Fifteen minutes before the President announced he was pausing strikes on Iran, somebody moved $500 million in oil futures. Somebody knew. Somebody told them. Or somebody is them.
New piece ↓
open.substack.com/pub/adamkinz...
Justice for John!
The DH was going through their bag where we store a lot of their stuff and pulled out her teeny-tiny collar from when we got her. "She wore this?!"
A black lab puppy sleeps on her back with her paws flopped on top of her. Her head is partially in the sunshine coming through an out-of-frame window. She has a pink collar.
Day 97: Missy tans.
You can add this case (and the 5th Cir. case) to your "likely to see further review" lists.
But lurking in the background in both cases: WHAT ABOUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE?
Recall that just ten days ago, the 5th Cir. took the opposite view.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. For much of American history, evading excise taxes on liquor has been nearly a national pastime. At the time of the Revolution, one historian has written, “nearly every farmer distilled his own whiskey and deemed it his inalienable right to evade the tax, and resist the collector whenever a favorable opportunity presented itself for doing so.” Gallus Thomann, Liquor Laws of the United States 58 (1885). Soon after the Constitution’s ratification, in western Pennsylvania, this evasion came by force of arms—in the Whiskey Rebellion, which President Washington put down only after assembling “an army larger than any he had commanded during the Revolution.” Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815, at 138 (2009). Just after the Civil War, in 1867, a select committee of the House of Representatives heard more than a month of testimony, and concluded: “in the manufacture and sale of tobacco, cigars, and spirits, and especially the latter, the most stupendous frauds are practiced against the government in the collection of its revenue.” H.R. Rep. No. 39-24, at 1 (1867). The following year Congress enacted comprehensive legislation to end those frauds, which among many other provisions included a ban on distilling spirits in one’s home. Now, almost 160 years later, John Ream argues that the home-distilling ban has been beyond Congress’s enumerated powers all along. We disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Ream lacks standing to bring his claims; but we hold that the ban is a necessary and proper means of collecting the federal excise tax on distilled spirits.
6th Cir., 2-1, holds that the ban on home distilling is constitutional as a "necessary and proper means of collecting the federal excise tax on distilled spirits.
Folks, we have our circuit split.
www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...
I'm so old, I know that you don't do pressers at 5:30p because it totally fucks the evening news programs.
This is probably a feature for Trump, though.
Officers’ indiscriminate and excessive use of less-lethal munitions against peaceful protestors was captured by numerous video recordings shown to the jury. Those recordings were taken by protestors, police officers’ body-worn cameras, and Denver’s fixed cameras located throughout the city. After seeing many of these videos of officers using force indiscriminately and excessively against peaceful protestors, DPD superiors, including Commander Phelan, testified that all officers’ actions against protestors were taken according to DPD policy.
In a companion case to the previous skeet, 10th Cir. upholds jury verdict in favor of George Floyd protesters who were attacked by Denver police with less-lethal munitions.
City of Denver liable for policy that led to the attack.
www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...
We agree with the district court. As explained above, those cases—Fogarty and Buck—recognized in 2008 that shooting a non-threatening protestor with a pepperball when the protestor had committed, at most, a minor offense and was not trying to evade arrest, violated the Fourth Amendment. Those two earlier Tenth Circuit cases are sufficiently analogous to the circumstances presented here to have put a reasonable officer in Officer Christian’s position on notice in May 2020 that shooting Epps with a pepper ball in the context of her peaceful behavior would violate the Fourth Amendment. Our conclusion is bolstered by this court’s recent decision in Budaj, which also relied on Fogarty and Buck to conclude that, at the time of these George Floyd protests in May and June 2020, it was clearly established “that an officer cannot shoot a protestor with pepper balls or other less-lethal munitions when that protestor is committing no crime more serious than a misdemeanor, not threatening anyone, and not attempting to flee.” 86 F.4th at 868‒69 (quotation marks omitted).6
10th Cir. affirms jury verdict against police officer who shot a woman with a less-lethal round while she was filming at a George Floyd protest despite being told by his sergeant not to shoot her.
No QI.
www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...
![Juries have “wide discretion” to “fix the amount of noneconomic compensatory damages,” Racher, 871 F.3d at 1172, and “[t]rial judges have the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context,” Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 438 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). When determining whether attorney misconduct requires a new trial, courts “compare the propriety of the challenged remarks against the weight of the evidence adduced at trial.” Burke, 935 F.3d at 1026. Therefore, “[e]ven if some statements exceeded the bounds of permissible argument, a judgment will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the challenged remarks influenced the verdict.” Id. (quoting Racher, 871 F.3d at 1168). Applying these principles, we cannot say the reference to deterrence during the Estate’s rebuttal influenced the verdict given the evidence presented to the jury. See, e.g., RV.1032–36 (stipulating that Mr. Ellis complained of severe back pain, reported having a seizure, was denied water, could not walk, said he had discolored legs, and was “mocked and threatened” for reporting his medical concerns); R.Supp.264.0:01:48–3:08 (video showing Nurse Horn called Mr. Ellis a “dumb ass” and threatened to use the D-ring to restrain him for asking for medical care); RIII.760–62 (discussing Mr. Ellis](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreig4pghegirp2s25s4bpzlyqsdzklknjduuwyzy44pn3vjz37g74ra)
Juries have “wide discretion” to “fix the amount of noneconomic compensatory damages,” Racher, 871 F.3d at 1172, and “[t]rial judges have the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context,” Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humans., Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 438 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). When determining whether attorney misconduct requires a new trial, courts “compare the propriety of the challenged remarks against the weight of the evidence adduced at trial.” Burke, 935 F.3d at 1026. Therefore, “[e]ven if some statements exceeded the bounds of permissible argument, a judgment will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the challenged remarks influenced the verdict.” Id. (quoting Racher, 871 F.3d at 1168). Applying these principles, we cannot say the reference to deterrence during the Estate’s rebuttal influenced the verdict given the evidence presented to the jury. See, e.g., RV.1032–36 (stipulating that Mr. Ellis complained of severe back pain, reported having a seizure, was denied water, could not walk, said he had discolored legs, and was “mocked and threatened” for reporting his medical concerns); R.Supp.264.0:01:48–3:08 (video showing Nurse Horn called Mr. Ellis a “dumb ass” and threatened to use the D-ring to restrain him for asking for medical care); RIII.760–62 (discussing Mr. Ellis
10th Cir. upholds $33 million jury award for estate of pre-trial inmate who died in jail after prolonged suffering while his jailers mocked him and told him to shut up while he pleaded for help, despite improper "emotional displays" during closing argument.
