@WilliamBaude Court can order contempt, sanctions, reporting, specific actions, etc. to enforce compliance with its orders. Seems odd to require a more specific waiver of sov’n immunity to allow a court to enforce through a directive that requires payment of funds. But…this isn’t my field.
@WilliamBaude Another issue: the order at issue was meant to enforce compliance with a prior TRO that had been violated. That prior TRO was within the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Can sov’n immunity limit a court’s options about how to enforce compliance w/a proper order? Seems wrong…
This site isn’t useful to me anymore, whether for gathering good information or staying on top of developments in my fields. My feeds are dominated by clickbait and by the views of the site’s owner, who is often amplifying false claims or promoting reactionary nonsense.
He posted this on the day the ACLU was in the Supreme Court arguing for the right of parents to choose medical care for a child who is suffering from gender dysphoria. The message is: Freedom for me, not for thee, and “defund” those who disagree. It’s just appalling. No thanks.
(I’m not in the photo because, by the time the jury rendered its verdict, I was at the airport heading to Madrid to join my family there for the fall semester…)
Last week we won a historic victory for our client, Marcel Brown, who was wrongfully imprisoned for 10 years. I’m very proud to have been part of the trial team with @MacArthrJustice and @LoevyandLoevy
VICTORY: A federal jury has just awarded $50 million to our client, Marcel Brown, who was wrongfully convicted after serving ten years in prison.
This ruling marks the largest financial award for a #WrongfulConviction case in U.S. history.
Read more: https://t.co/v6v448tasP
VICTORY: A federal jury has just awarded $50 million to our client, Marcel Brown, who was wrongfully convicted after serving ten years in prison.
This ruling marks the largest financial award for a #WrongfulConviction case in U.S. history.
Read more: https://t.co/v6v448tasP
@OrinKerr Also, and this may be obvious, make sure to alert your judge to any contrary precedent or complicated problems in the record. As the person spending the most time in the weeds, it’s your job to alert for possible landmines.
@OrinKerr Read a bunch of the judge’s opinions and try to learn their writing style. Your judge will appreciate it when you turn in drafts. And if you’re lucky (like I was), it’ll make you a better writer.
@mattyglesias@johnarnold Eric Piza, a criminologist at Northeastern has done a big, sophisticated federal-funded study on ShotSpotter in Chicago and KC. He found, among others, no impact on gun crimes and no benefit to solving shootings. Read his summary of his research here. https://t.co/Qc7EOypVpj
@_AjDriver @robvargas21 There have been two research studies that I know of that actually looked at whether shooting victims were more likely to survive if ShotSpotter detected the shots vs if ShotSpotter didn’t. They both found no difference in mortality rates.
1/ Today @FTC brought and settled charges against Rite Aid for using a biased face scanning system that led to employees falsely accusing people of crimes they did not commit. We impose a 5-year ban on Rite Aid using face surveillance. My statement: https://t.co/hd61YO5vIW
Today, an Illinois appeals court ordered ShotSpotter to respond to subpoenas from Assistant Public Defenders Celeste Addyman and Adair Crosley, affirming that ShotSpotter’s reliability is relevant to our client’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
@jdmortenson I’m out of my depth on these economic questions, so I may be missing something obvious. Maybe there is no cost at all. Or maybe there’s only a cost if, after minting the $1T coin, people start to have doubts about the value/stability of the dollar.
@jdmortenson Tait suggests that minting the coin is cost-free. But if we could finance federal spending/debt just by minting money, why do we bother issuing debt (on which we have to pay interest)? It seems like minting the coin would have to carry a cost analogous to interest on debt.