Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
3/3 As drafted, the Order would prohibit Donald Trump & heads of agencies from assessing data or firing anyone. Would be most restrictive of all TROs entered to day if Court enters.
10:23 PM · Feb 15, 2025

Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
🚨🚨🚨Judge in ⬇️case denies stay pending appeal. Court's reasoning based on his huge walk back of what he really enjoined saying basically "oh, I've only ordered you to not do what you can't legally do." 1/. //

The pattern seems to be that judges respond immediately to requests for temporary restraining orders with overbroad language, then quietly walk the language back once the headlines pass.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
If ANY judge ANYWHERE can stop EVERY Presidential action EVERYWHERE, we do NOT live in a democracy.
10:57 PM · Feb 13, 2025. //

TK421
4 hours ago
To that moron from the union: It doesn't matter whether there's precedent, just whether it's legal. And, your use of the term 'dismantling' is meaningless in a legal sense. What would be unconstitutional would be the Executive branch eliminating a Congressionally created agency. That hasn't happened. It was moved under the auspices of the State Department, so it still exists. One of the things the Executive can do, is determine the staffing level, and you have no right to argue otherwise. If the Executive branch determines that only 10 people are needed to administer the agency's programs (especially because those programs have been scaled back), tough luck. //

anon-tk7z NavyVet
37 minutes ago
do you know how many companies just gave up because of unions? This is exactly their position. Businesses were not negotiating with their people , they were negotiating with a distant entity that showed up for a day or two, threatened the company, left, destroyed the company, and left the workers with no jobs unless they moved. Bread companies, gum companies, toy companies, glass companies, local metalists, on and on and on, small businesses of 50-60 people. So, the companies just closed. Poverty and lack of self worth flourished. The good things unions did are now hard-wired into any business here in this country.

Engelmayer is the first judge ever to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the president of the United States that also forbids a cabinet secretary from accessing his own records without giving these parties an opportunity to respond. He offered zero analysis of his constitutional authority to make such a radical ruling, the federal rule governing injunctions and temporary restraining orders, or why he is enabling fraud and grift by blocking access to records that show who got government money and for what. //

The situation is actually worse than that. Here’s the timeline of the court filings. All these initial documents were filed by New York Special Trial Counsel Colleen Faherty. //

1:04 a.m. — Faherty e-mailed four items — the complaint, the legal memorandum, her prior affirmation, and the order granting the TRO — to two government lawyers, only one of whom had been a recipient of her 7:32 p.m. email.

1:14 a.m. — The complaint was refiled with the deficiency corrected. Note that a properly filed complaint was not filed until more than a half-hour after Judge Engelmayer had already entered his order. //

The accelerated timeline is simply incredible, especially in view of the voluminous materials that any diligent judge would analyze to render a proper opinion. And I mean “incredible” in its literal sense of “not to be believed.”

The last documents filed in support of the request for a TRO were at 10:13 and 10:15 p.m. These included the legal memorandum with its citation to 54 court opinions. Did Engelmayer read these? Not a chance. Did he read any of them? If he did, you can’t tell it from his order, other than one citation from him to a single case that had no resemblance to the case before him. //

Even if Engelmayer had received and began to study these materials immediately after he had them all, he spent less than two-and-one-half hours reviewing and analyzing the materials presented to him before entering his order at 12:39 a.m.

That’s not even counting the time it would have taken Engelmeyer to write his order. If he took only a half-hour to do that, he spent less than two hours to peruse the voluminous record and then begin to write his order. He could not possibly have considered more than a small fraction of the cited cases and other authorities in that time. It raises the question of how much of this order was AI-generated.

"In other words, as the President asserts, ‘[t]he Russia Collusion Hoax was dead, at least until Defendants [as members of the Pulitzer Prize board] attempted to resurrect it’ by conspiring to publish a defamatory statement falsely implying that the President colluded with the Russians."

In their motion to dismiss, the Board had asserted that their statement defending the awards was purely opinion and not actionable. Artau, however, points out that they injected claims of fact.

