Patrick Jaicomo
@pjaicomo.bsky.social
Civil rights litigator at @IJ.org.
Lover of freedom.
Fighter of bullies.
(All my posts have typos and express my own views.)
Lover of freedom.
Fighter of bullies.
(All my posts have typos and express my own views.)
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
Congratulations to @pjaicomo.bsky.social & my other @ij.org colleagues for their win at SCOTUS in Martin v. US today! On a very minor point, I'll note that Justice Gorsuch introduced a honey-do list into the U.S. Reports. (Although this part went against an argument IJ made.)
June 12, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Congratulations to @pjaicomo.bsky.social & my other @ij.org colleagues for their win at SCOTUS in Martin v. US today! On a very minor point, I'll note that Justice Gorsuch introduced a honey-do list into the U.S. Reports. (Although this part went against an argument IJ made.)
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
Sometimes the Louisiana criminal justice system throws up cases you can hardly believe (remember overdetention?)
Here: a judge says “use my donor’s ankle monitoring company or stay in jail.”
H/t @pjaicomo.bsky.social
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unp...
Here: a judge says “use my donor’s ankle monitoring company or stay in jail.”
H/t @pjaicomo.bsky.social
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unp...
May 7, 2025 at 9:07 PM
Sometimes the Louisiana criminal justice system throws up cases you can hardly believe (remember overdetention?)
Here: a judge says “use my donor’s ankle monitoring company or stay in jail.”
H/t @pjaicomo.bsky.social
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unp...
Here: a judge says “use my donor’s ankle monitoring company or stay in jail.”
H/t @pjaicomo.bsky.social
www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unp...
The federal gov't has taken the unusual step of filing an uninvited cert-stage amicus in Goldey v. Fields, asking #SCOTUS to expand #FederalImmunity - here, to ensure there's no remedy for excessive force against prison inmates.
I have a lot of thoughts, but here are 5.
1/6
I have a lot of thoughts, but here are 5.
1/6
March 12, 2025 at 1:09 PM
The federal gov't has taken the unusual step of filing an uninvited cert-stage amicus in Goldey v. Fields, asking #SCOTUS to expand #FederalImmunity - here, to ensure there's no remedy for excessive force against prison inmates.
I have a lot of thoughts, but here are 5.
1/6
I have a lot of thoughts, but here are 5.
1/6
On 3/7, @ij.org filed our merits brief in Martin v. US.
We explain why the gov’t can’t claim #SovereignImmunity for intentional torts committed by FBI agents raiding the wrong house.
This case is about one of the last threads of federal accountability.
The gov’t’s trying to cut it.
We explain why the gov’t can’t claim #SovereignImmunity for intentional torts committed by FBI agents raiding the wrong house.
This case is about one of the last threads of federal accountability.
The gov’t’s trying to cut it.
March 12, 2025 at 1:03 PM
On 3/7, @ij.org filed our merits brief in Martin v. US.
We explain why the gov’t can’t claim #SovereignImmunity for intentional torts committed by FBI agents raiding the wrong house.
This case is about one of the last threads of federal accountability.
The gov’t’s trying to cut it.
We explain why the gov’t can’t claim #SovereignImmunity for intentional torts committed by FBI agents raiding the wrong house.
This case is about one of the last threads of federal accountability.
The gov’t’s trying to cut it.
Today, #SCOTUS denied cert. in @ij.org wrong-house raid #QualifiedImmunity case, Jimerson v. Lewis.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would grant.
Remember, Jimerson involved an *admitted* #FourthAmendment violation.
The application of QI means the raid was reasonably unreasonable.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would grant.
Remember, Jimerson involved an *admitted* #FourthAmendment violation.
The application of QI means the raid was reasonably unreasonable.
February 25, 2025 at 2:25 AM
Today, #SCOTUS denied cert. in @ij.org wrong-house raid #QualifiedImmunity case, Jimerson v. Lewis.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would grant.
Remember, Jimerson involved an *admitted* #FourthAmendment violation.
The application of QI means the raid was reasonably unreasonable.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would grant.
Remember, Jimerson involved an *admitted* #FourthAmendment violation.
The application of QI means the raid was reasonably unreasonable.
Happy Washington’s Birthday to all who celebrate the real holiday.
Happy “Presidents’ Day” to all the participation-trophy people.
Happy “Presidents’ Day” to all the participation-trophy people.
