What is going on in DC is textbook racial profiling and it must be stopped
Senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law. Co-host of the Amicus podcast. Dad to one toddler and several other animals.
144,076 followers 671 following 1,753 posts
view profile on Bluesky
What is going on in DC is textbook racial profiling and it must be stopped
The ICE agents followed my friend for several miles before pulling him over on the pretext that his brake light was out. (That was a lie; it wasn’t out.) They are targeting work vehicles driven by anyone who “looks” Hispanic to them.
ICE agents in DC today appear to be focusing on the North Capitol Street corridor. One is wearing a Texas-themed hat and a “thin blue line” patch that says SEND ME. Again: Keep an eye out for an unmarked black Ford truck with the Texas plate NTV9211.
🚨ICE agents are racially profiling and arresting Hispanic drivers in the DC area today, targeting work vehicles like trucks and vans. A friend who was targeted sent me video today. Here’s a picture that shows one of two agents before he pulled on his mask. Unmarked black Ford truck, plate: NTV9211.
one sign that the “unitary executive” is less the restoration of an older constitutional order and more the imposition of a radical new one is that allowing the president to act untethered from most legal or congressional limits has largely just served to plunge the country into disorder
Yes and that’s always been the problem with SCOTUS trying to create a bespoke carve-out for the Fed. It’s totally illogical and incoherent. At least Trump’s dictatorial claim of power has internal logic to it.
Yes lol
The Supreme Court’s conservatives bear SO much blame for this disaster. They really thought they could let Trump fire every agency leader EXCEPT members of the Fed, and Trump would abide by their stern admonition to leave the Fed alone. Embarrassing stupidity. www.nytimes.com/live/2025/08...
In Colorado for the next week, don’t @ me!
This week on Amicus: Pregnancy criminalization is sharply on the rise in the wake of Roe’s demise. I spoke with a lawyer on the frontlines of the battle against prosecutors—in red and blue states—charging women for their pregnancy outcomes. slate.com/podcasts/ami...
A sneak peek at tomorrow’s new episode of Amicus: A deep blue state is prosecuting a woman for murder because she had a stillbirth. Prosecutors used her Google search about abortion against her. We deem pregnancy criminalization a red state phenomenon at our own peril. slate.com/news-and-pol...
KBJ: "This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."
I initially speculated that today's decision could let the Trump administration cancel the grants, but those closely following this case tell me that the plaintiffs may still be able to prevail in the Court of Federal Claims, something Jackson indicates as well in her dissent.
At the same time, the Supreme Court *leaves in place* an injunction blocking government guidance that prohibits grants relating to DEI, gender identity, and COVID. Here, Justice Barrett joined Roberts and the liberals. So it's a split decision, 5–4, with Barrett as the swing vote. (Very confusing.)
New: The Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to continue terminating NIH grants relating to DEI, gender identity, and COVID. It's a 5–4 decision, with Roberts joining the liberals in dissent. From Justice Jackson's dissent👇 www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
I probably don’t need to say this, but Pirro is obviously wrong that Supreme Court precedent prohibits the prosecution of people carrying illegal firearms without a permit. There is no right to permitless public carry. Not even close. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro—who claims she’s helping Trump fight crime in D.C.—will no longer charge people for illegally carrying shotguns and assault weapons in public, which is a felony offense under D.C. law. Washingtonians, do we feel safer yet? www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
In fact, the Supreme Court's decision in Collins specifically rejected Willett's attempt to use FHFA's removal restrictions as a justification for voiding agency actions. Yet Willett does the same thing here. Is this that "lower court defiance" that conservatives keep complaining about?
What's most galling to me about this decision isn't the unitary executive nonsense (inevitable) but the 5th Circuit leveraging it to invalidate enforcement actions. SCOTUS was quite clear in Collins v. Yellen that the appropriate remedy is severing the removal restrictions, not axing agency actions!
Hey, did you know that the NLRB has operated in violation of the Constitution for 90 years? It's right there in this original Constitution we found in 2025.
I do not feel safer because of this.
The hilarious subtext of this piece seems to be that a gay Republican embroiled in a porn scandal was STILL able to spin National Review into favoring his side of the story in a feud with Winsome Earle-Sears. Winsome Earle-Sears is very bad at politics. www.nationalreview.com/news/blackma...
Totally agree. Far right ideologues are a dime a dozen at this point. Trump wants a totally shameless, proudly unprincipled, tried and true loyalist.
Shakespeare and Twelfth Night somehow not being part of the “western civilization” that these revanchist reactionaries are supposedly defending
BTW the Supreme Court precedent that Ho hates so much, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, simply held that public universities can require student groups to follow a non-discrimination policy in order to receive certain benefits. Ho hates it because it protected gay students from exclusion.
