LightNews LightNews
ss07021.bsky.social
@ss07021.bsky.social
160 followers 190 following 1.6K posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
thebulwark.com
When Trump sets a goal of political retribution, there’s no telling how far his followers will be willing to go to achieve it. Or how cowardly Republicans who know better will act. ICYMI @cheetah.bsky.social: lnk.thebulwark.com/4rfyIWI
A New Frontier in Timidity for Congressional Republicans
The Trump administration wants to jail their colleagues. They don’t care.
lnk.thebulwark.com
February 14, 2026 at 9:00 PM
Reposted
ecmclaughlin.bsky.social
I am not buying the DHS story on this for one fraction of a second.

ICE shot at another car today in New Jersey.

patch.com/new-jersey/m...
Morris County ICE Shooting: What We Know
An independent investigation into the shooting has been launched by the NJ Office of Public Integrity and Accountability.
patch.com
February 11, 2026 at 6:25 PM
Reposted
florida-lib.bsky.social
February 14, 2026 at 9:00 PM
Reposted
brendannyhan.bsky.social
Utterly unacceptable in a democracy. In a sane world, House Republicans would be drafting impeachment articles today and Senate Republicans would be preparing for a trial to convict and remove him from office
February 14, 2026 at 7:37 PM
Reposted
altnps.bsky.social
An executive order isn’t the same as a law and can’t by itself change election rules set by Congress. Trump said on Truth Social that there “will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not,” and that he’d issue an executive order if the SAVE America Act fails.
February 14, 2026 at 4:09 AM
Reposted
bgrueskin.bsky.social
Note the framing here:

It’s “Democrats have refused to fund” DHS and not “Republicans refused to prohibit face masks” or “the two parties could not agree on how to reform the agency.”

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
Politics With Congress gone, much of DHS is set to run out of' money after midnight Democrats nave refused to fund the department without new restrictions on federal imm gration agents, including requiring them to wear body cameras and tighter rules on warrants. Today at 14:24 MT
February 14, 2026 at 2:07 AM
Reposted
steventdennis.bsky.social
The Cabinet this week
*RFK Jr. bragged about snorting cocaine off of a toilet seat
*Lutnick acknowledged taking his family to Epstein island
*Bondi “The Dow” / refuses to look at victims
*Noem blanket
*Hegseth loses to Kelly, tries to tweet through it
*Bessent “tariffs don’t cause inflation”
February 14, 2026 at 1:55 AM
Reposted
nycsouthpaw.bsky.social
My name is mud in this business. Hey fella, would you like to buy that name?
February 14, 2026 at 4:12 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Discussion of one provision in Judge Brasel's TRO relating to the effects of the Fifth Circuit ruling — www.lawdork.com/p/fifth-circ... — that I discussed over the weekend:
stevevladeck.bsky.social Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d
In other words, long enough that habeas petitions can be filed on their behalf in Minnesota before they're whisked off to an immigration detention facility somewhere in the Fifth Circuit (where, under that court's current law, they wouldn't be eligible for a bond hearing).
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 2d
Incredibly powerful opinion chronicling the awfulness in Whipple and the ways it interfered with the right to counsel.

One key part of the ruling (that ICE will likely appeal ASAP); Judge Brasel bars ICE from transferring anyone out of Minnesota within 72 hours of arrest.
February 13, 2026 at 4:23 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The TRO, issued at 5p CT today, is to be distributed to every agent who works at Whipple and those responsible for Whipple's operations by 5a CT Friday.

The TRO is in effect until 5p CT Feb. 26.