February 17, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Happy Washington’s Birthday to all who celebrate the real holiday.
Happy “Presidents’ Day” to all the participation-trophy people.
Happy “Presidents’ Day” to all the participation-trophy people.
My biggest criticism of Ilan and Randy’s anti-birthright-citizenship theory is that it discards the post-war context.
If jurisdiction is really about allegiance, it seems incredible that the 14th Amendment’s drafters wouldn’t have spelled that out.
Why? 1/6
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/o...
If jurisdiction is really about allegiance, it seems incredible that the 14th Amendment’s drafters wouldn’t have spelled that out.
Why? 1/6
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/o...
Opinion | Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship
People here illegally haven’t entered the social compact with the people of the United States.
www.nytimes.com
February 17, 2025 at 2:25 PM
My biggest criticism of Ilan and Randy’s anti-birthright-citizenship theory is that it discards the post-war context.
If jurisdiction is really about allegiance, it seems incredible that the 14th Amendment’s drafters wouldn’t have spelled that out.
Why? 1/6
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/o...
If jurisdiction is really about allegiance, it seems incredible that the 14th Amendment’s drafters wouldn’t have spelled that out.
Why? 1/6
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/o...
So, is the D.C. U.S. Attorney not permitted to practice in the District Court of D.C.?
(This is from U.S. v. Padilla, 1:21-cr-00214 - the case in which the D.C. U.S Attorney dismissed the case while he was still the defendant’s counsel of record.)
(This is from U.S. v. Padilla, 1:21-cr-00214 - the case in which the D.C. U.S Attorney dismissed the case while he was still the defendant’s counsel of record.)
February 8, 2025 at 3:12 AM
So, is the D.C. U.S. Attorney not permitted to practice in the District Court of D.C.?
(This is from U.S. v. Padilla, 1:21-cr-00214 - the case in which the D.C. U.S Attorney dismissed the case while he was still the defendant’s counsel of record.)
(This is from U.S. v. Padilla, 1:21-cr-00214 - the case in which the D.C. U.S Attorney dismissed the case while he was still the defendant’s counsel of record.)
Our new paper proves that § 1983 and its Notwithstanding Clause displace #QualifiedImmunity.
Textualists should be troubled greatly that the congressionally enacted text of § 1983 precludes extra-textual defenses. Yes #SCOTUS upholds QI.
As @ij.org has said for years, QI must go.
Textualists should be troubled greatly that the congressionally enacted text of § 1983 precludes extra-textual defenses. Yes #SCOTUS upholds QI.
As @ij.org has said for years, QI must go.
February 5, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Our new paper proves that § 1983 and its Notwithstanding Clause displace #QualifiedImmunity.
Textualists should be troubled greatly that the congressionally enacted text of § 1983 precludes extra-textual defenses. Yes #SCOTUS upholds QI.
As @ij.org has said for years, QI must go.
Textualists should be troubled greatly that the congressionally enacted text of § 1983 precludes extra-textual defenses. Yes #SCOTUS upholds QI.
As @ij.org has said for years, QI must go.
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
Whole lotta big cases coming the federal judiciary's way.
February 4, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Whole lotta big cases coming the federal judiciary's way.
ATTN: LAW REVIEWS
My @ij.org colleague Daniel Nelson & I have submitted our article "Section 1983 (Still) Displaces Qualified Immunity."
Building on the work of Will Baude and Alex Reinert, we trace the history of #QualifiedImmunity and import of its lost "Notwithstanding Clause." 1/
My @ij.org colleague Daniel Nelson & I have submitted our article "Section 1983 (Still) Displaces Qualified Immunity."
Building on the work of Will Baude and Alex Reinert, we trace the history of #QualifiedImmunity and import of its lost "Notwithstanding Clause." 1/
February 4, 2025 at 3:42 PM
ATTN: LAW REVIEWS
My @ij.org colleague Daniel Nelson & I have submitted our article "Section 1983 (Still) Displaces Qualified Immunity."
Building on the work of Will Baude and Alex Reinert, we trace the history of #QualifiedImmunity and import of its lost "Notwithstanding Clause." 1/
My @ij.org colleague Daniel Nelson & I have submitted our article "Section 1983 (Still) Displaces Qualified Immunity."
Building on the work of Will Baude and Alex Reinert, we trace the history of #QualifiedImmunity and import of its lost "Notwithstanding Clause." 1/
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
A whole bunch of people who were totally cool with posting the addresses of NIH/CDC employees during COVID are now absolutely apoplectic that people would publish the mere names of people forcing their way into government agencies and accessing sensitive data.
