Tessera
Folgen

Mike Sacks

@mikesacks.bsky.social

Senior Advisor @courtacctability.bsky.social. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Former Congressional Candidate. Second-Best dad ever.

4869 Posts26304 Follower1265 Folgt
Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · 2d ago

Just spitballing here but maybe dude checked the temperature among colleagues to find there's a broad consensus to say SCOTUS doesn't (yet) have jurisdiction in the Suncor case, and so his vote for the oil companies on the merits won't matter

Lawrence Hurley@lawrencehurley.bsky.social · 2d ago

Major u-turn from Justice Alito as Supreme Court reveals he will no longer participate in the big climate change case being argued next week. Previously, the court told NBC News there was no reason for him to step aside despite his earlier recusal in same case.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · 2d ago

Why is this Normie GWB judge handing his seat over for some Mississippi MAGA nut to fill? [checks date, polls] Maybe this Normie GWB judge doesn't want a Dem filling his seat but also hopes a Dem Senate will force Trump to make a consensus non-MAGA pick? [checks self] Shrug emoji

Trump Gets Fifth Circuit Vacancy as Bush Appointee Steps Back

President Donald Trump will have another opportunity to appoint a judge to the influential US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Bobby Kogan@bbkogan.bsky.social · 5d ago

I think something to consider here is that Collins voted to confirm Russ Vought as OMB Director despite the fact that he said a billion times that he thought Trump had a constitutional right to illegally impound funds, and now she’s doing shocked Pikachu reactions.

Sen. Susan Collins • fAl 劉 @SenatorCollins X.com Without warning or consultation, Congress just received an $810 million package of pocket rescissions from the Administration. This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse. This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law.Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers. OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding. The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act. Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions.
Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · last wk.

This is a really good and thorough piece that doesn’t acknowledge the existential and imminent caveat that comes after the post’s em-dash until the penultimate paragraph! Like, SCOTUS is hearing oral args on First Monday in the case that could kill all the cases this entire article is about!

The Atlantic@theatlantic.com · last wk.

A novel legal strategy represents a new front for the climate-change movement—if it holds up in court, @rossandersen.bsky.social reports:

Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · last wk.

My first time talking with @adamgurri.liberalcurrents.com and the @liberalcurrents.com crew but won’t be the last!

Legal AF@legalafmtn.bsky.social · last wk.

NEW: Adam Gurri, Editor-in-Chief of Liberal Currents, joins Court Accountability Action's Mike Sacks to discuss Liberal Currents' The Reconstruction Papers, a collection essays presenting "bold plans of action for political liberals who manage to retake power from the fascists, as soon as 2029."

Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · 2w ago

Trump’s DOJ says it will not enforce the federal law barring gun sales to 18-20 year olds because it violates the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS has so far declined every opportunity to resolve the circuit split. www.justice.gov/olc/media/14...