www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...
"Part of the reason the weaponization work has been difficult is that you need people who are MAGA and who are really competent," said Chad Mizelle, former chief of staff for Bondi. "Many career prosecutors are not interested in this kind of work. It's a very small group of people."
Bondi's former chief of staff Chad Mizelle: "Part of the reason the weaponization work has been difficult is that you need people who are MAGA and who are really competent."
From @paulareidcnn.bsky.social and other @cnn.com folks:
Term-Limited Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Is ‘Begging’ Trump for His Next Gig: Report www.mediaite.com/politics/ter...
The Court finds the decision to proceed with the 15th Street Cycle Track Removal to be arbitrary and capricious because the record does not reflect that the defendants examined the relevant data and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. It further finds that the defendants’ invocation of the highway modernization categorical exclusion, and their conclusion that the Removal Project would not have a significant impact on public health and safety, to be arbitrary and capricious as well. Therefore, the decision to proceed with the Removal Project as described in the March 31, 2026 NPS Decision Memorandum and the March 31, 2026 NPS and FHWA Categorial Exclusion documents, as well as in the February 23 NPS and February 27 FHWA Categorical Exclusion documents to the extent they were not rescinded or nullified but only elaborated upon on March 31, is hereby VACATED and REMANDED to the National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration
A federal judge just blocked the Trump administration's effort to rip out the 15th Street bike lane on the national mall—which substantially reduced crashes and injuries—holding that the move was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the law: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Much of our reasoning today follows from the fact that Ms. Smiley brought facial and pre-enforcement challenges. Settled law counsels us to tread carefully when reviewing a state law in this posture. This is especially true in the context of primary education where states have historically exercised great discretion. See San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 58 (1973) (“The consideration and initiation of fundamental reforms with respect to … education are matters reserved for the legislative processes of the various States ….”). Against this backdrop, Ms. Smiley has not shown that Section 20-30-17-2 is likely overbroad or vague, leaving us to AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
7th Cir. rejects a pre-enforcement facial challenge to Indiana law prohibiting instruction on human sexuality in grades 1-3.
Held: law is not overbroad bc it likely does not implicate a substantial amount of protected speech.
media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opin...
Defendant’s conviction on Count One cannot stand under a “personnel” theory because the statute expressly excludes individuals acting entirely independently to advance a foreign terrorist organization’s goals. Being inspired
by ISIS propaganda and claiming to further ISIS’s cause through his acts do not, by themselves, establish that he acted as ISIS “personnel” as it is defined in the statute and further refined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Humanitarian Law Project.
2d Cir., 2-1, holds there was insufficient evidence to convict the Times Square pipe bomber of material support for ISIS, despite telling detectives he did it "on behalf of the Islamic State."
Evidence established that he was a lone wolf.
Affirms other convx.
ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/is...
The DH reports that turnout seemed low when he went to our polling place. (I voted by mail weeks ago.) I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing here in Spotsy County, currently a blue district and formerly Gov. Spanberger's district, but red not too long before that.
So when it comes to beards and hairstyles, discipline requires strict conformity. When it comes to contracting and spreading a preventable illness that directly affects unit readiness, follow your bliss, man.
Very cool initiative!
To be clear, your students aren't having fun with your exams.
God, now I have to ask him, right? I have six hours where I don't know if the DH has secreted bones in the house.
For the record: I am not keeping any bones in the garage or the basement or anywhere.
This afternoon my ma was randomly posting in the family chat about finding a skull bc Niece No. 2 is into bones.
Camden Yards makes some pretty great crab fries. Or at least, they used to.
But, obviously, the answer is a Super Dodger Dog. It's tradition!
Missy, in particular, would really love to sleep under my desk, but that's where my feet go!
UPDATE: DOJ still going after this lawyer at 9th Circuit, seeking almost $6000 in legal fees from him over representation he performed pro bono.
Two black lab puppies lay on a brown carpet. One in a pink collar is sleeping on her side. The other, in a blue collar, is trying to tear apart a green chew toy.
They have dog beds in the other room! But they'd rather be in here on the floor. (Considering putting a dog bed in here, actually.)
It's also kinda cute that the story for some is the reporter and not the contents of the leaked memos or even the identity of the leaker.
There's lots of interesting things to say about this incident. Vaguely blaming one of the reporters is not one of them.
Interesting, but not very persuasive. The comment to rule 8.4 explains that "Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category."
Writing a news article about leaked memos does not sound like any of those things.