A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday struck down President Trump's executive order targeting D.C.-based law firm WilmerHale, declaring the order "unconstitutional" and permanently blocking the administration from enforcing it. https://t.co/k2V4hbZjKr
@PODS Not only did your company screw up and cancel my order for no reason—I have been on the phone for 5 hours with your company and not only are you unable to fix the error and have a pod delivered, but you cannot even get in touch with the local delivery facility to try to fix it
@PODS I have been getting messages and emails confirming my container delivery for weeks, then the night before, I called because I had not heard the delivery window—turns out PODS mistakenly canceled my order and cannot fix it. Lost money from moving permits, movers, travel plans
[2/2] Trump v. US addressed the former but did not alter the status quo for the latter. The President still must have legal authority to take action--subject to judicial review. The difference is between being able to do something and being criminally liable for doing it.
[1/2] In re Trump v. US, it is important to maintain the distinction between a President:
(1) not being criminally liable for official acts (now at least presumptively); and
(2) not being bound by the law at all in such actions.
Over at @thenewdigest Adrian Vermeule has offered thoughts on the recent Trump v United States case on official immunity. He explores what it means for someone to be “above the law” in classical thought ⬇️
He’s not on X at the moment, but if you want Prof Adrian Vermeule’s take on the US Supreme Courts overruling of Chevron we have it over @thenewdigest ⬇️
@zach_pohlman (3/4) Much of the reasoning in Loper Bright seems to match the dissent's reasoning in Kisor (regarding Art. III, APA 706). Without Chevron, we are left with the MQD and Skidmore--all in all: many of the same factors as Kisor.