"The board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election," he wrote.

Artau states that President Trump met the burden of establishing jurisdiction for the trial court and can therefore "proceed with his asserted claims that the non-resident defendants acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth." //

Trump's lawsuit countered that assertion, noting explicitly how the Washington Post had “retracted statements from several articles from 2017 relating to the Steele Dossier and other alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Indeed, the Post quietly edited two major articles that relied on the discredited Steele dossier and added editor’s notes to at least 14 other reports.

Tim Carney
@TPCarney
·
Follow
1) The ACLU believes there are four branches of the government.
2) It's favorite "branch" is the imaginary one that has zero democratic accountability.
Casey Mattox
@CaseyMattox_
ACLU: "Not only would such mass layoffs violate federal law, but this action would undermine the important and historic check that the career civil service has had on curbing abuses by the executive branch.". //

Judge O'Boyle ruled that [shocked face] none of the plaintiffs had standing to file suit to stop the buyout because they'd suffered no harm. Indeed, virtually every one of the court actions filed to stymie the Trump administration could be settled in five minutes if judges simply took the idea of "standing" seriously. The unions had claimed harm because they were being forced to spend time and money trying to stop the buyout, which could be devoted to other, unnamed, and probably criminal, union activities. Judge O'Boyle said the plaintiffs can't "spend their way into standing, neither can the plaintiffs in this case establish standing by choosing to divert resources towards “respond[ing] to tremendous uncertainty created by OPM’s actions” and away from other union priorities."

The bigger picture was the nature of the complaint itself.

Second, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ pleaded claims. While not binding on this Court, the decision in Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Trump (“AFGE”) is instructive. 929 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2019). In that case, the court held that the plaintiff-unions’ claims fell within the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute’s (“FSL-MRS”) scheme and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Id. at 754.

This means the unions must exhaust appeals through the agency and then through the Federal Labor Relations Authority before heading to federal court.

JD Vance @JDVance
·
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.

Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
3:13 PM · Feb 9, 2025 //

Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47
·
President Trump demolishes Fake News "reporter" @svdate on Air Force One:

POTUS: "I don't know even what you're talking about. Neither do you. Who are you with?"

@svdate: "HuffPost, sir."

POTUS: "No wonder. I thought they died."

11:08 PM · Feb 9, 2025. //

The president certainly has a way with reporters, doesn't he? Let's talk about the dishonest framing of Date's question, though.

Read what Vance wrote again. Did he ever "suggest" the administration would "enforce it themselves" regarding going around a Supreme Court ruling? Was the Supreme Court even mentioned at all? The answer to all those questions is no. Instead, what Vance did was state a plain fact, at least in his view of the law. Namely, that the judge is out of line in usurping the statutory authority of the executive branch to control the bureaucratic state.

No doubt, the remedy to those things will be an appeal, and when it reaches the Supreme Court, it will likely end up being a bloodbath for the bureaucracy. On that front, Democrats and the press should be careful what they wish for regarding waging these court battles. The only reason Roe v. Wade was overturned is because leftists picked a fight they weren't ready to win over a state law in Mississippi.

Do you know who did brag about ignoring the Supreme Court, though? That would be one Joseph Robinette Biden. //

MajorKong
7 hours ago
Vance has the benefit of being correct on the legal point as well. The relief is extra judicial. Not available to the court. Bondi needs to ask for sanctions against the judge at the next level. //

emptypockets
4 hours ago
So that's why HuffPo got a seat in the press briefing lineup. For their value as a chew toy.

What he never bothers to explain is how state attorneys general have any standing to challenge the internal workflows of the Treasury Department, how auditing a system within the Treasury Department is beyond the power of the Treasury Department, how the Executive Branch can violate the separation of powers by carrying out an audit, or how DOGE's action is anything other than the epitome of the "Take Care Clause" which would seem to anyone without TDS to require laws to be obeyed.

It should be to no one's shock that the lead clown in this pathetic circus of TDS sufferers is Letitia James.