Weird, huh?
Weird, huh?
February 4, 2025 at 2:16 AM
A whole bunch of people who were totally cool with posting the addresses of NIH/CDC employees during COVID are now absolutely apoplectic that people would publish the mere names of people forcing their way into government agencies and accessing sensitive data.
Weird, huh?
Weird, huh?
BEHOLD, THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS:
- Legislative Branch:
“The President can just do whatever.”
- Executive Branch:
“The courts will stop me if this is wrong.”
- Judicial Branch:
“We defer to Congress and the President.”
- Legislative Branch:
“The President can just do whatever.”
- Executive Branch:
“The courts will stop me if this is wrong.”
- Judicial Branch:
“We defer to Congress and the President.”
February 1, 2025 at 11:42 PM
BEHOLD, THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS:
- Legislative Branch:
“The President can just do whatever.”
- Executive Branch:
“The courts will stop me if this is wrong.”
- Judicial Branch:
“We defer to Congress and the President.”
- Legislative Branch:
“The President can just do whatever.”
- Executive Branch:
“The courts will stop me if this is wrong.”
- Judicial Branch:
“We defer to Congress and the President.”
Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the United States.
February 1, 2025 at 11:41 PM
Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the United States.
I’ve been suing the federal gov’t for abuses since Obama.
Trump came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Biden came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Trump’s back. People say gov’t will accept accountability.
It won’t …
Trump came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Biden came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Trump’s back. People say gov’t will accept accountability.
It won’t …
February 1, 2025 at 3:55 PM
I’ve been suing the federal gov’t for abuses since Obama.
Trump came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Biden came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Trump’s back. People say gov’t will accept accountability.
It won’t …
Trump came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Biden came in; people said gov’t would accept accountability.
It didn’t.
Trump’s back. People say gov’t will accept accountability.
It won’t …
Update on the grant of certiorari in @ij.org #WrongHouseRaid case, Martin v. U.S.:
1. #SCOTUS will likely be hear the case this term, between 4/28 and 4/30.
2. The Court has appointed an amicus to argue QP1 (below), since the gov't did not defend the 11th Cir.'s Supremacy Clause bar.
1. #SCOTUS will likely be hear the case this term, between 4/28 and 4/30.
2. The Court has appointed an amicus to argue QP1 (below), since the gov't did not defend the 11th Cir.'s Supremacy Clause bar.
January 29, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Update on the grant of certiorari in @ij.org #WrongHouseRaid case, Martin v. U.S.:
1. #SCOTUS will likely be hear the case this term, between 4/28 and 4/30.
2. The Court has appointed an amicus to argue QP1 (below), since the gov't did not defend the 11th Cir.'s Supremacy Clause bar.
1. #SCOTUS will likely be hear the case this term, between 4/28 and 4/30.
2. The Court has appointed an amicus to argue QP1 (below), since the gov't did not defend the 11th Cir.'s Supremacy Clause bar.
WATCH: Here's the new @ij.org case video (starring
@kinger-dc.bsky.social) explaining our lawsuit against the City of Norfolk's use of Flock Cameras to create an unconstitutional, digital panopticon.
This system of cameras tracks every driver, wherever he goes.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mc3...
@kinger-dc.bsky.social) explaining our lawsuit against the City of Norfolk's use of Flock Cameras to create an unconstitutional, digital panopticon.
This system of cameras tracks every driver, wherever he goes.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mc3...
Flock's Creepy Surveillance System Coming to a City Near You
YouTube video by Institute for Justice
www.youtube.com
January 28, 2025 at 4:49 PM
WATCH: Here's the new @ij.org case video (starring
@kinger-dc.bsky.social) explaining our lawsuit against the City of Norfolk's use of Flock Cameras to create an unconstitutional, digital panopticon.
This system of cameras tracks every driver, wherever he goes.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mc3...
@kinger-dc.bsky.social) explaining our lawsuit against the City of Norfolk's use of Flock Cameras to create an unconstitutional, digital panopticon.
This system of cameras tracks every driver, wherever he goes.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mc3...
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
January 27, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
The justices on Monday evening fast-tracked the briefing for a dispute over an FBI SWAT raid on the wrong house and the right to sue the federal government for error. Martin v. United States will likely be argued in April, before the end of the 2024-25 term.