(Slip Opinion) Application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) to Young Adults prevents young adults, who are members of "the people" to whom the Second Nation's tradition of firearm regulation, which it cannot do. September 17, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Our laws deem an eighteen-year-old "mature enough to be drafted, vote, serve as a juror, and be sentenced to deathại One such eighteen-year-old represented the United States at the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, shooting skeet? Yet, due to statutes predicated on concerns over an eighteen-year-old's ability to handle a pistol as a responsible adult, it would have been a federal felony if a licensed dealer had sold her such a firearm before she left or after she returned to her studies at the University of Texas at Arlington. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1). You have asked whether that restriction may be enforced against otherwise law-abiding citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty who seek to purchase a handgun consistent with the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and "fleshed out," Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2043 (2026), in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). It may not. Section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to a class of law-abiding adults who, in nearly every other relevant respect, are members of the political community.In sum, because the modern federal age restrictions limit young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty from obtaining arms, they "fall[] within the plain text of the Second Amendment" and are "presumptively unconstitutional." Wolford, 146 S. Ct. at 2044. As we have not identified "any analogue or collection of analogues" that "is 'relevantly similar' to the modern law," our view is that the government is unable to overcome this presumption. Id. (quoting Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132). In reaching this conclusion, we are aware that we are not writing on a government (state or federal) to bar young adults from obtaining firearms has deeply divided members of the federal bench. 42 Having carefully considered these courts' decisions, we do not think that their reasons for reaching a contrary conclusion under Bruen can be reconciled with the Court's intervening clarifications in Hemani and Wolford. 4 Thus, we do advice it gives you as you assist the President in the performance of his independent constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, § 3; see also Application of the Rehabilita- Patients with Severe Mental Illness or Disabilities, 50 Op. O.L.C. _, at *12 (June 18, 2026); Section 1715 at *14; cf. Eric S. Fish, Prosecutorial Constitutionalism, 90 S. Cal. L. Rev. 237, 254 (2017) (noting that "a number of important constitutional rights go underenforced by judges"_and 42 Compare Reese, 127 F.4th 583 (invalidating the federal age restrictions at issue here), Worth, 108 F.4th 677 (invalidating Minnesota's age-based public-carry re- Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, 121 F.4th 96 (sustaining Colorado's age-based purchase restrictions). 1687.that Executive Branch officials should "supplement judges' enforcement ing processesằ_. We conclude by noting, however, a few limits on this opinion. For ex-ample, we do not address the age-neutral conditions and qualifications on commercial sales, the prohibition on the possession of handguns by those under eighteen, 18 U.S.C. § 922(x), or even the enhanced investigative period Congress has prescribed for purchasers under twenty-one, id. § 922(t) (1)(C); see also generally McRorey v. Garland, 99 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2024). And nothing in this opinion should be read to cast doubt on the distinct prohibitions of section 922(g), certain of which the Supreme Court has recently discussed with approval. See Hemani, 146 S. Ct. at 1692 n.6. tion as it applies to sales to persons under eighteen, who-though part of "the people" for the purposes of the Constitution-may constitutionally be subject to certain legal disabilities until they reach the age of majority, Part II.B.2; cf. Paxton, 145 S. Ct. at 2300. Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the "quintessential self-defense weapon," Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class of the political community. T. ELLIOT GAISER Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel
Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · last yr.

CA4, 2-1, upholds federal law barring gun sales to 18-20 year olds, deepening a circuit split over under-21 gun bans and the federal law that this SCOTUS is gonna have to resolve. Reagan, Biden judges in majority. Trump judge in dissent. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) prohibits the commercial sale of handguns to individuals under the age of 21. Appellees are four 18-to-20-year-olds who want to buy handguns. The question in this case is whether § 922(b)(1) violates appellees' Second Amendment rights. We hold that it does not. From English common law to America's founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21. Section 922(b)(1) fits squarely within this tradition and is therefore constitutional. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (establishing text, history, and tradition test for the Second Amendment).
Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · 2w ago

Trump's doing this bc a Trump-majority CADC panel green-lit last year his banning the AP from the Oval Office pending appeal of the injunction against him (see grabs)...and the same 2 Trump judges are on the merits panel that heard oral args in Nov. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

BildBildBild
Eric Michael Garcia@ericmgarcia.bsky.social · 2w ago

President Donald Trump, in a clear violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, says he is banning MSNOW, CNN and Politico from the White House.

A post from Trump saying "I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP"
Kevin Collins@kwcollins.bsky.social · 2w ago

Do we think in conference as justices go around the room he shouts "STOP THE COUNT" before KBJ weighs in? On second count, don't answer that.

Barred and Boujee aka Madiba Dennie@audrelawdamercy.blacksky.app · 2w ago

i'm not over Alito saying we shouldn't count ballots that are mailed on or before Election Day but arrive shortly afterwards bc they can “radically flip” the “apparent outcome” cannot stress enough that, until all ballots are counted, there's no outcome to flip! ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/alito...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks.bsky.social · 2w ago

Great review of @daphnarenan.bsky.social and @nikobowie.bsky.social’s SUPREMACY, and @rachelshelden.bsky.social’s THE POLITICAL SUPREME COURT. Read the review AND the books!

Pema Levy@pemalevy.bsky.social · 2w ago

The Supreme Court rules over us, with 5 unelected judges wiping out legislation passed by the people's representatives. Is this how democracy is supposed to work? Two new books argue the court seized power it was never intended to have. And how to take it back. www.motherjones.com/politics/202...