Thanks! I’ll check it out!

Frankly, I’m noodling an article idea about unreasoned decisions (and maybe an attack on the Marks rule) and what they mean for precedent/duty to obey.

And if you can’t get 5 to agree on the justification, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say emergency relief isn’t warranted

Yeah. Because otherwise, the stay in Lisa Cook’s case sure LOOKS like a ruling on the merits.

No one needs a long opinion. But nothing doesn’t help, especially when your colleagues get pissy about people not reading your minds. . But also, if it’s not a merits ruling, perhaps existing precedent should rule the day.

Timeline cleanse!

About a month ago, the Trump administration got rid of the de minimis exemption, whereby packages valued under $800 could slide in without import duties. Now there's a backlog as the government can't process all of this paperwork, leading to UPS just destroying packages

I think we really should stop using antifa and just fully say anti-fascist and get them saying they are against anti fascism. Using antifa is giving them some distance and I genuinely think some of their base don’t even know that’s what it stands for.

What the f?

How incompetent are these people?

[We know the answer]
Trump Administration Is Bringing Back Scores of C.D.C. Experts Fired in Error www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/h...

Yesterday I was told that the class I’m scheduled to teach this month, Confronting Oppression & Injustice, is no longer part of our curriculum. This is a required class yet there was no discussion, no faculty vote, just an email saying the class no longer exists. This is what it’s like in Texas now.

The AJs still do a good job.

True.

It’s not even “if.” They are pulling the ICE-tracking apps from the store. They have fully caved to this Administration.

Yo dog, I heard you like hallucinated citations, so we put hallucinated citations in your response regarding hallucinated citations so you can show cause while you show cause.
iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewD...

Yes. Sadly, nothing prevents the agency from going back and doing it right. But there is value in making them do it right.

Hard to find a more obvious example of the journalism adage “If someone says it’s raining outside and someone else says it isn’t, your job is not to quote them both, your job is to go outside.”

That’s my point. If they don’t follow their plan, and I seriously doubt they will, it’s an illegal RIF.

Well, someone’s getting fired (or got a RIF notice and said f it.)

It happens. 😝

Reduction in Force. And character limits are a bitch.

If the Department fails to follow its plan, its decision is reversible. One of the key rules of federal employment law is that, while the Agency gets to set many of the rules, it is legally bound to follow the rules that it sets. When it fails to do so, its action is improper and will be reversed.

Every federal department has a RIF plan. And back in February, they were all ordered to update them. RIFs can be legal, if they follow the plan. But based on the President’s comments yesterday, there is good reason to believe that (a) they aren’t, or (b) the plan itself is illegal. My bet is (a).

Fair enough. As I said last night, that statement would be Exhibit 1 in any MSPB appeal I filed on behalf of a client who was a Democrat.