The 4th Circuit held last week that immigrants have a constitutional right to effective counsel in deportation proceedings, despite them having no right to government-funded attorneys. There seems to be a 10-1 circuit split. DOJ should ask the Supreme Court to decide. pic.twitter.com/JAFGPQsHVn
— John Doe (@fedjudges) August 19, 2025
Opinion:https://t.co/qac78TAVrK
— John Doe (@fedjudges) August 19, 2025
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can vote to repeal a regulation issued by an administrative agency.
— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) August 18, 2025
If the President signs that resolution, then the regulation is repealed and the agency cannot create a "substantially similar" regulation. https://t.co/Frwi3ew6cM
Under the court's logic, the repealed rule and the new rule were not "substantially the same" because the repealed rule covered subjects A+B while the new rule only covered A.
— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) August 18, 2025
A simple example shows the absurdity of the court's reasoning.
will25u said:En banc seems more likely given a judge withheld the mandate which is basically keeping the case at the 5th Cir. for a bit more: https://t.co/JkSh6Clv7Z pic.twitter.com/0g6klCetK7
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 18, 2025
Ag with kids said:will25u said:En banc seems more likely given a judge withheld the mandate which is basically keeping the case at the 5th Cir. for a bit more: https://t.co/JkSh6Clv7Z pic.twitter.com/0g6klCetK7
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 18, 2025
What case is this???
will25u said:Ag with kids said:will25u said:En banc seems more likely given a judge withheld the mandate which is basically keeping the case at the 5th Cir. for a bit more: https://t.co/JkSh6Clv7Z pic.twitter.com/0g6klCetK7
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 18, 2025
What case is this???
About Congress critters being able to have people proxy vote for them. Came up during COVID with a handful of representatives and senators able to vote for multiple people who were not physically present.
Seems like this precedent would make it where someone could cast a vote for an incapacitated reprehensive or sick, etc. Which is bonkers to me.
But it sets up a precedent where you would see less and less representatives actually be present in congress and everyone proxy voting.
flown-the-coop said:
Just do not have any sort of quorum. This is not the 1870's and carrier pigeons delivered news of a special session and folks had to get the crops in, load the wagon and trek to the state house to conduct business on a date certain.
If you need to have a minimum quorum, then as you suggest change the required number by the # of representatives who are willfully absent.
will25u said:
I want my representatives in D.C. not wherever they want. Do some damned work and stop taking 1/2 the year off.
States across the country enacted state versions of the illegal reentry laws. Those states argued that such complementary enactments are not preempted. Every court disagreed. But now two federal courts in Chicago found laws that more directly conflict with federal laws are OK. https://t.co/dTfVNeqkQA pic.twitter.com/DcmKRnA3ms
— Eric W. (@EWess92) August 19, 2025
will25u said:States across the country enacted state versions of the illegal reentry laws. Those states argued that such complementary enactments are not preempted. Every court disagreed. But now two federal courts in Chicago found laws that more directly conflict with federal laws are OK. https://t.co/dTfVNeqkQA pic.twitter.com/DcmKRnA3ms
— Eric W. (@EWess92) August 19, 2025
A federal judge said DHS detaining and deporting a man who illegally entered the country twice and lied about being a US citizen was akin to Japanese internment during World War II. Only a former Berkeley ethnic studies lecturer would have the audacity to make that comparison. pic.twitter.com/IBpTDrHfF4
— John Doe (@fedjudges) August 20, 2025
Mathguy64 said:will25u said:States across the country enacted state versions of the illegal reentry laws. Those states argued that such complementary enactments are not preempted. Every court disagreed. But now two federal courts in Chicago found laws that more directly conflict with federal laws are OK. https://t.co/dTfVNeqkQA pic.twitter.com/DcmKRnA3ms
— Eric W. (@EWess92) August 19, 2025
Lawfare at its finest. If you shop around you can find a judge to rule any way you want them to rule.
jt2hunt said:
What happens now in that case?
Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Trina Thompson as a federal judge, because of course he did. https://t.co/sYl5OyZK13 pic.twitter.com/w48lo73Yr8
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 20, 2025
The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case. "The law in military matters comes the President can discharge the Admiral at his pleasure and without reason.
— Mike Netter (@nettermike) August 20, 2025
Rachel Levine was not in the military. She is a four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps,… pic.twitter.com/Vjix07D9Tu
Quote:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under Director Russ Vought on Tuesday closed a Biden-era investigation against Credova, a subsidiary of Public Square that provides consumer financing for firearms, believing this is yet another example of weaponization of government that the Trump administration hopes to end, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.