Perhaps this is overly optimistic, but I think Judge Ho's rants have diminishing returns. The initial shock has warn off, and now it feels a little sad and desperate. And repetitive! Truly the same shtick over and over again. Reminds me of this classic Onion article. theonion.com/marilyn-mans...
Judge Ho says that permitting drag shows in college might somehow allow trans students to participate in women's sports; analogizes drag shows to blackface; calls a major Supreme Court decision "bunk"; endorses "broken windows" policing; and condemns "cultural elites." An audition tape for Trump.
The 5th Circuit just struck down West Texas A&M's drag ban—with Judge Ho penning a rancid dissent to whine about discrimination against Christians, criticize drag, slander trans people, and plug Allie Beth Stuckey's new book. His SCOTUS campaign continues. A taste: www.thefire.org/sites/defaul...
Platkin: “Project 2025 laid a lot of this out. What it didn’t lay out, and what I think I’m most disappointed is by how few people have been willing to stand up and fight for what this nation is supposed to be built on.”
💜💜💜
And on Plus: A cathartic conversation with the brilliant @audrelawdamercy.bsky.social about Trump’s idiotic, dangerous, and law-breaking occupation of DC. Then: The district court judges using the Supreme Court’s shadow docket abuses against it. slate.com/podcasts/ami...
This week on Amicus: Fighting Back 101 with New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who keeps beating the Trump administration in court. He has some words for the capitulating cowards, too. slate.com/podcasts/ami...
The executive branch simply has no authority—under federal statute or the Constitution—to replace D.C.'s police chief or alter the force's policies. Yesterday's takeover of MPD is an utterly lawless violation of the Home Rule Act and the Constitution. It's not a close call. slate.com/news-and-pol...
From MPD Chief Pamela Smith: "In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order" than Bondi's directive. She says it'll endanger the lives of civilians and officers. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Here is the D.C. Attorney General's lawsuit seeking to block Pam Bondi from seizing control of MPD. It has been assigned to Judge Reyes, a Biden appointee. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
My own view is that it was *really* smart of D.C. to wait for the Trump admin. to overplay its hand before suing. It's one thing to invoke the emergency police support provision of the Home Rule Act in specific cases; it's something else entirely to claim it allows the feds to *take over* the MPD.
New: The Supreme Court will NOT halt enforcement of a new Mississippi law that restricts minors' access to the internet. Kavanaugh writes separately to say the law is likely unconstitutional but the "balance of harms and equities" don't favor the plaintiffs. www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Excellent article. And vital point: "[Other attacks on LGBTQ rights] merit far more attention and scorn than a long-shot bid to take down marriage equality." Hard agree. And I say that as a gay married person with personal stake at the issue. 🧵 Brief thread
I urge you to read the piece before responding with an objection that is directly addressed in the piece :)
Recent panic that the Supreme Court might soon overturn marriage equality is unwarranted—the justices are highly unlikely to take up the case that has people worried. And this freak-out risks diverting attention away from the court's subtler, ongoing attack on gay rights. slate.com/news-and-pol...
if democrats just would have let republicans put one criminal hatchet man on the court, republicans nearly 40 years later would not have put this criminal hatchet man on a court
Really important piece by D.C. Shadow Senator @ankitjaindc.bsky.social about how Trump's attempted takeover of D.C. is a test run for his broader, unlawful assault on cities around the country. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Vermeule being Miller in academic robes is actually a good way of looking at things.
As Rick Hasen notes, the Supreme Court just fast-tracked its new attack on the Voting Rights Act—increasing the possibility that the justices will strike down the law in time to set off another wave of racist redistricting before the 2026 midterms. electionlawblog.org?p=151533
They haven't taken it, and they will deny cert.
I've talked as much as anyone about the dangers the Supreme Court poses to Obergefell etc. That said, gentle reminder that anyone can ask the Court (or any court) for all sorts of wild shit. Kim Davis is washed, her attorneys in this case are nobodies, and the cert petition was filed a month ago.
The Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit challenging the validity of late-arriving mail ballots in Illinois can move forward on Oct. 8 (Bost). It will consider rolling back 8th Amendment protections against the execution of mentally disabled people on Nov. 4 (Hamm).
After a bit of a delay, the Supreme Court has finally issued its argument calendars for October and November. Challenge to LGBTQ conversion therapy bans on Oct. 7. Assault against the Voting Rights Act on Oct. 15. www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen... www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...
What Mark said. It's understandable why so many are so wary of #SCOTUS. But even *if* there were five votes to revisit Obergefell (and I'm skeptical), this just *isn't* the case in which even those justices would want to do it.
