That was my initial reaction, but it looks like the appeal wasn’t filed until after she already became a circuit judge

Has to be a typo that wasn’t caught. CA9 has macros that create template opinions, including, I think, that first line. I wonder if she first got put into the Ninth Circuit’s system when she was a DJ sitting by designation on an earlier case, and the court forgot to update the system

I have been waiting for someone to take a shot at this!

Is it only people staying in New York who take NJT to MetLife? I’d imagine that’s going to be a primary transport method regardless of whether people are coming from

It’s not just the well off though. For the supporters who got the $60 tickets, their train ticket will cost twice as much as the game itself. And for the person who clawed a couple hundred dollars together to go to one World Cup game in their life, their cost just exponentially increased

The 2024 Euros were in Germany and they did the same thing. It’s a pretty common practice for major international sporting events

Obviously some of the riders are also going to be taxpayers, but it’s more just a really shitty thing to do to people you’ve attracted to your state by signing up to host this event. Every recent World Cup made public transit free for ticketholders. We’re doing the opposite and look like assholes

We all know the most likely outcome is that this disaster repeats itself, except that this time, riders will pay 10x the price for it

Right, so in that sense they are gouging. They are using the event to cover costs they typically eat

They’ve hosted a Super Bowl there without doing anything like this. Something is very clearly not adding up

I’d also say, that I’m very skeptical of the claim that it costs 10x more *per passenger* to run trains for this event. Especially when you consider that there are going to be many more paying passengers per train than there presumably are on a normal day

I don’t know where this idea that they had no say in hosting is coming from. They voted for the person who ran the bid! And when you vote for someone who makes certain policy decisions, it’s not unfair to expect that your tax dollars will pay for them

That can’t be how this works. Phil Murphy was elected by the people of New Jersey. You don’t just get to throw out all the commitments already made once someone else takes office

In what sense did they not ask for it? They were part of the bid process. They signed up to host games in their stadium. Other cities (Chicago) declined specifically because of cost issues. But if you are going to sign up to host (and reap the attendant benefits) your plan can’t be to price gouge

It’s jarring to hear a movement built on rejecting legislative history rely so heavily on the statements of a single senator in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. That would never fly in interpreting the meaning of a modern statute. How could it possibly work for something from the 1800s?

I was going to say the opposite: have him argue it

Sandra Wong, the great granddaughter of Wong Kim Ark, is preparing to march at the #NoKings Rally in San Francisco. Today is the 128th Anniversary of the SCOTUS decision affirming birthright citizenship.

Which is why if there’s any chance it would be granted, it gets formally referred to the full court. It has been decades since the full court or a second justice has overruled a single justice’s decision to deny a motion. To suggest that could potentially happen here misses that important context

In other words, the lack of referral is itself an indication that it would be futile to apply to another justice, even if the rules allow it. So to suggest that remains available as a real possibility for relief seems not right to me

Maybe surprising in the sense that Gorsuch might not want to note dissent again. But my understanding of the modern practice is that before a single justice denies a motion, they confirm informally that the full court is ok with that, precisely to avoid a series of requests to different justices

I think this is missing some context. Almost certainly the reason she didn’t refer it to the full court is because the full court had no interest in granting it

Technically correct, but inconceivable she would have denied it without referring it to the Court if there was any chance the Court would grant it.

How is OLC going to twist itself into knots to say this isn’t a war

How did this case get past summary judgment? Last I check, basically all courts agree there’s a First Amendment right to film and disseminate video of police performing official duties

I’m not sure he was mad as much about that as the fact that the government entered into that agreement and then insisted on going forward with the sentencing today because it was a “victim’s case”

They can join statements respecting en banc decisions, and several of them did. So that’s not the reason. But many senior judges check out of the en banc process, particularly since they don’t get a vote

Many of those 21 judges are inactive, or all but inactive. I don’t fault them for not weighing in, particularly given how rare it is for senior judges to get involved at all in en banc matters (though several did here).

To put it more concretely, Apple didn’t roll out a half-assed version of the iPhone that was full of bugs and try to spin it as life-changing. They waited until they had a genuinely impressive product that won people over on its merits, and they’ve dominated ever since

I find it hard to blame people for that, since the AI companies actively oversold their 12-18 month ago products as amazing, when they clearly had obvious flaws. They could have waited until they had a good product, they didn’t, and now they have only themselves to blame for losing the discourse

I learned a new word: “timeously”!