "reduc[e] the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states" harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...
DOJ burning through that presumption of regularity in the Maxwell case, as everywhere else. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
TIL that your appendix can be so ruptured that they can’t take it out right away. In related news, Law and Chaos will be taking a brief hiatus from our regular schedule.
ME TOO
Definitely check out today’s episode!
Ed Martin couldn’t indict a bank robber he caught inside the vault. Tish James and Adam Schiff will be fine.
I mean Trump’s term is *supposed* to end in 2028….
Ok so rather than just do what your doc recommends and use a vaccine that has decades of evidence that's it's safe and effective, we're instead going to use some brand new experimental treatment on your children that will make venture capital bros really happy. Cool, cool.
Texas, a new census & the return of @lizdye.bsky.social! All that & @nationalsecuritylaw.org joins us to talk about why Law & Chaos is suing the Trump administration! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/l...
To sum it up: Greg Abbott filed a bad court thingy with the TX Supreme Court. Ken Paxton, Abbott’s AG, told the court that Abbott got the law wrong—but said not to dismiss the case bc he plans to file his own bad court thingy. Abbott replied: Paxton’s wrong, let me do the bad court thingy plz??
Certainly not for the same reasons, no.
2/ also, did you know Oregon Republicans have done the exact same thing six times since 2019? podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...
1/ If you listened to today’s episode, you’d know this is performative bullshit.* * - Also if you didn’t listen but have a modicum of common sense. But! Our episode is still a pretty good explainer of the zero laws (or even norms!) the Texas Democrats have broken. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/u...
What’s going on in Texas? We’ve got you covered. @lizdye.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e...
The 9th Circuit just granted a "partial stay" to the Trump administration of a district court injunction prohibiting racial profiling by ICE. Turns out this was an own goal by the gov't & the court actually *strengthened* the TRO. with @lizdye.bsky.social www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ninth-circ...
Yes, @lizdye.bsky.social is back with another explainer for @legaleagle.tv; this time breaking down the DOJ's mad scramble to "solve the Jeffrey Epstein problem." www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeIg...
lol remember when she let Trump’s goons see literally everything in the docs case
Best subscriber bonus ever :D You really should do a reenactment for a full bonus episode... but try not to laugh there ;)
Okay the main show IS great, but stick around for the subscriber bonus where we check in with overstock dot com weirdo Patrick Byrne who fired five lawyers in three days & had another one DQed by the court….