At this moment, there are not five justices itching to burn through limited political capital to overturn Obergefell. That could change. But Kim Davis' petition is almost certainly not going to be the vehicle that the Supreme Court uses to abolish gay couples' constitutional right to marry.
That's not to say that Obergefell is undoubtedly *safe.* Kavanaugh keeps drifting right. So does Roberts. Gorsuch seems less favorable toward LGBTQ equality than he did five years ago. But this court has an agenda, and taking down Obergefell isn't near the top right now. There are other priorities.
If Trump gets to replace one more liberal justice, then Obergefell will be in serious danger of reversal. But today, there are not five justices with the appetite to take down marriage equality. For now, the bigger threat lies in the weaponization of the First Amendment to undercut gay equality.
The Supreme Court has also weaponized the First Amendment to legalize discrimination against same-sex couples in public accommodations, a project that will expand in the coming years. In its current configuration, the conservative majority is more dedicated to that project than reversing Obergefell.
At this Supreme Court, the biggest realistic threat to gay rights isn't outright reversal of Obergefell, but the ongoing abridgment of gay equality in the name of religious liberty and free speech. For instance, next term the court will likely strike down bans on LGBTQ conversion therapy for minors.
The Supreme Court is extraordinarily unlikely to use this case as a vehicle to overturn marriage equality. The merits of Obergefell aren't even the central legal issue in the case. I understand the fear, but this is not a serious request. abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...
The Solicitor General of the U.S. is openly lying to federal courts about what tariffs do, falsely claiming that tariff "deals" are agreements to pay "trillions of dollars." A disgrace to the legal profession and a disgrace to the office. He should resign.
This is a really important corrective to a lot of reporting today. Trump did not—and cannot—federalize MPD. The police force remains under the ultimate control of the mayor.
D.C. needs statehood. But in the meantime, we need Democrats to stop giving into the GOP's bad-faith assault on home rule. Congress' 2023 repeal of our criminal code revision opened the door to even more far-reaching attacks on the District's self-governance. Democrats cannot give an inch here.
This shameful episode👇 set the stage for what Trump is doing today. Cynical Democrats and pundits claimed that D.C. couldn't be trusted to write our own criminal laws, legitimizing Republicans' insistence that we don't deserve home rule. A straight line from there to here. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Senate Democrats who are angry about Trump's dictatorial takeover of D.C. law enforcement can flex their opposition by voting AGAINST three pending Senate bills that would repeal laws enacted by D.C.'s elected representatives.
The waddling here is so embarrassing ... between this and the military parade, there appears to be a posture crisis among uniformed officials
One perverse aspect of Trump calling up the D.C. National Guard while crime plummets to a 30-year-low: Trump REFUSED to call up the D.C. Guard on Jan. 6 to counter an insurrection that he himself incited. If Congress won't give D.C. statehood, at least give us control over our National Guard.
oops! storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
As an international lawyer engaging with (critical) history, I tend to tiptoe around the US Originalism Debates whenever possible. (We have our own heated discourse on this.) But here's a rare exception where I'm seeing some cool parallels that actually apply & add to both discourses!
With @maggieblackhawk.bsky.social!
Many thanks to @maggieblackhawk.bsky.social for the rich and very necessary history lesson (plus Greg Ablavsky who sadly isn’t on BlueSky!) slate.com/podcasts/ami...
(The one time I’m actually curious for Neil Gorsuch’s thoughts on an episode!)
This week on Amicus: A fascinating conversation about the meaning of the Constitution as understood by Native nations in 1789—and whether squeezing their perspectives into an “originalist” framework risks legitimizing the government-led atrocities that followed. slate.com/podcasts/ami...
Spoke with the great @cristianfarias.com about the Justice Department asking the Supreme Court for permission to turbocharge the California immigration raids through mass racial profiling: slate.com/news-and-pol...
Yes and it should be
The upshot of Katsas and Rao's opinions is that the judiciary has no real power to investigate or punish the Trump administration for defying its orders. Their reasoning would make it impossible for courts to issue contempt orders against this government, civil or criminal. It's honestly insane.
Among other things, Katsas and Rao's opinions foreshadow how these two will run interference for Trump if Democrats take the House in 2026 and try to investigate the executive branch. They start from the premise that Trump is a king and work backward from there. www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Judge Boardman certifies a class of every baby in the country subject to Trump’s citizenship-stripping EO and blocks the unconstitutional order nationwide. Look how she throws Alito’s words back at him as the CASA case heads back up towards SCOTUS. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
New: The Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to halt an injunction that’s currently preventing it from racially profiling Hispanic people while conducting immigration arrests in part of California. www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Nothing— and I mean nothing— about this decision is more than the bare desire to harm.
