Tessera
Folgen

Anthony Sanders

@ijsanders.bsky.social

Center for Judicial Engagement @IJ.org. Short Circuit podcast. Adj Prof @umnlawschool.bsky.social. Book: Baby 9th Amendments. Victorian London. Opinions=mine. https://ssrn.com/author=2923907

1451 Posts661 Follower74 Folgt
Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · yesterday

This reminds me of the time Mayor Richard M. Daley shut down Chicago's Meigs Field airport by sending bulldozers to carve up its runway in the middle of the night. chicago.suntimes.com/2023/3/31/23...

Bild
Roger Parloff@rparloff.bsky.social · yesterday

Judge Reyes has ordered cessation of all tree removal at the golf course until at least tomorrow. Also provides remote call-in number for hearing on temporary restraining order. She wants to know, inter alia, who ordered tree removal & how long govt attys have known of this plan.

Kate Wiles@katemond.bsky.social · 3d ago

If you heard that wail just now it was me realising that yet again I’ve been foiled by academia’s inability to account for digital obsolescence. An entire database of transcriptions no longer exists anywhere. I’ve found FOUR LINES of it quoted elsewhere

Jared@jaredmcclain.bsky.social · 5d ago

Things got more insane just about as soon as I posted this last night. DHS is now arguing that we cannot even put the names of ICE officers in our lawsuit against those officers. Their position is that, if a defendant works for DHS, they cannot be named in a lawsuit. Never seen anything like it.

All this time, while Defendants have refused to identify Does 4 and 5 or respond to Leo’s discovery requests, the six-month statute of limitations on his FTCA claims has nearly expired. So, on October 6, Leo sought Defendants’ consent to file an amended complaint that (1) adds his FTCA claims against the United States and (2) adds the names of Does 1, 2, and 3. These minimal changes are shown in a redline attached to this filing. Defendants, however, refused to consent to Leo’s amendments because there is not a protective order in place. One of Defendants’ positions with respect to the protective order is that the “full legal names” of all government employees “should be confidential.” (ECF 109, at 2). That position, apparently, means that Defendants even oppose Leo identifying specific officers in his lawsuit against those very officers based on their misconduct in carrying out their public duties. Because Defendants will not consent to Leo’s amendments, Leo has filed this motion for leave.Justice also requires granting Leo leave to name the Doe officers as defendants. Despite DHS’s remarkable position that all government employees’ names are confidential, parties routinely sue government employees by name. In fact, Rule 10(a) “requires a complaint to ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). “Lawsuits are public events.” Id. Rule 10(a) “protects the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identity of the parties.” Id. Only in an “exceptional case” can a party’s name be withheld from the public. Id. And that bar is even higher for public employees since their employment “diminishes their privacy interests” given “the corresponding public interest in knowing how public employees are performing their jobs.” Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
Jared@jaredmcclain.bsky.social · 6d ago

It's been a struggle for reporters to get DHS to provide the names of officers who violate people's civil rights. Now, in our case against DHS's construction-site raids, the government is arguing in court that its employees names are "confidential" and should not be made public during litigation.

DHS's position on the protective order: "We cannot agree to the striking of this provisions. The phone numbers, physical addresses, full legal names, and email addresses of current and former employees in the federal government ... should be confidential."
Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · 4d ago

A reminder that Short Circuit will be holding a live (& free!) podcast in 10 days in Cambridge, Mass. 100 years of zoning, the Constitution, & reform. Just a couple blocks from Harvard's campus. Space is limited so RSVP today!

Short Circuit@shortcircuitij.bsky.social · last mo.

We're coming to Cambridge, Mass! See a live show on zoning, the Constitution & Cambridge. Euclid v Ambler Realty, Nectow v Cambridge & YIMBYism today. W/ @maureenebrady.com @burhanazeem.bsky.social Ari Bargil of @ij.org & @ijsanders.bsky.social Space is limited, RSVP today! ij.org/event/short-...

Jared@jaredmcclain.bsky.social · 5d ago

Last year, we won at SCOTUS in Martin v. United States, a case about whether the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a remedy for wrong-house raids Last night, we got a very interesting decision on remand. The panel ruled we lose under circuit precedent. But all 3 judges agreed that precedent is bad.