Justices take up case on right to sue over mistaken SWAT raid - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will weigh in on whether a Georgia family whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team can sue the federal government for the error. Just over six hours after the justices is...
www.scotusblog.com
January 27, 2025 at 11:18 PM
The justices on Monday evening fast-tracked the briefing for a dispute over an FBI SWAT raid on the wrong house and the right to sue the federal government for error. Martin v. United States will likely be argued in April, before the end of the 2024-25 term.
Reposted by Patrick Jaicomo
Option 5: Cert will be granted on an accelerated briefing schedule later this afternoon with the case squeezed into this term.
January 27, 2025 at 9:09 PM
Option 5: Cert will be granted on an accelerated briefing schedule later this afternoon with the case squeezed into this term.
Via this morning's Orders List, #SCOTUS has now relisted both of @ij.org's #WrongHouseRaid cert. petitions for a THIRD time.
That could mean several things, but it's a little curious that the cases are in a group of 15 cases that have been relisted three times.
We keep waiting.
That could mean several things, but it's a little curious that the cases are in a group of 15 cases that have been relisted three times.
We keep waiting.
🧵As we await decisions on the #SCOTUS relists of @ij.org’s #WrongHouseRaid cert. petitions, I want to highlight how these cases expose a judicial hypocrisy.
Factually, they’re similar.
SWAT teams raided the wrong house without checking the address.
Legally, they’re distinct. 1/8
Factually, they’re similar.
SWAT teams raided the wrong house without checking the address.
Legally, they’re distinct. 1/8
January 27, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Via this morning's Orders List, #SCOTUS has now relisted both of @ij.org's #WrongHouseRaid cert. petitions for a THIRD time.
That could mean several things, but it's a little curious that the cases are in a group of 15 cases that have been relisted three times.
We keep waiting.
That could mean several things, but it's a little curious that the cases are in a group of 15 cases that have been relisted three times.
We keep waiting.
My @ij.org colleague Jaba and I will be speaking at Civil Rights Etouffee in New Orleans on VALENTINES DAY!
Who doesn't love constitutional rights?
So, if you want some CLE credits and to hear about developments in civil rights law, click the link.
eventbrite.com/e/civil-righ...
Who doesn't love constitutional rights?
So, if you want some CLE credits and to hear about developments in civil rights law, click the link.
eventbrite.com/e/civil-righ...
January 27, 2025 at 2:59 PM
My @ij.org colleague Jaba and I will be speaking at Civil Rights Etouffee in New Orleans on VALENTINES DAY!
Who doesn't love constitutional rights?
So, if you want some CLE credits and to hear about developments in civil rights law, click the link.
eventbrite.com/e/civil-righ...
Who doesn't love constitutional rights?
So, if you want some CLE credits and to hear about developments in civil rights law, click the link.
eventbrite.com/e/civil-righ...
Most normal people expect that, if a SWAT team raids the wrong house, the gov't is responsible for the costs.
But courts around the U.S. have held the opposite, employing a variety of immunities to leave the burden on innocent families.
Two @ij.org petitions ask SCOTUS to step in:
But courts around the U.S. have held the opposite, employing a variety of immunities to leave the burden on innocent families.
Two @ij.org petitions ask SCOTUS to step in:
January 22, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Most normal people expect that, if a SWAT team raids the wrong house, the gov't is responsible for the costs.
But courts around the U.S. have held the opposite, employing a variety of immunities to leave the burden on innocent families.
Two @ij.org petitions ask SCOTUS to step in:
But courts around the U.S. have held the opposite, employing a variety of immunities to leave the burden on innocent families.
Two @ij.org petitions ask SCOTUS to step in:
Someone should update the U.S. Court’s website, which says the Supreme Court accepts 100-150 cases every year.
This term, it has accepted 67, and it remains to be seen whether it will accept any more.
(Though it’s already scheduling cases for next term.)
This term, it has accepted 67, and it remains to be seen whether it will accept any more.
(Though it’s already scheduling cases for next term.)
January 21, 2025 at 11:54 PM
Someone should update the U.S. Court’s website, which says the Supreme Court accepts 100-150 cases every year.
This term, it has accepted 67, and it remains to be seen whether it will accept any more.
(Though it’s already scheduling cases for next term.)
This term, it has accepted 67, and it remains to be seen whether it will accept any more.
(Though it’s already scheduling cases for next term.)