No?
The specific law at issue in the campaign finance case is actually 1974's Federal Election Campaign Act, but the limits in question are intertwined with McCain–Feingold.
No oral arguments for any of these yet but it is easy to read the tea leaves
I fear it's being overlooked that next term, the Supreme Court will likely strike down: •what's left of the Voting Rights Act •all bans on LGBTQ conversion therapy for minors •the last remaining pillar of McCain–Feingold's campaign finance reform ... while upholding bans on trans student athletes.
Under that reasoning, wouldn't the greater power of denying incorporation altogether include the lesser power of regulating the corporation's spending? (Basically White's argument in First National Bank)
(a) Ilan's tweet is a textbook example of circular logic (b) If he is correct, what would stop the government from conditioning the grant of a corporate charter on a company's agreement never to spend money on politics?
Chatting with @anacabrera.bsky.social on MSNBC in a few minutes about the Trump administration quietly plotting the first step of its attack on birthright citizenship slate.com/news-and-pol...
What are we thinking for a title? "If I Did It: Confessions of the Dobbs Leaker"? "Afraid of the Subway”? I personally envision an unauthorized sequel to Uncle Bobby's Wedding in which Chloe converts to Catholicism then turns him straight: "Uncle Bobby's Conversion." www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/p...
Conservative legal luminary Jack Goldsmith points out that Justice Barrett's opinion in the universal injunction case rests on an error: For the purposes of historical analysis, she looked at the wrong statute and got the relevant date wrong by nearly *a century.* papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Oh, and this one's also available on YouTube for those who prefer video! (Sorry you have to look at Emily Bove's face.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztm...
The Supreme Court punting a big Voting Rights Act case on the last day of the term was weird, until last week, when it became very clear that the justices did so because they want to use it to get rid of what remains of the Voting Rights Act
I also had the immense honor of guest-hosting an episode of Strict Scrutiny with @leahlitman.bsky.social! There was simply too much legal news for one podcast last week! You can listen here: www.crooked.com/podcast/stac...
And as Mark says, our convo is part of the most ambitious legal podcast cross over event in history! Here’s the Amicus episode that’s paired with this Strict Scrutiny! @mjsdc.bsky.social podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a...
Interesting and timely. I broadly share Holding’s view that it’s way too early to abandon hope that the imperfect lower courts can hold the line against Trump and his Supreme Court majority.
My New One at @slate.com on the Supreme Court Potentially Killing the Remaining Pillar of the Voting Rights Act: “The Supreme Court Just Signaled Something Deeply Disturbing About the Next Term” slate.com/news-and-pol...
And for Plus: A fabulous and infuriating conversation with @leahlitman.bsky.social about Trump's Justice Department lying—a LOT—and actually getting caught. Plus: The first stage of Trump's attack on birthright citizenship is starting to become a reality. slate.com/podcasts/ami...
This week on Amicus: A reason NOT to give up on the courts despite the horrific confirmation of Emil Bove. We look at three remarkable district court judges who refuse to give up on equal justice and use every ounce of their power to fight courageously for the rule of law. slate.com/podcasts/ami...
😬The Supreme Court will consider whether the intentional creation of a majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments. If the answer is yes, SCOTUS will effectively declare that what remains of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. This is very, very ominous.
Spoke with @leahlitman.bsky.social about ANOTHER federal judge calling out the Trump administration for lying to the Supreme Court, and where all this legal gaslighting could eventually lead us. slate.com/news-and-pol...
One of my favorite bookstores in the DC area, People's Book, revealed the Republican lobbyists who bought bulk orders of GOP Sen. McCormick's dumb new book from the store to goose sales numbers. Then it gave all the profits from the sale to an immigrant charity. www.washingtonian.com/2025/08/01/d...
Under pressure from the White House, the Smithsonian censored an exhibit that mentioned Trump’s impeachments, now inaccurately suggesting to visitors that he was never impeached at all (let alone twice). www.washingtonpost.com/entertainmen...
Last night, Emil Bove celebrated his confirmation as a federal appeals court judge at Butterworth’s, the MAGA hot spot in D.C. The Article III Project hosted the party, with guests including Steve Bannon, Jack Posobiec, Judge Jeanine, Todd Blanche, Chad Mizelle, Ed Martin, and Jeffrey Clark.
Awww I love him! Thank you for sharing these beautiful photos!
Oh boy. www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/u...
NEW: I spoke with a woman named Andrea about her experience being detained by ICE after calling the cops for help during a domestic violence incident. She was recently postpartum, breastfeeding & put in an all-male facility. She was detained for 2.5 months.