The complaint presents a veritable "parade of horribles" of things that "might" happen, which, even if true, fall in the "not your circus, not your monkey" category of complaints. //

This will turn out to be more performative than real. When a federal judge ordered a halt to Trump's spending freeze (see Biden Judge Puts Trump's Spending Freeze on Hold and Orders the Feeding Trough Opened), the administration essentially answered, "yeah, no."

Defendants do not read the Order to prevent the President or his advisors from communicating with federal agencies or the public about the President’s priorities regarding federal spending. Nor do Defendants construe the Order as enjoining the President’s Executive Orders, which are plainly lawful and unchallenged in this case. Further, Defendants do not read the Order as imposing compliance obligations on federal agencies that are not Defendants in this case. Defendants respectfully request that the Court notify Defendants if they have misunderstood the intended scope of the Court’s Order. //

We'll soon see how Attorney General Bondi responds to this nonsense and if she's willing to draw a line at this sort of judicial overreach. If she goes along with it, it effectively means that the President literally does not have the authority to give directions to the Executive Branch, and the Treasury Secretary cannot establish policies in his agency without getting the approval of some judge somewhere based on the complaint of random people. //

Lugger66
a day ago
As i said u might as well have a judge say DT cant be POTUS.
Truth is not only does this need to be slapped down they need to be punished. //

anon-adwq
a day ago
Treasury Secretary made the DOGE auditors employees of the Treasury. So the Judge's order now applies to people who do not exist ("outside auditors"). Game, set, match. Trump's team is well ahead of the flailing activist Democrat judges. They can scream into the wind. The common meme picture of the screaming Karen can be updated to wearing judicial robes. Gotta love it! //

PubliusCryptus
a day ago
This conflict is a make or break event. The Judiciary has been out of control for generations now and it must be forced back into its Constitutionally defined role. Judges who exceed their authority must be removed from the bench and prosecuted for abuse of their powers. Their abuse has been going on for so long and their hubris has reached such a level that I fear simply ignoring them will not solve this problem. Arrest and imprison them.

Kennedy's Executive Order 10973 named the USAID. But read the first line carefully.

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 424) and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

This corresponds to a Congressional directive, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. That law required Kennedy to create a foreign aid organization to replace the hodgepodge then in existence. The law lists a wide range of international aid activities required by Congress and directs the president to put those functions under a single person.

The President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. Tne head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions, and may delegate authority to perform any such functions, including, if he shall so specify, the authority successively to redelegate any of such functions to any of his subordinates. //

Such designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part. //

From the beginning, the USAID administrator has required Senate approval and has had a budget.

Because Congress created the agency, President Trump will either gut it and leave the remnant alive or set off a direct conflict with Congress, which he may or may not want.

Here are the powers given to the President by the 1807 Insurrection Act, as modified in 2006:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act //

This law, I am given to understand, provides a statutory exemption to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of the armed forces in civil law enforcement. In other words, President Trump would seem to have a tool here, if he chooses to use it. The Posse Comitatus Act also specifically states “…except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress…” This means that suppression of domestic insurrection is specifically exempted, as an Act of Congress – the Insurrection Act – allows the use of the military.

Now, I’m not generally in favor of the government, at any level, using force unless met first by force. But dip me in... something unpleasant if the events of the last few days ain’t been different. There is an organized, armed, destructive rebellion going on against civil authority. The protesters are blocking the public roadways, interfering with the law-abiding citizenry’s right to go about their daily business unimpeded, and possibly endangering lives by impeding the passage of emergency vehicles.

If the president won’t authorize the use of soldiers and Marines to quell the burning, rioting, and looting, then the only recourse is for private citizens to arm themselves in response and to use deadly force themselves in defense of the life, limb, and property of themselves and their neighbors. //

So, yes, the president has some tools to deal with these protests, if things get bad enough. But it's likely, for the time being, he's going to continue the "you made your bed, now you lie in it" approach.

