Cristian Farias
LightNews LightNews
banner
cristianfarias.com
Cristian Farias
@cristianfarias.com
18K followers 610 following 3K posts
Legal journalist and beachgoer. I write about courts, the law, and the politics shaping them for @vanityfair.com, @nymag.com, and @newyorker.com. Host of The Bully's Pulpit.

Signal: cristianfarias.33
Posts Replies Media Videos
cristianfarias.com
While we were sleeping, a huge ruling:

Federal judge blocks the Trump administration from warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. “without a pre-arrest individualized determination … of probable cause.”

She addresses Kavanaugh stops head on.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Excerpt from ruling: “Bluntly put, why the Court ruled as it did remains unclear-and without reasoning, this order cannot even be considered as persuasive. Second, Justice Kavanaugh's conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked standing in Perdomo rested on the claims asserted in that case specifically, plaintiffs there sought to enjoin defendants from targeting individuals for immigration stops based on certain factors, such as race or ethnicity, their accent, and the type of work they did. Id. Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that plaintiffs in Perdomo likely lacked standing under Lyons, as defendants may "stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors," and thus "plaintiffs ha[d] no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future" based "only on [prohibited] factors." Id. at *3 (emphases in original). In contrast, this case concerns an entirely different context, namely, civil immigration arrests rather than immigration stops, which were at issue in Perdomo, and a different type of challenge. Specifically, plaintiffs are not arguing which factors defendants may consider in their application of a legal standard, but rather contend that defendants have abandoned the proper legal standard entirely. See Pls.' Reply at 8. Thus, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Perdomo, to the extent it has persuasive, let alone controlling, authority, is inapposite.”
December 3, 2025 at 1:55 PM
cristianfarias.com
Pick your fighter.
Cristian demonstrates a back bridge: He’s on all fours but upside down, forming an arch with his back. Also known as a wheel in yoga. Cristian demonstrates a yoga bow: He’s on his stomach on the mat, with his arms stretched backward, holding the top of his feet.
November 30, 2025 at 1:57 PM
cristianfarias.com
Always imitated, never replicated.
November 27, 2025 at 10:18 PM
cristianfarias.com
The lawyers in the Alien Enemies Act pending before Judge James Boasberg, who is proceeding with his contempt inquiry against the Trump administration, have recommended that he consider a number of "potential witnesses."

They include now-Judge Emil Bove.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Screenshot of legal filing in J.G.G. v. Trump, listing, among other people, Emil Bove. They include: 1. Former Acting Deputy Director of OIL Erez Reuveni1 2. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign 3. Former Acting Director of OIL August Flentje 4. Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General James McHenry 5. Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul Perkins 6. Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security James Percival 7. Acting General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security Joseph Mazzara 8. Former Acting Assistant Attorney General (now Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General) Yaakov Roth 9. Former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove
November 25, 2025 at 4:52 PM
cristianfarias.com
The black one with gold controls is even tackier, I love it.
Product image of aiwa Retro Boombox BackTrack CD Player with Cassette Recording in black.
November 23, 2025 at 3:09 PM
cristianfarias.com
I hate that this boombox exists. I want it.
Product image of an aiwa Retro Boombox CD Player with Cassette Recording in silver gray.
November 23, 2025 at 3:07 PM
cristianfarias.com
I love me some little books that pack a big punch. Such as:
A copy of the Harry G. Frankfurt classic ‘On Bullshit.’
November 19, 2025 at 1:59 PM
cristianfarias.com
Quick update, just now:

Chief Judge James Boasberg plans to proceed with his contempt inquiry against the Trump administration—he’ll do it at the same time that he considers whether to allow a group of unlawfully deported migrants to challenge their designation as so-called “alien enemies.”
Text of order: MINUTE ORDER: Given the ruling on 2025 November 14, 2025, by the Court of Appeals, the Court ORDERS that at the Pl hearing on November 19, 2025, the parties shall be prepared to discuss next steps in this Court's contempt inquiry. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on November 17, 2025. (Icjeb1) Order
November 17, 2025 at 2:53 PM
cristianfarias.com
This is inside baseball, but notably, Judge Pan does some vote counting, and observes that six of the court’s seven Democratic appointees (Judge Sri Srinivasan is notably silent) agreed that Judge Boasberg did nothing wrong. They technically had the votes, but didn’t vote for reversal.
Text of Footnote 1 of Judge Pan’s statement: Six of the eleven active judges on this court opine that the district court did not err. See Statement of Judge Millett at 1 ("[jere, the district cot exercise[d] its most fundamental and inherent authority to obtain non-privileged information necessary to police the integrity of proceedings in its own courtroom."); Statement of Judges Pillard, Wilkins, & Garcia at 3 ("The district court's order here was a measured and essential response to what it reasonably perceived as shocking Executive Branch conduct."); Statement of Judge Pan & Judge Childs, infra at 11-12 ("We should vacate the erroneous mandamus order to make clear that the district court acted properly when it investigated the government's apparent violation of a court order, and to communicate that we unequivocally reject the government's unsupported claim of judicial overreach.").
November 16, 2025 at 9:18 PM
cristianfarias.com
And separately, Judges Pan and Childs, both of them Biden appointees, would also undo the Trump judges’ order, noting that Judge Boasberg did nothing wrong and that the Trump judges’ order only validates the administration’s attacks on judges—and undermines the judiciary as a whole.
Excerpt from dissenting opinion by Judges Pan and Childs: We should not leave in place a ruling that says that the district court erred when it did not. We live in a world in which judges face threats and harassment because of their rulings and have been called "rogue" by government officials who disagree with them. And we cannot overlook that, in response to this very case, the President of the United States called for the district judge's impeachment.Some lawyers and interested observers might read the statements accompanying our denial of en banc review and realize that a majority of the full court does not believe that the district court was in the wrong. See supra n.l. But the meaning of this vote is likely to be misunderstood by members of the broader public who just read headlines, or who choose to focus only on the bottom line - they will see only that we let stand the mandamus order, which took the drastic step of vacating the district court's investigative order, based on a determination that the district court clearly abused its discretion. That misperception will harm public confidence in the judiciary and in the righteousness of the district court's contempt proceedings.
November 16, 2025 at 9:18 PM
cristianfarias.com
Judge Millett ain’t having it. She would’ve vacated the lawless order, if only to remind the Trump judges—Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas—of the last time the full court had to overrule a lawless opinion by Rao that would’ve allowed Michael Flynn to impugn his conviction, back in 2020.
Excerpt from Judge Millett’s opinion: I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. The unreasoned per curiam order granting the writ and the splintered opinions concurring in its issuance contravene both (1) settled precedent requiring an exceptional and demanding justification for mandamus relief, Cheney v. United States District Court for Cf., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004), and (2) our en banc decision in In re Flynn, 973 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2020), which ruled that it is improper to use mandamus to cut off lawful district court proceedings before that court has a chance to rule. That combined precedent should apply with its fullest force hen, as here, the district court exercises its most fundamental and inherent authority to obtain non-privileged information necessary to police the integrity of proceedings in its own courtroom.
November 16, 2025 at 9:18 PM
cristianfarias.com
Glass half full:

Three of them—Judges Pillard, Wilkins, and Garcia—issue a rare joint statement noting that their intervention wasn’t necessary because the two Trump judges were themselves in disagreement, and thus their individual views set no precedent.

And Boasberg remains free to do this:
Excerpt from joint statement by Pillard, Wilkins, and Garcia: The vote not to review the panel's order en banc should not be misinterpreted. We fully appreciate the seriousness of the governmental conduct the district court observed, and we do not endorse the panel's prematur tervention in the district court's decision-making process. Nor should this vote be understood as judicial acquiescence to any disregard for court orders. It most assuredly should not be read to diminish the judiciary's proper use of its contempt power or to excuse noncompliance by government officials. To the contrary, respect for judicial orders, and courts' independence, are essential to the rule of law. The district court has every ability to set a new deadline for production of the information it sought regarding the probable contempt it identified or to proceed otherwise within his sound discretion. For its part, the government will have the full opportunity a he appropriate time to raise any defenses it may have. If it is dissatisfied with any appealable order the district court may enter, it will have the opportunity to seek review through the ordinary process. That is how our system of justice is designed to work.
November 16, 2025 at 9:18 PM
cristianfarias.com
Why do political reporters write like this?
Excerpt of Reuters politics newsletter: Winter is coming What were the consequences of the U.S. government closing for 43 days? Let's make a little list: most federal workers didn't get paid, flights across the country were delayed, and food insecurity for low-income families rose. So, who wins? Trump, at least in the short term. The president showed significant political muscle during the more than six weeks that government operations were idled. His Republican allies in Congress held strong, not bending to robust resistance by Democratic lawmakers, whose demands that Washington address concerns about Affordable Care Act subsidies were resonating with the public and their own base. Trump even managed to go abroad to Asia during the shutdown without sustaining criticism that he was leaving the country at a time when it was under significant domestic stress. (Former President Barack Obama canceled a trip to Asia under similar circumstances in 2013.).
November 13, 2025 at 5:54 PM
cristianfarias.com
For kicks, the lawsuit includes a Privileges or Immunities Clause claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, which hasn't been a thing for more than 150 years.
Screenshot from complaint: Count 4 Fourteenth Amendment, Privileges or Immunities Clause (Facial and As Applied) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Under Ex parte Young 300. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation above (at paragraphs 1–257) as if fully set forth herein. 301. Plaintiffs recognize that any claim challenging the regulation of their vacant apartments under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause is currently barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). 302. For preservation purposes, however, Plaintiffs allege that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects their right to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and that this protection includes the right to set the rent on the leasehold interest in their vacant apartments so that those apartments can be rented to willing tenants.
November 13, 2025 at 2:46 PM
cristianfarias.com
I think I’m going to have an aneurysm.
A post from Threads, which reads: Thank you Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown, for declining to hear Kim Davis' challenge to the constitutional protections for marriage equality. Includes a picture of the three justices.
November 11, 2025 at 1:16 AM
cristianfarias.com
Good morning.

nymag.com/intelligence...
A splash image from the NYMag homepage with the headline: “The Three Months that Could Make Trump King,” plus an illustration featuring John Roberts next to Donald Trump.”
November 6, 2025 at 1:08 PM
cristianfarias.com
Would I rather be at the beach than some countryside? You bet.

