Tessera
Folgen

Matthew Segal

@segalmr.bsky.social

Civil Rights Lawyer | Personal Views | Not Legal Advice | https://as.tufts.edu/politicalscience/people/faculty/matthew-segal

1573 Posts7956 Follower615 Folgt
Stephen Wolf@stephenwolf.bsky.social · 19h ago

NEW: Voters have rejected Republicans' scheme to unseat the Kansas Supreme Court's Dem-appointed majority and overturn abortion rights. Amendment 1 would have let the GOP replace the system of a nominating commission, gubernatorial appointment, and retention elections with direct partisan elections

Adam Klasfeld@klasfeldreports.com · 23h ago

"Reluctantly," a federal judge dismisses the Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy cases. Trump DOJ "excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy—the peaceful transfer of presidential power—to buckle." "The court cannot write a different ending," he adds. buff.ly/NvVKnaW

This is the last of the prosecutions seeking to hold accountable those responsible for the events of January 6. That book is now closed. Today’s epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy—the peaceful transfer of presidential power—to buckle. The court cannot write a different ending.
Matthew Segal@segalmr.bsky.social · 23h ago

As a civil rights lawyer, I've argued that it's racially discriminatory to single out one group and argue that its taste in music — e.g., rap — reflects a propensity for violence. This argument is no different. It is simply, profoundly racist.

Bild
Corey Rayburn Yung@coreyryung.bsky.social · 3d ago

This is the type of error that is poorly suited for harmless error analysis. Even if the government received double the time for closing arguments, it would be almost impossible to show prejudice. Appellate judges simply can't gauge how much the extra argument time mattered.

Raffi Melkonian@rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social · 3d ago

What kind of district judging is this? You give the government extra time? In a criminal case? Why? (Surprise! There's no remedy) media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

Hernandez argues that her trial was unfair in several re-spects. Most significantly, she challenges the district court's decision to grant the government ten more minutes for closing argument than it allotted to her. Although district courts have broad discretion to set the total amount of time for closing arguments and although this discretion extends to allocating that time between the parties the district court did not justifiably exercise that discretion here. Instead, the district court applied an unusual pre-sumption: it said that the party with the burden of proof (here, the government) should have more time for closing argument. We agree with Hernandez that the district court abused its discretion by applying this unusual presumption of unequal treatment. None-theless, we cannot say that this error was prejudicial. The difference in argument time was small, and the evidence of Hernandez's fraud was overwhelming. Accordingly, we are convinced that the court's error was harmless.
Quinn Yeargain@yeargain.bsky.social · 5d ago

Incredibly strong language. The opinion uses an approach I don't see often. It says that, while the framers of Michigan's 1963 constitution intended to adopt the meaning of the Fifth Amendment in the state provision, they intended the meaning *AT THE TIME*, not what it would become 2 decades later.

For this reason, we reject the idea that an intent to incorporate some then-existing federal protections into Article 1, § 15, translates to eternal “lockstepping” with federal jurisprudence, no matter the novelty or unforeseeable nature of subsequent federal interpretations.20 Mechanically adopting the Kennedy rule, announced some 20 years after the people ratified Article 1, § 15, would breach our duty to determine the law made by the people in ratifying Michigan’s 1963 Constitution. See Tanner, 496 Mich at 221-222 & n 16. See also State ex rel Cincinnati Enquirer v Bloom, 177 Ohio St 3d 174, 184; 2024- Ohio-5029; 251 NE3d 79 (2024) (“But when we say that our state Constitution means whatever the United States Supreme Court says that the federal Constitution means, we ignore our obligation to the [state] Constitution, and we delegate away our duty to say what the law is.”). Such lockstepping would also allow a faraway federal court—one consisting of judicial officers who have never sworn an oath to uphold the Michigan Constitution— to define or retract important rights otherwise guaranteed under our autonomous state Constitution. The presumption of incorporation is therefore temporally bounded under Article 1, § 15: federal interpretations existing at the time of ratification may be presumedto have been adopted because the ratifiers could be understood to have embraced them, but federal interpretations announced after ratification carry no such presumption because the ratifiers could not have spoken to a rule that did not yet exist.21 We thus decline to adopt the post-1963 Kennedy standard merely because we have adopted pre-1963 federal standards in other double-jeopardy contexts.
Matthew Segal@segalmr.bsky.social · 5d ago

ATTENTION STATE CONSTITUTION APPRECIATORS: Here's a significant defense of state constitutional independence, courtesty of the Michigan Supreme Court. www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/c...

