Posts by Debra Johnson
Kagan and Sotomayor get hate too but not nearly as much and not as personalized. They also don’t get referred to by their first names at the same rate
If you look at X after a Supreme Court argument, it’s almost always bubbling over with right-wing influencers suggesting that Ketanji Brown Jackson is stupid (usually based on a misinterpretation or a misleading clip of something she said during arguments). They also often just call her “Ketanji”
Florida Republicans are meant to meet next week to gerrymander, and DeSantis has put a lot of his justifications of why in the basket of addressing the Callais decisions. If SCOTUS still hasn't ruled by a week from now, interesting to see how/whether it affects what Florida does.
Callais will NOT be today.
SCOTUS issued two opinions this morning, but it did not issue its decision in the VRA case.
The Trump admin is tryna say it's all good bc he later pleaded guilty, and the government can treat Green Card holders differently if they have committed certain crimes
But did they have evidence he committed the crime when they took his Green Card?
Sure didn't
ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/blanc...
Muk Choi Lau had his Green Card for years before he was arrested on charges of trademark counterfeiting (possession with intent to sell knockoff Coogi shorts)
and when he returned from a trip abroad, border agents took his Green Card--bc of those pending charges
ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/blanc...
Happening Now:
the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument in Blanche v. Lau, a case about just how much evidence border agents really need to jeopardize the ability of Lawful Permanent Residents to remain in the United States
ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/blanc...
Here's your chance to give women back equal rights with your vote. Our bodies, our lives, our health, our finances, our future, our choice!
"I'm sorry. Which deranged, offensive, aggrieved, unending Truth social post from the president over the past 24 hours are you referring to?"
Section 10 requires any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California, with narrow exceptions, to "visibly display identification" while performing federal law enforcement duties. Officers who violate the law may be criminally prosecuted by the State. We previously granted the United States's request for a temporary administrative injunction. We now address the merits of the United States's motion for an injunction pending appeal. We conclude that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation. The United States is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim, and the other preliminary injunction factors also weigh in its favor. Thus, we grant the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the federal government in its performance of law enforcement operations. It expressly applies to federal officers. Cal. Penal Code § 13654(d)(2). It seeks to control their conduct in performing law enforcement operations. Id. Case: 26-926, 04/22/2026, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 12 of 16 12 USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA § 13654(a); see also id. § 13654(d)(1). It purports to override the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers. See id. § 13654(a). And in so doing, it aims to regulate the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law. See id. Thus, the state law regulates the performance of "governmental action[s]" which are "carried on by the United States itself." Mayo, 319 U.S. at 448. These provisions do not merely affect "persons who [a]re acting for themselves and not for the United States." Id. at 447. They "layl] hold of" federal agencies and officers "in their specific attempt to obey orders and requirell qualifications in addition to those that the [federal] Government has pronounced sufficient." Johnson, 254 U.S. at 57. Section 10, in short, directly regulates the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause does not "barl] all state regulation which may touch the activities of the Federal Government." Hancock, 426 U.S. at 179 (emphasis added). For example, the Supreme Court has suggested that States may impose "general rules" regulating conduct that any ordinary citizen could perform, like a "statute or ordinance regulating the mode of turning at the corners of streets." Johnson, 254 U.S. at 56. But the Supremacy Clause does bar direct state regulation of the federal government. See Washington, 596 U.S. at 838; City of Arcata, 629 F.3d at 991-92. And that is precisely what the No Vigilantes Act does. The Act does not regulate conduct that any ordinary citizen could perform. Rather, it applies exclusively to law enforcement agencies and their officers, including federal law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement officers. The Act thus directly regulates conduct reserved to sovereigns. And so it is barred by intergovernmental Case: 26-926, 04/22/2026, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 14 of 16 14 USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA immunity, which forbids States from regulating the federal government qua government and from controlling federal governmental functions in any manner and to any degree. See California, 921 F.3d at 883. Because § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States, we conclude that it is likely unconstitutional. See Blackburn, 100 F.3d at 1435.
NEW: Ninth Circuit panel blocks California from enforcing No Vigilantes Act provision requiring federal law enforcement to "visibly display identification," granting DOJ's request for an injunction pending appeal.
The unanimous panel previously had granted an "administrative injunction."
hey look that's me, doing my thing (talking about how damning it is for the Supreme Court to even hear oral argument in the birthright citizenship case in the first place)
@the14thcenter.bsky.social
www.instagram.com/reel/DXcJ4ON...
Vance has now seized the top seat in the Death of Expertise Hall of Fame: He has lectured the pope—the pope, the leader of a billion and a half Catholics—about being too sloppy with theology.
The queen of all vices: Pride.
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
Let’s help these girls get to Europe. Help build the future leaders of our communities and get some delicious cookies ❤️❤️
New developments in archaeological science are revealing the secrets of ancient diets. From 780,000-year-old cooked fish to the sustainable pastoralism of the Bronze Age Moriš culture, we are learning how our ancestors adapted to survive in volatile environments.
TL;DR: The rapid advancement of AI tools raises significant questions about the relevance of copyright in the creative sector, challenging traditional notions of intellectual property in the digital age.
French Bulldog
Depiction of bullbaiting from the 19th century.
Doggone History Podcast - a light-hearted history of dogs, one breed at a time.
Bulldogs are so-named from the rather distasteful practice of bull-baiting, dating back to the 14th century. Today's bulldogs descend from dogs used for this purpose. The history of America's favorite dog, the French Bulldog, coming Wednesday.
doggonehistory.com
#dogs #dogsofbluesky
Satellite imagery reveals that US has damaged or destroyed an estimated 7,645 buildings in Iran (including 60 schools) while killing at least 3,300 individuals since 28 Feb. Nearly 3,000 of those buildings were in Tehran
This is a temporary redistricting measure to offset Trump's attempts to get red states to redistrict. Republicans pushed this and now they have to deal with the fallout. Imagine thinking Democratic and unaffiliated voters wouldn't fight back!
Has there ever been a ceasefire’ that Israel was a party to that they didn’t immediately violate with war crimes? Certainly no recent ones.
Dr Assal Rad—
"Demolishing civilian infrastructure is a WAR CRIME, not a ceasefire.
"How is no Western media outlet reporting this?"
Realizing US citizens paid $166 Billion in illegal tariffs and now it’s being refunded back to corporations instead of us.
We have reached the “punish the journalists who published the memos” part of the rightwing backlash to the Supreme Court story about the shadow docket memos.
The old is new again.