The schedule for further consideration of the case is set forth below.
10. Defendants shall disseminate notice of this Order to all agents stationed at the Whipple Federal Building and those responsible for the building's operations, including providing copies in paper or electronic format. The Order must be distributed to those individuals within 12 hours of its issuance. 11. This Order shall remain in effect for fourteen days: until Friday, February 26, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. CST. 12. This Court will hold a status conference on Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. CST in Courtroom 13W of the Diana Murphy United States Courthouse in 40 CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 95 Filed 02/12/26 Page 41 of 41 Minneapolis, Minnesota. At the status conference, the Court will (a) receive status updates on compliance with this Order and hear any requests for modification; and (b) determine whether a second hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification is necessary, and if such a hearing would include the presentation of evidence. The parties shall reserve Thursday February 26, 2026 at 12 p.m. CST for the date of the second hearing. The parties may request amendments to this schedule as necessary. Dated: February 12, 2026 Time: 5:00 p.m. BY THE COURT: s/Nancy E. Brasel Nancy E. Brasel United States District Judge
February 13, 2026 at 12:51 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The TRO goes in depth and provides very specific requirements.
Defendants shall ensure that every noncitizen taken into custody under the Immigration and Nationality Act and initially detained at the ERO Holding Facility at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building located at 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota ("Detainee"), within one hour of their 36 CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 95 Filed 02/12/26 Page 37 of 41 detention and prior to being transferred out of state, is given the following materials: a. Defendants shall provide Detainees their A-number in writing. b. Defendants shall provide a printed copy of Exhibit A to this Order. c. Defendants shall attach to Exhibit A a list of accurate telephone numbers for current free legal service providers serving the jurisdiction of the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations St. Paul Office. d. Exhibit A, the list of free legal service providers, and written notification of the Detainee's A-number shall be furnished to each Detainee in English, Spanish, Somali, French, and Hmong. Defendants shall provide, without charge, to each Detainee who is illiterate or not proficient in any of those languages an in-person or telephonic oral translation of these materials. Defendants shall provide Detainees with reasonable and equitable access to telephones. Within one hour of detention and prior to being transferred out of the Whipple Federal Building, Detainees shall be provided free, private, and unmonitored access to the telephone. Defendants shall permit Detainees to make the number of calls necessary to reach counsel or family. 37 CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 95 Filed 02/12/26 Page 38 of 41 3. Thereafter, Defendants shall provide Detainees with access to confidential telephone calls with their legal representation at no charge to the Detainee. a. Defendants shall not restrict the number of calls a Detainee places to their legal representatives or to obtain representation. Defendants shall not limit the duration of such calls by rule or automatic cut-off, unless necessary for security purposes or to maintain orderly and fair access to telephones. If time limits are necessary for such calls, the calls shall be no shorter than 20 minutes, and the Detainee shall be allowed to continue the call, if desired, at the first available opportunity. Additionally, Defendants shall ensure privacy for Detainees' telephone calls regarding legal matters. Detainees must be able to make such calls without being overheard by officers, other staff, or other Detainees. Defendants shall allow inbound confidential calls from Detainees' legal representation. A telephone number for counsel to call in order to reach Detainees shall be conspicuously displayed online. Defendants shall monitor that telephone line from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. CST, seven days per week. If an attorney requests that Defendants provide the attorney's name, phone number, or other 38 CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 95 Filed 02/12/26 Page 39 of 41 message to a Detainee, the Detainee shall receive that information, in writing, as promptly as possible. 4. Detainees with disabilities shall be provided access to telephone services on the same terms as Detainees without disabilities are provided access to telephones. Such telephone services may include video relay service or video remote interpretation service. 5. Defendants shall ensure that the Online Detainee Locator System of defendant Immigrations and Customs Enforcement accurately identifies the location of each Detainee by name, date of birth, and A-number in real time. 6. Defendants shall not transfer a Detainee out of Minnesota during the first 72 hours of their detention. If Defendants transfer a Detainee from the Whipple Federal Building, the following obligations apply: a. First and foremost, Defendants shall inform the Detainee of the transfer destination. b. After being told the transfer destination, Defendants shall provide the Detainee with the opportunity to use the telephone until they are able to reach counsel or family. These calls shall be free, private, and accessible as outlined in Paragraphs 2 and 4, above. 39 CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 95 Filed 02/12/26 Page 40 of 41 8. Defendants shall provide access to the Whipple Federal Building for legal visitation by current and prospective attorneys, legal representatives, and legal assistants. Legal visitation shall be permitted seven days per week, for a minimum of eight hours per day on business days (Monday through Friday), and a minimum of four hours per day on weekends and holidays. Defendants shall provide private rooms for closed-door discussions between Detainees and current and prospective attorneys, legal representatives, and legal assistants. 9. Defendants shall not retaliate in any manner against any Plaintiff or Detainee, including in their immigration proceedings or in any other context, for participating in this litigation or complaining about any alleged violation of this Temporary Restraining Order.
February 13, 2026 at 12:47 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Context note here: Judge Brasel was nominated by Trump, but at the recommendation of Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat.