President Trump followed up his rampage through the National Labor Relations Board (Trump Goes Pearl Harbor on the National Labor Relations Board, Fires Chairman and General Counsel) by firing two Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioners and its general counsel. The newly reduced EEOC can no longer bring enforcement actions or initiate rulemaking as it doesn't have a quorum. //

Under Joe Biden, the EEOC bullied companies into submitting to DEI and replacing Equality with Equity.

Much like the defenestrated acting chairman at the NLRB, the two fired Democrats were not happy about the cruel turn of fate. //

Unlike the NLRB commissioner, whose firing seems questionable because the law says NLRB commissioners can only be fired for cause, the EEOC's enabling legislation does not require that.

The EEOC now only has two members and cannot act until President Trump nominates replacements. This is mostly a good thing.

I think there is something else going on with these firings. It seems like the Trump White House may be teeing up a challenge to a Supreme Court case.

In 2020, the CFPB was challenged for its blatantly unconstitutional structure. Under the law, it was managed by a single director who could only be removed "for cause." The Supreme Court agreed that allowing a single individual to control an agency outside the reach of the president to remove them was unconstitutional.

I believe the target of Trump's removal of three commissioners, one who can only be removed for cause and two without similar protections, is to convince the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey's Executor vs. United States. This 1935 decision held that the president could only remove the commissioner of independent agencies for reasons established by Congress. The Selia decision established that did not apply to single commissioners; Trump wants to take a run at it to see if he can get that precedent overturned the way Chevron was reversed last summer; //

We'll see how this turns out, but even if Trump is wrong, the NLRB and EEOC will not be lumbering about the countryside and disturbing the livestock until the Supreme Court speaks. //

OrneryCoot
3 hours ago
There is something inherently wrong with the idea that the leader of the executive branch of government cannot fire persons under his authority, tasked with implementing his policy, in the executive branch. That is all kinds of "only in Washington" dumb. Trump is right to blast through that and try to tee up a SCOTUS decision. In the meantime, I will breathe a sigh of relief that these people are removed from their positions of power. Democrat appointed workers in the administrative state are open sores that need to be cut out.

What is also significant about each of the cases listed above is that the convictions in each case were affirmed by the federal Appeals Court — just like Joseph Fischer’s conviction was affirmed — before the convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court, and those reversals were unanimous in almost every case.

This unbroken line of decisions by the Supreme Court should have been warning enough to Biden DOJ prosecutors who decided to charge hundreds of January 6 protesters with a felony using a novel legal theory under a new statute.

Some involved in making that decision may now pay a price for having done with their jobs – and rightly so. //

Louis Rukeyser's Ghost
8 hours ago
So the previous Supreme Court rulings should have told the corrupt, political prosecutors not to do something corrupt and political? LOL. //

DaveM Louis Rukeyser's Ghost
8 hours ago edited
Don't let the Courts off the hook here. Every one of these decisions were binding on both the Appeals and Circuit Courts . And yet but one of them actually followed the precedents. //

Indylawyer DaveM
8 hours ago
Yeah, the lawyers probably looked at this case and noticed that they had a pretty good chance of winning until they got to the Supreme Court. And since that Court only takes a tiny percentage of the cases presented to it, they figured they had good odds. If the GOP had nominated someone who wanted to just put the whole J6 affair behind us, it probably would have worked. Plus it usually takes a few years for cases to get there, so they were likely successful in using this statute to force more jail time than most of the defendants would have served without it.

anon-n5wm
6 hours ago
A woman wearing a cross in a room full of atheists, God bless America. //

Tech in RL
4 hours ago
It’s not suprising she’s good at her job. She was Deputy Press Secretary to Kayleigh McEnany, after all. She studied with the master. Trump is the most transparent president in recent history and makes her job even easier. She doesn’t have to lie like the DEI hire did. //

anon-wy307
4 hours ago
Seila Law vs. CFPB (2020). The President is the sole individual in whom the executive authority is vested, and the authority of the President to fire personnel is absolute. Congress attempting to interfere or be consulted violates the separation of powers. The 30-day notice is unconstitutional.

That was the ruling.