Cover page in Martin v. United States, Eleventh Circuit case number 23-10062Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued[.]” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). Through the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress waived that immunity for certain torts committed by federal government officials and employees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. But, in so doing, Congress recognized that there are certain governmental functions that should not be “disrupted by FTCA lawsuits” and carved out 13 separate exceptions (one of which has a proviso). See Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 312 (1992). This case, which arises out of a wrong-house raid, presents us with two of those exceptions—the discretionary-function exception and the intentional-tort exception. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2680(a), (h). We also address the grant of qualified immunity to the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent who was in charge of the raid. Following review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States on the plaintiffs’ FTCA claims. We reverse the grant of qualified immunity to the FBI agent. I This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. In Martin v. United States, 605 U.S. 395 (2025) (Martin II), the Court expressly abrogated three of our prior cases, vacated our prior opinion in full, and remanded for further considerationJORDAN, Circuit Judge, joined by JILL PRYOR, and KIDD, Circuit Judges Concurring: “All agree that the Federal Tort Claims Act permits some suits for wrong-house raids.” Martin v. United States, 605 U.S. 395, 399 (2025). But, in this Circuit, the discretionary-function exception is a mess, as interpreted bars all (or certainly most) FTCA suits based on wrong-house raids. And we are not alone in the doctrinal bog. See id. at 401 (noting that “several of our lower court colleagues report that they have struggled to discern what [the discretionary- function exception] requires of them”) (citing Xi v. Haugen, 68 F.4th 824, 842 (3d Cir. 2023) (Bibas, J., concurring)) (alterations adopted). See also 5 American Law of Torts § 17:7 (2026) (“To say that [the discretionary-function exception] has been difficult to apply is an understatement”); 14 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3658.1 (4th ed. 2015 & Apr. 2026 update) (explaining that the discretionary-function exception “is among the most criticized features of the FTCA” in part “for having generated a ‘quagmire’ of interpretive confusion”) (quoting Baird v. United States, 653 F.2d 437, 440 (10th Cir. 1981)). I join the court’s opinion in full and write separately to set out my view of the discretionary-function exception under first principles. I explain what I think is the correct understanding of the exception, applying United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991), and navigating our numerous decisions on the exception. I bear in mind that “we should not take it upon ourselves to extend the [FTCA’s
Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · last wk.

Without commenting on Alito, I don't see a lame duck retirement could work logistically. Announcement Nov 4, appointment soon after, vetting, hearings & vote by Xmas? When the Senate usually isnt doing much. Really? (Senate turnover is Jan 3.) That's pretty aggressive, way more than when ACB got on.

Stephen Wolf@stephenwolf.bsky.social · last wk.

1) Alito revealing this now is an attempt to rally Republicans in Trump states where Dems lead for Senate. 2) He’s the most partisan R on the court—highly likely he steps down in the lame duck if Dems take the Senate. 3) Doing number 2) makes court expansion even more likely if Dems win in 2028

Dr Danny Bate@dannybate.com · 2w ago

Before people learned music with 'do re mi', the sequence once began with 'ut' as the lowest note. The absolute lowest note recognised in medieval music was 'Γ ut', with the Greek letter gamma, and 'Γ ut' came to refer to the full range of possible notes. This is behind the phrase 'run the gamut'.

Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · 2w ago

SCOTUS just granted cert in a North Dakota divorce case with no cert-stage amicus briefs & it was never even relisted. I'm sure the cert-worthy issues (about veterans benefits & divorce decrees) affect many people but it's a bit humbling to us in the amicus-industrial complex.

BildBild
Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · 2w ago

Tom Goldstein was actively running a law firm & arguing cases before SCOTUS while running SCOTUSblog. He was very open about being on the progressive side of the law. He worked for the Gore team in Bush v. Gore. All of this was fine IMO, but legal journalism is broken if The Dispatch runs the blog?

Jay Willis@jaywillis.net · 2w ago

If you’d asked me to parody how silly and broken legal journalism is, I genuinely don’t think I could have come up with “so the best-known ‘nonpartisan’ Supreme Court outlet is now run by an ex-Trump DOJ flack who had her longtime personal friend Brett Kavanaugh officiate her wedding”

Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · 2w ago

I wrote a brief! Yeah, real lawyers (of which I used to be one) might say "big deal." But I don't much anymore so it was fun. Remedies fans may enjoy it. It's an amicus in a Minnesota case about the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act & challenging the validity of laws. 1/

Bild
Anthony Sanders@ijsanders.bsky.social · 2w ago

This morning at the 10th Circuit Bench & Bar Conference we have former Solicitors General Elizabeth Prelogar & Noel Francisco. For those playing SCOTUS argument bingo, Ms. Prelogar just said "mine-run case."

Bild
Michael Andersen@andersem.bsky.social · 3w ago

But, mostly banned by zoning, no one stood up for lil apartment buildings. So over the years, our multifamily codes have made more and more choices that make sense for big 100-unit complexes but not for neighborhood-scale buildings. A bunch of those have to do with elevators.