Brasel was nominated alongside Judge Tostrud, who was nominated at the recommendation of then-Rep. Erik Paulsen, a Republican.

www.startribune.com/minnesota-fe...
Minnesota federal judicial nominees tested on Capitol Hill
Hennepin County judge, Mitchell Hamline law prof could join federal court.
www.startribune.com
February 13, 2026 at 12:35 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here is the meat of it:

"Defendants chose to operate a detention facility, so 'they must meet constitutional standards.'"
In the late-filed declaration by Rich, Defendants explain that in-person visits are operationally challenging and pose safety risks. Rich explains that there are rooms available, but non-law enforcement is not allowed in this area, and it "would create a significant safety risk to provide access to these rooms" to attorneys. (Rich Decl. I 7.) Any change to standard operating procedures "would require significant resources." (Id.) And there are other rooms available, but they are in disuse because of "a lack of security functions" and because the master key does not work to these rooms. (Id. I 8.) They would need more funds to renovate these rooms and to station additional officers near these rooms. (Id.) The Court is underwhelmed by this evidence. The record shows that Whipple allowed in-person visits before Operation Metro Surge, and Defendants make no effort to explain why in-person visits suddenly strain their resources. The record also shows that during Operation Metro Surge, the rooms are not used. Putting these evidentiary concerns aside, forbidding in-person visits based on a generic and unspecified risk to safety and lack of resources is excessive. Defendants chose to operate a detention facility, so "they must meet constitutional standards." Campbell o. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503, 508 (8th Cir. 1980). Defendants allocated substantial resources to sending thousands of agents to Minnesota, detaining thousands of people, and housing them in their facilities. Defendants cannot suddenly lack resources when it comes to protecting detainees' constitutional rights. Likewise, Defendants practice of rapidly transferring detainees out of state without an opportunity to consult with counsel is unconstitutionally excessive. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that enjoining transfer may be appropriate if transferring the detainee would interfere with an existing attorney-client relationship such that access to counsel is effectively denied. Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir.), amended, 807 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986). That reasoning seemingly tees up a distinction between detainees who have already retained counsel and those who have not. But other courts have concluded that a detainee's right to access counsel can still be violated even if they do not yet have an attorney. For example, in Torres v. D.H.S., the court countenanced "extensive allegations regarding conditions so restrictive as to prevent them from forming any attorney-client relationship to begin with." 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1049 (C.D. Cal. 2019). The same is true here.
February 13, 2026 at 12:25 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
After looking at other cases from elsewhere, Brasel is brutal: "Under any explication of the due process analysis on this record, the obstacles the government has put in place at Whipple rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement of noncitizen detainees' right to access counsel."
So too here. Defendants do not attempt to rebut or distinguish these cases. Under any explication of the due process analysis on this record, the obstacles the government has put in place at Whipple rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement of noncitizen detainees' right to access counsel.
February 13, 2026 at 12:23 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here's the opinion and order from Brasel, finding a likely Fifth Amendment violation: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

This echoes the D.C. rulings I discussed at Law Dork earlier today: www.lawdork.com/p/the-dc-dis...
The D.C. District Court strikes back
Three judges issued three rulings protecting constitutional rights in cases relating to Trump admin actions against federal inmates, Alien Enemies Act deportees, and Sen. Mark Kelly.
www.lawdork.com
February 13, 2026 at 12:18 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Judge Nancy Brasel, a Trump appointee, has issued a TRO in the Minnesota access-to-counsel case about treatment at Whipple.

"It appears that in planning for Operation Metro Surge, the government failed to plan for the constitutional rights of its civil detainees."
It appears that in planning for Operation Metro Surge, the government failed to plan for the constitutional rights of its civil detainees. The government suggests — with minimal explanation and even less evidence — that doing so would result in "chaos." The Constitution does not permit the government to arrest thousands of individuals and then disregard their constitutional rights because it would be too challenging to honor those rights. 14 At this preliminary stage, Plaintiffs have made a clear showing of likelihood of success on their Fifth Amendment claim.
February 13, 2026 at 12:14 AM
Reposted
joedudekjd.bsky.social
This sentence will be repeated by courts supervising all the warehouses ICE is buying, more often than it should have to be.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 2d
Here is the meat of it:

"Defendants chose to operate a detention facility, so 'they must meet constitutional standards.'"
In the late-filed declaration by Rich, Defendants explain that in-person visits are operationally challenging and pose safety risks. Rich explains that there are rooms available, but non-law enforcement is not allowed in this area, and it "would create a significant safety risk to provide access to these rooms" to attorneys. (Rich Decl. I 7.) Any change to standard operating procedures "would require significant resources." (Id.) And there are other rooms available, but they are in disuse because of "a lack of security functions" and because the master key does not work to these rooms. (Id. I 8.) They would need more funds to renovate these rooms and to station additional officers near these rooms. (Id.) The Court is underwhelmed by this evidence. The record shows that Whipple allowed in-person visits before Operation Metro Surge, and Defendants make no effort to explain why in-person visits suddenly strain their resources. The record also shows that during Operation Metro Surge, the rooms are not used. Putting these evidentiary concerns aside, forbidding in-person visits based on a generic and unspecified risk to safety and lack of resources is excessive. Defendants chose to operate a detention facility, so "they must meet constitutional standards." Campbell o. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503, 508 (8th Cir. 1980). Defendants allocated substantial resources to sending thousands of agents to Minnesota, detaining thousands of people, and housing them in their facilities. Defendants cannot suddenly lack resources when it comes to protecting detainees' constitutional rights. Likewise, Defendants practice of rapidly transferring detainees out of state without an opportunity to consult with counsel is unconstitutionally excessive. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that enjoining transfer may be appropriate if transferring the detainee would interfere with an existing attorney-client relationship such that access to counsel is effectively denied. Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir.), amended, 807 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986). That reasoning seemingly tees up a distinction between detainees who have already retained counsel and those who have not. But other courts have concluded that a detainee's right to access counsel can still be violated even if they do not yet have an attorney. For example, in Torres v. D.H.S., the court countenanced "extensive allegations regarding conditions so restrictive as to prevent them from forming any attorney-client relationship to begin with." 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1049 (C.D. Cal. 2019). The same is true here.
February 13, 2026 at 3:06 AM
Reposted
newrepublic.com
Some of today’s Democrats aspire to return us to some pre-Trump “normal.” But for millions of Americans, that isn’t nearly good enough.

The country needs a Democratic Party that seeks to create a new and far better “normal”—and that’s willing to fight the people standing in the way. trib.al/dU41NLe
What Is a Democrat For?
Today’s Democrats could aspire just to return us to some pre-Trump “normal.” But for millions of Americans, that isn’t nearly good enough. The country needs a Democratic Party that seeks to create a new and far better “normal”—and that’s willing to fight the people standing in the way.
trib.al
February 13, 2026 at 3:06 AM
Reposted
markjacob.bsky.social
Here’s a gift link to a well-written and perceptive story by Robert Draper in the New York Times. He’s 100% correct that the Epstein scandal has exposed the moral rot in America’s elite.
The Epstein Files and the Hidden World of an Unaccountable Elite
www.nytimes.com
February 13, 2026 at 3:07 AM
Reposted
nothoodlum.bsky.social
“We’re the only country in the world that has mail in ballots”. - Senile Satan
February 12, 2026 at 11:28 PM
Reposted
elliottpayne.org
Someone was abducted at 10 AM by ICE on Central Ave. Their coworker says they’ve lived here for over 20 years, are documented, and have 3 kids who were born here.

Don’t be fooled by headlines when they’ve been lying to us the whole time. We still need you out patrolling until every agent is gone.
February 12, 2026 at 5:22 PM
Reposted
nathankalmoe.bsky.social
I'm still SHOCKED by the obscene rise in billionaire election spending since Citizens United in the NYT piece, despite already knowing that election corruption w/ $ was profound. (Recall that BCRA fought dangerous campaign $ in *2002*)

The article data didn't have a graph, so I made one to show it.
Chart showing billionaire election spending from 2000 thru 2024. 2000: $18 million 2004: $13 million 2008 $16 million 2010: Citizens United supreme court case 2012: $231 million 2016: $682 million 2020: $1.2 billion 2024: $2.6 billion
February 12, 2026 at 2:26 PM
ss07021.bsky.social
apple.news/Ax5r2CovhSj6...

"The lyrics from what we've seen from Bad Bunny are very disturbing. And if it holds true — I don't speak fluent Spanish, okay, I know how to ask where the bathroom is….”
House Republicans call for investigation into Bad Bunny Super Bowl halftime show over 'widespread twerking, grinding, pelvic thrusts' — Entertainment Weekly
Rep. Mark Alford said the fallout
apple.news
February 12, 2026 at 5:16 PM
Reposted
chriswarcraft.bsky.social
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Drag every one of these monsters into the public eye
February 12, 2026 at 5:14 PM
Reposted
npr.org
Months after the killing of Charlie Kirk, a growing number of lawsuits by people claim they were illegally punished, fired and even arrested for making negative comments about Kirk. n.pr/46w2RJ6
Free speech lawsuits mount after Charlie Kirk assassination
Months after the killing of Charlie Kirk, a growing number of lawsuits by people claim they were illegally punished, fired and even arrested for making negative comments about Kirk.
n.pr
February 12, 2026 at 10:27 AM