Trump's US Attorney for the District of Columbia quickly responded:

The Court entered an Order dated January 24, 2025 Amending Conditions of Release (ECF 940). The defendants, however, are no longer subject to the terms of supervised release and probation, as the Executive Order "commute(d) the sentences" of these defendants. As the terms of supervised release and probation are included in the "sentences" of the defendants, the Court may not modify the terms of supervised release; the term is no longer active by effect of the Executive Order. See United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. 634, 648 (2019) (Supreme Court has acknowledged "that an accused's final sentence includes any supervised release sentence he may receive" and therefore "supervised release punishments arise from and are treat[ ed] as part of the penalty for the initial offense") (cleaned up)).

The United States hereby indicates that the Order must be vacated. //

It made clear that the executive branch did not agree with Mehta's interpretation and would not play any role in enforcing it.

This put Mehta in the embarrassing position of standing his ground and being made a laughing stock or backing down and trying to save a little bit of dignity. He chose the latter.

Error #1: The citizenship clause merely adopted the pre-Dred Scott common law rule that everyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.

In 1856, the Supreme Court held in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that the U.S.-born descendants of African slaves were not and could never become citizens, even though under the traditional common law rule, a person automatically became a citizen of the nation on whose soil he or she was born. The plaintiffs contend that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was intended to restore this earlier common law rule of universal birthright citizenship.

They support this claim with a single, highly edited quotation from Sen. Jacob Howard, a Republican from Michigan, who was instrumental in drafting the citizenship clause: “This amendment … is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is … a citizen of the United States.” //

Instead, Howard was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was valid federal law. That act was Congress’s first attempt to override Dred Scott, and statutorily defined birthright citizenship for the first time in American history: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Far from being an adoption of common law universal birthright citizenship, the Civil Rights Act intended to bestow birthright citizenship only on the children of those who, like the newly freed slaves, owed complete allegiance to the United States and were subject to the fullest extent of its political jurisdiction. //

Indeed, the most damning indictment of the plaintiff’s contention comes from the very quotation they use to support it—at least when that quotation isn’t disingenuously edited. The very next line of the quote, which the plaintiffs in this lawsuit conveniently cut, reads: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors [sic] or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

This clearly demonstrates that Howard believed they weren’t constitutionalizing the common law rule, but rather a rule that—consistent with the Civil Rights Act’s focus on allegiance to foreign powers—was much more selective in its bestowal of birthright citizenship. //

Error #2: This is an unprecedented action—the executive branch has long recognized that it can’t deny citizenship to children based on the immigration or citizenship status of their parents.

This assertion is only true if history begins in the first half of the 20th century. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, it doesn’t. In the decades following the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the federal government regularly articulated a view of the citizenship clause that’s remarkably similar to that espoused in Trump’s order, and the executive branch issued citizenship documents accordingly. //

Error #3: The Supreme Court confirmed in Wong Kim Ark that the citizenship clause automatically bestows citizenship on the U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

Contrary to popular assertions, this is not what the Supreme Court held in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark v. United States. The question decided by the court in that case was far narrower: whether a child born in the U.S. to lawfully present and permanently domiciled immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen. And the court concluded that, indeed, the U.S.-born child of this narrow and specific subset of noncitizen parents is a citizen. //

In fact, the court repeatedly emphasized the lawful and permanent domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, factors that are utterly irrelevant under the common law. A true common law opinion would have said, “He was born on U.S. soil, his parents aren’t diplomats or part of some invading army, so therefore he is a citizen.”

This is also why, for decades after Wong Kim Ark, leading constitutional law scholars continued to articulate a distinction between American birthright citizenship—“where the alien must be permanently domiciled”—and birthright citizenship under English common law, which applied even to temporary sojourners. //

Error #4: The president’s order will leave many children deportable and stateless.

