Anna Hickey

@annahickey.bsky.social

comms for @lawfaremedia.org

NPR has removed its story about Justice Alito's retirement from its frontpage, and SCOTUSBlog says the article's author says it was posted in error. (I'll note it wasn't just posted; it was a top story on npr.org.) In short, no retirement announcement for now.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote UPHOLDS birthright citizenship, affirming the default rule that all persons born in the United States (with narrow exceptions) are U.S. citizens at birth. A total LOSS for President Trump and the effort to rewrite the 14th Amendment.

Held: Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States
and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

Slaughter is an earthquake: SCOTUS has overturned a 90-year-old precedent that facilitated much of modern governance by granting many agencies meaningful independence from the president. Now SCOTUS crushes that independence ... for seemingly every agency except the Federal Reserve.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of the Trump admin on Temporary Protected Status, blocking the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, allowing DHS to strip over 350,000 people of legal status even though they utterly failed to follow the required legal procedures.

MULLIN v. DOE
Syllabus
that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation violated the constitutional right to equal protection because it was motivated by race. The
District Court granted interim relief, and a divided D. C. Circuit panel
declined to issue a stay. The Government sought a stay and a writ of
certiorari before judgment in both cases. This Court granted review,
consolidated the cases, and deferred ruling on the stay applications.
Held:
1. The TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.
Pp. 12–18.
(a) Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) provides that “[t]here is no judicial review
of any determination of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation,
of a foreign state.” The term “determination” may mean either an individual decision or the process leading to a decision. Under either
understanding, §1254a(b)(5)(A) bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. Further, the phrase “with respect to” “generally has a
broadening effect, ensuring that the scope of a provision covers not
only its subject but also matters relating to that subject.” Patel v. Garland, 596 U. S. 328, 339 (internal quotation marks omitted). Pp. 12–
13.

section 2 of the VRA? nullified? the 15th amendment? only applies to intentional discrimination. intentional discrimination? impossible to prove given an unbreakable assumption of good faith for a state legislature. 14th amendment? equal protection clause means the constitution can't even see race.

USAID's destruction has fallen out of the news, but the impact is ongoing. The conversation includes his reaction to a political appointee accusing USAID civil servants of killing his dog and why, contrary to popular belief, not everything this administration has done was predictable.

Anna Hickey@annahickey.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Earlier this week, I talked to Nicholas Enrich, former USAID official, about his new book "Into the Woodchipper," which details the agency's dismantling and whether anyone in charge understood what they were destroying. Listen to it wherever you get your podcasts! youtu.be/naftZg7waOw?...

Just a reminder that in Shelby County, Roberts told us not to worry about the loss of VRA preclearance, because we’d still have VRA sec. 2 suits. That was, of course, disingenuous nonsense even at the time. Now, with Brnovich and Calllais, it’s all the more so.

The first two episodes of "Who Blew Up the Guidestones?" — our six-part audio investigation into the strange Georgia monument — are out TODAY. It's a wild ride, with a fair share twists and revelations along the way. So grab your tin foil hat and join me by subscribing below 👇🎧🪦🍑

Bild

For the second time since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has gone to war with Iran. @sranderson.bsky.social delves into the international and domestic law surrounding the strikes and what congressional opposition could look like.

The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux

The Trump administration’s attack on Iran pushes even the executive branch’s generous understandings of the President’s legal authority to their limits.

lawfaremedia.org

Secretary Marco Rubio claimed no one died as a result of cuts to USAID. That’s not what we found. After Trump officials cut food aid to Kenya, children starved to death in an American-made hunger crisis. (Published Dec. 2025)

After Trump Officials Cut Food Aid to Kenya, Children Starved to Death

“Brutal and traumatizing”: Interviews and a trove of internal documents show government officials and aid workers desperately tried to warn Trump advisers about impending disaster and death.

propublica.org

"Until circumstances compel the other branches of government to adjust their posture...the executive branch is unlikely to see itself as legally constrained from participating in Israel’s military campaign against Iran, if Trump ultimately opts to do so."

Lawfare@lawfaremedia.org · 6mo ago

Earlier today, the United States and Israel conducted a significant military operation against Iran. Last summer, @sranderson.bsky.social explored the legality of the Trump administration potentially engaging in military action against Iran.