Jim Oleske
LightNews LightNews
banner
jimoleske.bsky.social
Jim Oleske
@jimoleske.bsky.social
6.3K followers 960 following 330 posts
Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School. Teach constitutional law and torts, write on religious liberty and equal protection.
Posts Replies Media Videos
jimoleske.bsky.social
What perfect album came out the year you turned 16?
Tracy Chapman
November 17, 2025 at 2:08 AM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Curious about the decision of the Deputy Attorney General to get into a back and forth with @gtconway.bsky.social on social media in which the DAG implicitly acknowledges that, contrary to WH line, yesterday's Epstein documents did bring to light new relevant information.
Todd Blanche tweet: George, you’ve never been confused for a trial lawyer, and these kinds of posts explain why. When I interviewed Maxwell, law enforcement didn’t have the materials Epstein’s estate hid for years and only just provided to Congress. Stop talking. It’s unbecoming. Quoting-tweeting this from George Conway: An important side note about today's Epstein/Trump revelations. They show that Todd Blanche's questioning of Ghislaine Maxwell was either (a) completely incompetent; or (b) intentionally crafted not to elicit facts incriminating Trump. Either way, he is not fit to serve as Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
November 13, 2025 at 3:33 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Note: Judge Immergut briefly discusses the "regular forces" interpretive issue in a footnote, but does not weigh in with an independent analysis, finding that the 9th Circuit's earlier binding decision in California case implicitly resolved the issue.
20 Another interpretive question is the meaning of “regular forces” in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). In Illinois v. Trump, No. 25-cv-12174, 2025 WL 2886645, at *16–18 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025), the district court provided compelling reasons why “the phrase ‘regular forces’ was understood at the time of enactment to mean the soldiers and officers regularly enlisted with the Army and Navy, as opposed to militiamen.” The Supreme Court awaits supplemental briefing on this issue, but Defendants have provided this Court with arguments why “regular forces” refers to federal civil officers and not the standing army. Defs. Post-Trial Br., ECF 131 at 6–10. In any event, this Court need not resolve this “thorny and complex issue[] of statutory interpretation.” Illinois v. Trump, No. 25-2798, 2025 WL 2937065, at *7 (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025). In Newsom, the Ninth Circuit implicitly resolved this question by equating “regular forces” with “federal officers,” i.e. federal civilian law enforcement, which is binding on this Court. 141 F.4th at 1051–52.
November 8, 2025 at 8:00 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
FYI: According to the Internet Archive, the change was made on the VA website sometime between April 5 and April 21, so its possible some male veterans with breast cancer have been confronting additional barriers to getting coverage since then.
October 30, 2025 at 9:38 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
FWIW: Having now had a chance to look into this a bit more, relevant statutory phrase is "reproductive cancer," and 2024 decision by Biden Admin added breast cancer to that category and explained why it did so for both male and female breast cancer. Trump VA changed sometime b/n Apr. 5 and Apr 25:
October 30, 2025 at 9:27 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Update: SG filed a letter.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
October 29, 2025 at 7:26 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Key excerpt from what we might call Noonan's #NoKings column:
The 250th anniversary of July 4, 1776, comes up next year, and many of us are rereading the old documents. The past week I’ve talked to two historians, one rightish, one leftish, and both conversations turned toward Thomas Jefferson’s stinging bill of particulars against King George III in the Declaration of Independence. They resonate in unexpected ways: “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our Legislatures.” “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people.” “Obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither.” The Founders didn’t want any of that. It’s why they created a republic.
October 25, 2025 at 4:37 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Sounds completely legit!

And it will cost you just $4,490 to get a copy of the full "study" pitched (excerpt below) at the link in the Forbes piece.
The market value includes the value of related goods sold by the service provider or included within the service offering. The artificial intelligence (AI) in aging and elderly care market includes sales of hearing aids, mobility aids, vision-enhancing devices, smartwatches, fitness trackers, and robotic caregivers. Values in this market are ‘factory gate’ values, that is the value of goods sold by the manufacturers or creators of the goods, whether to other entities (including downstream manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers) or directly to end customers. The value of goods in this market includes related services sold by the creators of the goods.
October 25, 2025 at 4:27 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Worth reading a second time: Judge Graber's dissent in Oregon v. Trump.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending—sometimes breaking—the truth. By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda. I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur. Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.
October 24, 2025 at 7:54 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, and Washington file an amicus brief in Oregon v. Trump urging the 9th Circuit to go en banc:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The danger to the Amici States is clear. President Trump made plain his desire to “use some of these dangerous cities,” namely “the ones that are run by the radical left Democrats,” as “training grounds for our military National Guard.”6 If allowed to stand, the Order will sanction federalized National Guard units as a routine sight in the cities of the Ninth Circuit. That is contrary to the text of § 12406 and our Nation’s history and tradition. CONCLUSION The Court should rehear the case en banc.
October 23, 2025 at 2:13 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Steve: I do not believe this line in the piece is correct ("federalized members of the Oregon National Guard can currently be deployed into Oregon.") Judge Immergut's second TRO, which as you note is still in effect, covers all Nat'l Guard deployment in OR, not just that by California guardsman.
October 23, 2025 at 1:02 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Just filed: Oregon's supplemental brief urging the Ninth Circuit to go en banc in Oregon v. Trump (National Guard case).