It would rarely, if ever, be true that a U.S.-born child of illegal or nonpermanent resident aliens would be left stateless simply because he or she isn’t automatically granted U.S. citizenship. Virtually every nation (including the United States) recognizes some manner of citizenship “by blood,” under which a child is automatically eligible for citizenship when one or both parents are citizens, even if that child is born abroad. //

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, don’t bother articulating a single set of circumstances under which a U.S.-born child of foreign nationals would ever be completely ineligible for—or disqualified from—citizenship or nationality in every other country the world due to a confluence of legal technicalities and the fact of his or her birth on U.S. soil.

On Monday night, over the course of around 4 hours, about 225 Jan6 inmates were summarily released from custody in 40 or more BOP facilities.

When there was some reluctance/resistance to those releases happening late at night on federal holiday, the word went out -- I know because I had something to do with that -- for staff to come into the facilities and process the necessary paperwork.

So, the idea that some number of J6 defendants were "lost" or "overlooked" or "hidden" is must stupidity of the highest level.

DOC is not part of BOP. The J6 defendants at DOC were housed under a contract with the US Marshal Service. They dont work for Pres. Trump like BOP works for Pres. Trump. He can't fire them for not doing their job when told like he can fire BOP workers for not doing their job when told.

That's why BOP snapped to when told to do so on Monday night.

Some number of J6 defendants at DOC had "detainers" -- an electronic "hold" that says "Before this person is released pleas contact _____ -- which is usually a state or county prosecutor. That means the person is facing different charges somewhere else in the country. Could be federal too. They need to make a court appearance so that terms of bail can be resolved in that court. //

The incoming Trump Admin had it planned well enough to get 225 inmates released in 4 hours, filed more than 2000 court documents in 48 hours to resolve all charges against 1600 people, yet somehow the "Deep State" is "hiding" 10 people.

Think of it this way. Someone from Great Britain visiting the United States is subject to our laws while here, which is to say subject to our partial or territorial jurisdiction. He must drive on the right-hand side of the road rather than the left, for example. But he does not thereby owe allegiance to the United States; he is not subject to being drafted into our army; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason (as opposed to ordinary violations of law) if he takes up arms against the United States, for he has breached no oath of allegiance.

So which understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction” did the drafters of the 14th Amendment have in mind?

Happily, we don’t need to speculate, as they were asked that very question. They unambiguously stated that it meant “complete” jurisdiction, such as existed under the law at the time, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were “subject to a foreign power.”

Happily, we don’t need to speculate, as they were asked that very question. They unambiguously stated that it meant “complete” jurisdiction, such as existed under the law at the time, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which excluded from citizenship those born on U.S. soil who were “subject to a foreign power.”

The Supreme Court confirmed that understanding (albeit in dicta) in the first case addressing the 14th Amendment, noting in The Slaughterhouse Cases in 1872 that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” It then confirmed that understanding in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, holding that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase required that one be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” John Elk, the Native American claimant in the case, did not meet that requirement because, as a mem­ber of an Indian tribe at his birth, he “owed imme­diate allegiance to” his tribe and not to the United States.

Thomas Cooley, the leading treatise writer of the era, also confirmed that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdic­tion to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.” More fundamentally, this understanding of the Citizenship Clause is the only one compatible with the consent of the governed principle articulated in the Declaration of Independence.

Citing President Trump's executive order Ending The Weaponization Of The Federal Government, Donald Trump's Department of Justice ordered all federal prosecution under the Free Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act be dropped immediately. "[F]uture abortion-related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances, or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors, such as death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage." In addition to invoking a new set of rules, the memo titled "FACE ACT CHARGING POLICY" orders a moratorium on any future FACE Act prosecutions without the permission of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

This is an incredible volte-face by a Justice Department that only a month ago was happily slamming pro-life activists with felony convictions and prison time for minor infractions of the FACE Act. According to reports, the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) has charged approximately 60 individuals with FACE Act violations, a sharp rise compared to fewer than 100 cases in the law's first 26 years. Only five of these prosecutions were directed against pro-abortion terrorists and groups. As the memo states: "This is not the even-handed administration of justice." //

This follows up on President Trump's pardon of 23 pro-life activists Thursday;

Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.

There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”

The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.

The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.