#NewProfilePic
November 4, 2025 at 7:35 PM
cristianfarias.com
Left: The statutes Aileen Cannon analyzed when declaring unconstitutional Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel: www.politico.com/f/?id=000001...

Right: The statutes Pam Bondi cited when retroactively reappointing Lindsey Halligan as special attorney: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Screenshot of ruling by Aileen Cannon: "The Court now proceeds to evaluate the four statutes cited by the Special Counsel as purported authorization for his appointment—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533. The Court concludes that none vests the Attorney General with authority to appoint a Special Counsel like Smith, who does not assist a United States Attorney but who replaces the role of United States Attorney within his jurisdiction." Screenshot of Pam Bondi appointing order: On September 22, 2025, I exercised the authority vested in the Attorney General by 28 U.S.C. § 546 to designate and appoint Lindsey Halligan as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. See Att'y Gen. Order No. 6402-2025. For the avoidance of doubt as to the validity of that appointment, and by virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. § 509, 510, and 515, I hereby appoint Ms. Halligan to the additional position of Special Attorney, as of September 22, 2025, and thereby ratify her employment as an attorney of the Department of Justice from that date going forward.
November 4, 2025 at 4:40 AM
cristianfarias.com
I was looking up a case almost no one paid attention to this summer, and I encountered this heck of a footnote from Ketanji Brown Jackson aimed at the six conservative justices.

(Justice Sotomayor, who joined part of her dissent, didn't join the footnote.)

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Screenshot of Footnote 12 from Stanley v. City of Stanford, Florida: The majority’s contention that I reject “ ‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that— and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.
November 3, 2025 at 2:52 PM
cristianfarias.com
Finally got me one of those boxy shirts that improperly expose your midsection when lifting your arms overhead.
A gym selfie wearing a boxy, semi-cropped white t-shirt, black joggers, white socks, and sneakers.
November 1, 2025 at 12:25 PM
cristianfarias.com
We’re goin’ up, up, up, it’s our moment.
Rumi of K-Pop Demon Hunters dressed as a 7-year-old.
October 31, 2025 at 12:37 PM
cristianfarias.com
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was right about Alabama’s death-by-prolonged-suffocation execution method.

(She has been right about this stuff before.)

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/u...
Screenshot from article, which reads: “Lee Hedgepeth, a journalist in Alabama who witnessed the execution, said he counted Mr. Boyd gasp for air more than 225 times before he was pronounced dead. Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In it, Justice Sotomayor urged people to open the stopwatch app on their phone and run it until it reached four minutes. "Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating,'” she wrote. "You want to breathe; you have to breathe. But you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face pumping your lungs with nitrogen gas.”
October 26, 2025 at 10:12 PM
cristianfarias.com
I haven’t been surrounded by this many casebooks since law school.
Cristian selfie. He’s sitting on a big leather chair with a shelf-full of casebooks and legal treatises behind him. He’s wearing a blue blazer, cream knit t-shirt, and a black pocket square with white dots.
October 24, 2025 at 1:31 PM
cristianfarias.com
These two responses from Antonin Scalia, referencing Congress vis-à-vis the president—from @jennifersenior.bsky.social's canonical interview with him—lives rent-free in my brain:

"Congress was just eating us alive."

nymag.com/news/feature...
Q. Then you served in the Ford administration. That must have been an awfully lonely time to be a young conservative. A: It was a terrible time, not for the Republican Party, but for the presidency. It was such a wounded and enfeebled presidency, and Congress was just eating us alive. I mean, we had a president who had never been elected to anything except … what? A district in Michigan? Everything was in chaos. It was a time when people were talking about “the imperial presidency.” I knew very well that the 900-pound gorilla in Washington is not the presidency. It’s Congress. If Congress can get its act together, it can roll over the president. That’s what the framers thought. They said you have to enlist your jealousy against the legislature in a ­democracy—that will be the source of tyranny. Q: But weren’t you just saying that you learned from Watergate that presidents aren’t incorruptible? A: What, and Congress is? I mean, they’re all human beings. Power tends to corrupt. But the power in Washington resides in Congress, if it wants to use it. It can do anything—it can stop the Vietnam War, it can make its will felt, if it can ever get its act together to do anything.
October 23, 2025 at 1:46 AM
cristianfarias.com
Oh, look—a timely new paper by a leading scholar of administrative law that the Supreme Court will completely ignore.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Screenshot of paper abstract, The New History of Multi-Member Commissions at the Founding, 1789-1840, which reads in part: This paper provides crucial new historical evidence showing that the Founders, indeed a who's who list of Founders, approved and even sat on administrative commissions in the Republic's early years. The Founders called these early commissions "independent," deferred to their judgments as "final," and demanded that the members be "impartial."
October 21, 2025 at 3:06 AM