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
This case presents exceptionally important structural questions regarding this country’s continued status as a constitutional—not martial—republic, as well as exceptionally important and pressing practical questions regarding the extent to which local authorities around the nation must accept federal military encroachment on local law-enforcement functions.
October 23, 2025 at 3:25 AM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Key passage:
What is more remarkable is how much of a crucible he appears to pose for normal erstwhile-conservative commentators. No Jew-hater on campus is too lowly not to be ferreted out and identified; contrariwise, no office in the executive branch is too high for a Jew-hater or friend of Jew-haters not to be publicly ignored, to go unmentioned and uncondemned, whatever may be said about him in private. It’s not as if Ingrassia is unknown or unheralded (by Trump himself; he frequently quoted or reposted Ingrassia on social media). On a scale of one to ten for efforts to root out the antisemitic or generally morally abhorrent from one’s own sanctum, however, the formerly-conservative response to Ingrassia rates somewhere around, well, whatever number represents Jeremy Corbyn.
October 21, 2025 at 12:44 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Gotta love the homemade Jersey sign in the second photo:

"One Boss, No Kings!"
Image of the South Jersey Times front page, with the headline: In Jersey and across the U.S., crowds gather for 'No Kings' protests
October 19, 2025 at 3:54 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
A video from just shout of that spot, approximately 12:45pm today:
October 18, 2025 at 9:42 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Another vantage point:
Photo of Portlanders gathering for the No Kings March
October 18, 2025 at 9:07 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Portland No Kings, before the March, from the Morrison Bridge
October 18, 2025 at 9:05 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
"Tricia McLaughlin has provided false information on multiple occasions"

See, e.g.: x.com/paschutz/sta...
October 13, 2025 at 9:16 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
In her judicial opinions engaging originalism, Justice Barrett has thoughtfully raised key questions about the challenges of implementing the methodology.

In her non-judicial appearance on Fox yesterday, Barrett was decidedly less thoughtful when defending the Court's shadow docket behavior.
Moreover, as I’ve explained at length before, the Court would have no trouble writing such an opinion in a way that doesn’t lock in any future result if and when the case returns on the merits; all it would have to do is rest its analysis on a proper balancing of the equities and a clear statement that it wasn’t conclusively resolving the merits—something it’s had no trouble insisting upon in non-Trump-related cases. As for Justice Barrett’s concern that even a short opinion might “give the impression that we have finally resolved the issue,” it’s the justices who, for the first time, are publicly insisting that even their unexplained rulings on emergency applications are entitled to precedential effect—something that wouldn’t make sense unless the justices have reached some kind of merits-based conclusion. To pretend that isn’t happening borders on gaslighting.
October 13, 2025 at 1:12 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Curious as to what the mailbag has been like recently at the Salt Lake Tribune, the long-time home of cartoonist Pat Bagley.

www.sltrib.com/opinion/bagl...
October 12, 2025 at 7:50 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Yes. This is a formalization of the earlier order on the *administrative stay* request.

Likely still an order to come on request for non-admin stay, which was the subject of oral argument, and which the U.S. is hoping will be accompanied by reasoning that leads Immergut to dissolve second TRO.
October 11, 2025 at 1:08 AM
jimoleske.bsky.social
The "& deployment" part of your description above is inaccurate.

The second TRO, prohibiting deployment, remains in place, as explained by the Ninth Circuit:
An administrative stay of the October 4 temporary restraining order will maintain the federalization of Oregon National Guard members, because that order prohibits implementation of the Memorandum. Additionally, the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the deployment of National Guard members in Oregon. Thus, the effect of granting an administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed
October 8, 2025 at 8:56 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Further explanation of the "remain federalized but can't be deployed" line in Julia's post below:

The Ninth Circuit's order makes clear it is *not* a stay of Judge Immergut's second temporary restraining order, just the first.
An administrative stay of the October 4 temporary restraining order will maintain the federalization of Oregon National Guard members, because that order prohibits implementation of the Memorandum. Additionally, the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the deployment of National Guard members in Oregon. Thus, the effect of granting an administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed
October 8, 2025 at 8:51 PM
jimoleske.bsky.social
"Courts lack the power to grant injunctive relief to States because sometimes they hear private-party cases brought after the alleged violations of law have taken place" is ... not terribly persuasive.
October 6, 2025 at 2:30 AM
jimoleske.bsky.social
Filed tonight by the state of Oregon - copy of Hegseth memo to Texas National Guard about mobilizing 400 members for federal service, "including in the cities of Portland and Chicago."

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
October 6, 2025 at 2:12 AM