Plaintiffs in the case obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior Biden White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded directly and indirectly with social media companies to purge disfavored news and views en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. The defendants did so on ostensible grounds of combatting dangerous “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” In deputizing non-governmental actors as its speech police, the plaintiffs argued, the feds engaged in a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment by proxy.

The case, alongside congressional investigations and reportage including the “Twitter Files,” helped expose the size, scope, and nature of the censorship-industrial complex. //

The defendants appealed. But Judge Doughty’s counterparts on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld his ruling.

So the feds took their argument to the Supreme Court. There, shockingly, as I observed while attending oral arguments, far too many of the justices showed they held a perversely narrow view of the First Amendment, and they gave substantial deference to the feds that had so imperiled it. Some also seemed remarkably ignorant of the expansive factual record supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.

Last summer, the high court dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns and Americans’ free speech rights on a technicality. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supremes held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, refusing to rule on the merits of the case.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rebuked the court for straining to create “new” and “heightened” standards to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing and warned that the court’s refusal to rule on the merits of the case could result in dire consequences.

“[W]e are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito asserted. “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

The dissent concluded that what transpired in Murthy “was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

By not ruling that the censorship-industrial complex’s acts were unconstitutional — by avoiding the question entirely — the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America. //

The courts simply cannot be seen as a reliable backstop for protecting our First Amendment rights against the censorship-industrial complex.

What’s more, if Republicans allow the fed-led censorship regime to persist, there will be no deterrent to Democrat efforts to create analogous regimes going forward, targeting rights beyond those enshrined in the First Amendment.

But what that Constitution means is being determined just east of the rotunda, in the marble halls of the Supreme Court, where a group of pornographers claiming the mantle of free speech are attempting to ensure that the president’s oath includes defending their ability to peddle obscene materials to children.

They call themselves the “Free Speech Coalition,” but they’re just a trade association created to lobby for the porn industry. This month, they took Texas to the Supreme Court because the Lone Star State passed a law requiring obscene platforms to verify the age of their users before providing access. In oral arguments before the court last Wednesday, they contested that this somehow violates free speech.

Their claim is a ridiculous, bad-faith argument made by those who stand to profit from selling sex. The notion of First Amendment protection for obscenity offends anyone with common sense and makes a mockery of the Constitution.

Free speech protections are exactly what they sound like: protections for speech. They are not designed for obscene videos that don’t have literary or political merit. That’s not what our Founding Fathers, or hundreds of years of common law tradition, intended to protect. Our ancestors fought and died so the American people could offer political opinions, even controversial ones, at town meetings, not so Americans could freely engage in obscene acts in the public square, much less put today’s hardcore pornography in front of children.

This view was held by almost everyone for 200 years of American history. In People v. Ruggles, a case before the New York Supreme Court in 1811, Chief Justice James Kent outlined this position clearly, writing: “Things which corrupt moral sentiment, as obscene actions, prints, and writings … are punishable because they strike at the root of moral obligation and weaken the security of the social ties.” //

This content is not only horrifying, but repeated exposure to pornography makes children far more likely to exhibit problematic and unhealthy sexual behaviors later in life. Our founders understood that obscenity like this is not just immoral but harmful to the formation of a civic society that aims to produce strong and stable families, loving husbands, and duly respected mothers.

To make America great again, we must be bold and brave enough to go on offense against obscenity. If Texas wins, Trump and conservative leaders across the country should work to make age verification a reality in every state. Additionally, Congress should take up similar legislation at the federal level.

The administration should also task the Department of Justice with prosecuting porn producers and distributors, starting with foreign porn producers that flout our laws. Finally, the federal government should fully enforce laws against obscenity that are already on the books and work diligently to remove obscenity from the internet altogether.

If Texas loses, it would be only a small setback. This movement is just getting started. The American people are with us on this issue. A recent American Principles Project poll found that 83 percent of registered voters favor common-sense age verification. They clearly want us to take a stand and go on offense. The well-being of our children and the destiny of our great nation depend on it.