In a letter obtained by Breitbart News, Mark Paoletta, the chief legal officer for the CFPB, wrote to James Giudice, the general counsel and chief legal officer for the Public Square Holdings:Quote:
I am writing to inform you that the Bureau is closing its investigation into Credova Financial, LLC that has been going on since February 2021. After reviewing the case, the Bureau has determined that this investigation exemplifies the type of weaponization against disfavored industries and individuals that President Trump and Acting Director Vought are committed to ending. Credova's use of innovative financial technology solutions to provide consumer financing to facilitate Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights made it a target for the Bureau. It is also one of numerous regulation-by-enforcement actions for which the CFPB under former Director Chopra became infamous. That is unacceptable and ends today. [Emphasis added]
"The record of this investigation clearly demonstrates that it was conducted in a biased manner that targeted Credova's exercise of its constitutional rights and facilitation of others' exercise of their constitutional rights," Paoletta continued.
Credova, is a "buy now, pay later" provider of firearms financing that faced a potential enforcement action from the Biden-era CFPB. Credova is owned by Public Square, which operates as a "non-woke" online marketplace, and in an August 2024 quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that CFPB has been authorized to pursue an enforcement action on Credova's lease products and has suggested "injunctive relief."
The CFPB letter stated that more than 90 percent of its business came from the shooting-sports space, including firearms, and that the Bureau's agreement "unmistakably appear targeted at shutting down Credova's firearms business through crushing monetary penalties and arbitrary injunctive restrictions."
Paoletta said he was "appalled" to learn how "plainly politically motivated" the Bureau's actions were, as the "Bureau ratcheted up its settlement demands, via a proposed consent decree" the same day that Donald Trump Jr. joined Public Square's Board of Directors.
Trump Jr. wrote in March 2024, "I'm proud to be an investor in the company that is leading the way in the parallel economy. The acquisition of the leading buy now pay later company that services the 2A industry, Credova, will help $PSQH in building the pro-freedom marketplace."
Quote:
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board is likely unlawful and blocked the NLRB from pursuing cases against SpaceX, pipeline operator Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha, which operates a social services search engine, pending the outcome of their lawsuits.
Quote:
The ruling came from a three-judge panel, two of whom were appointed by Trump and one by G. H. W. Bush.
At issue was the NLRB's enabling legislation that allegedly prevents the president from firing either NLRB members or the administrative law judges employed by the NLRB.
There is also the issue of the NLRB bringing charges against companies based on its interpretation of the law, with cases being heard by NLRB employees, fines being decided by the NLRB, and all appeals being adjudicated by the NLRB.
Judge Don Willett said, in imposing an immediate end to NLRB's investigation, "The Employers have made their case and should not have to choose between compliance and constitutionality. When an agency's structure violates the separation of powers, the harm is immediateand the remedy must be, too. "
Quote:
You'll note that the Fifth Circuit did not follow the example of other judges in issuing a nationwide order stopping NLRB actions. Adhering to American practice, something that seems increasingly foreign to Democrat-appointed judges, the decision applies only to the parties in the lawsuit.
Here, Judge Johnstone reflects many of the arguments raised by the United States in its case. The only difference is that he is applying the same logic to one of the three categories named in Wong Kim Ark. But for that, this could have been an amicus for the Government. pic.twitter.com/FGbenqwVwY
— Eric W. (@EWess92) August 20, 2025
BMX Bandit said:
Labor lawyer buddy described that NLRB ruling as "groundbreaking" and "complete geme changer".
Un.Real. So the "mandate" hasn't issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is basically the appellate court closing out the appeal and sending it back. So district court judge who was reversed enters order saying keep obeying my order! pic.twitter.com/MrUy38k6C1
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 20, 2025
Aggie Jurist said:
I have practiced before the NLRB for 25 years. I've been waiting for this ruling for a while - and I don't expect an en banc 5th Circuity to overrule the panel.
What SCOTUS does is a different matter. I don't know that they have the appetite to destroy the NLRB. The Wagner Act (also known as the National Labor Relations Act), establishing the NLRB became law in 1935.
One can only hope - but the chaos that could ensue would be substantial.
Quote:
My Dad was an oil company exec. He had to deal with the unions and the NLRB often. Not exactly a level playing field for management from what I gleaned.
BREAKING: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will allow the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal in the U.S., overturning San Francisco federal judge Trina Thompson’s decision to… pic.twitter.com/PYGrSB5okZ
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) August 20, 2025
will25u said:BREAKING: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will allow the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal in the U.S., overturning San Francisco federal judge Trina Thompson’s decision to… pic.twitter.com/PYGrSB5okZ
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) August 20, 2025