In so holding, these state courts also recognize that the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of a federal constitutional provision does not—and cannot—fix the meaning of a comparable state constitutional provision, especially when the United States Supreme Court later “revises its interpretation of the federal counterpart.”
Bolts@boltsmag.org · 5d ago

A legal expert explains that state laws holding federal officials accountable for violating peoples’ rights were once common. “States enforcing the Constitution has a very strong historical pedigree,” he says.

This Maine Lawsuit is Testing the Boundaries of Suing Federal Immigration Agents - Bolts

Federal law makes it very difficult to file lawsuits against federal officers, but some states have adopted their own laws to give people a so-called cause of action to sue.

boltsmag.org

Shalev Gad Roisman@shalevroisman.bsky.social · last wk.

New draft paper on SSRN: "Fact Avoidance," forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review Supreme Court Issue. This Essay identifies a recurring feature where the Court decides presidential power cases entirely on legal grounds without engaging at all with the facts /1 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Fact Avoidance

<p><i><span>The legality of the President’s exercise of statutory power depends on questions of both law and fact. Yet courts often focus exclusively on the for

papers.ssrn.com

Deborah Ahrens@deborahahrens.bsky.social · last wk.

I just had a call from a colleague about this. As @djsziff.bsky.social posts also, all of the students are in Yakima for this (about a 2.5 hour drive from the Seattle area, where 2 of the 3 WA law schools are located and likely the majority of test-takers); they are in hotels out there.

David Ziff@djsziff.bsky.social · last wk.

Report on today's NextGen Bar Exam in Washington State: www.reddit.com/r/barexam/co... "TLDR; NextGen Washington Bar Cancelled for today; stressed out for over 6 hours and didn't even get to take the test; NCBE is nowhere to be found . . . ." Not a great start!

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · last wk.

Upwards of 200,00 people may have lost their jobs today; or will in the upcoming days. There is a palpable sense of fear among the Haitian community right now. They need your support.

Heba Gowayed هبة جويد@hebagowayed.bsky.social · last wk.

My Haitian friend was just fired from his job. "They said I don't have a legal status now." This is likely happening to hundreds of thousands of people across this country today. Sick.

Tina Vasquez@tinavasquez.bsky.social · last wk.

Text messages and videos obtained by the ACLU show that federal immigration agents who carried out last year’s raids in L.A. referred to Latinos with slurs such as “wet” (wetback) and “tonks,” reportedly derived from the sound a flashlight makes when hitting a migrant’s head.

Immigration agents used racial slurs referring to Latinos in text messages, video obtained by ACLU

Body camera footage and forensically recovered texts, which provide a window into the mindset of agents who conducted raids throughout the L.A. area, were detailed in a 37-page motion for a preliminar...

latimes.com

Matthew Segal@segalmr.bsky.social · last wk.

Definitely an interesting case. The govt is apparently charging the use of the "duress" password under 18 U.S.C. 2232(a), which prohibits destroying property "for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority" to effect a seizure. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

18 U.S. Code § 2232 - Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

law.cornell.edu

Maybell Romero@maybell.bsky.social · last wk.

What an interesting crim pro hypo! I had no idea duress passwords exist and it kind of makes me want to put one on my phone. techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/u...

Maybell Romero@maybell.bsky.social · last wk.

What an interesting crim pro hypo! I had no idea duress passwords exist and it kind of makes me want to put one on my phone. techcrunch.com/2026/07/24/u...

US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a 'duress' password during border search | TechCrunch

A U.S. citizen has asked a court to throw out the government's claim that he gave over a passcode to border authorities that wiped his phone's data, opening up fresh questions about a person's constit...

techcrunch.com

Courtney Milan@courtneymilan.com · last wk.

The ACLU has put together a know your rights guide for people within 100 miles of a border. If you are in that swath of land, please take a look at this and learn your actual rights. www.aclu.org/know-your-ri...

Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone | ACLU

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people from random and arbitrary stops and searches. Although the federal government claims the power to conduct certain kinds of warrantless sto...

aclu.org

tony romm@tonyromm.bsky.social · 2w ago

NEW: In a stunning admission, the Trump administration admitted in court documents that it canceled billions in energy grants to states "based solely" on politics -- and whether that state was represented by Democrats and backed Harris in 2024. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/b...

Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him

Federal officials said in court documents that they halted billions of dollars in funding for energy projects to states “based solely” on whether they backed President Trump in the 2024 election.

nytimes.com