Vishal Agraharkar
@v-agraharkar.bsky.social
Attorney @ ACLU of Virginia
All views my own
All views my own
Reposted by Vishal Agraharkar
5/ In other words, I see very little reason to think that the Court would *allow* Congress to solve significant national problems—at least, when those solutions took a form the majority of justices disliked. And conversely …
December 10, 2025 at 9:49 AM
5/ In other words, I see very little reason to think that the Court would *allow* Congress to solve significant national problems—at least, when those solutions took a form the majority of justices disliked. And conversely …
Reposted by Vishal Agraharkar
these clowns are REALLY going to say that Texas’s map - which targeted majority minority districts - was NOT discrimination on the basis of race.
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
December 4, 2025 at 11:45 PM
these clowns are REALLY going to say that Texas’s map - which targeted majority minority districts - was NOT discrimination on the basis of race.
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
But they’ll say Louisiana’s map - drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act and give Black voters representation- DID discriminate on the basis of race
Reposted by Vishal Agraharkar
As Justice Kagan begins her dissent by pointing out, what is even the point of trial, of fact-finding, of clear error, of standards of review, when the Supreme Court simply ignores every single part of that and decides everything purely on the papers without any real consideration of the facts?
December 4, 2025 at 11:08 PM
As Justice Kagan begins her dissent by pointing out, what is even the point of trial, of fact-finding, of clear error, of standards of review, when the Supreme Court simply ignores every single part of that and decides everything purely on the papers without any real consideration of the facts?
Reposted by Vishal Agraharkar
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, in dissent: "We should not have to live in a country where the Government
can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
September 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, in dissent: "We should not have to live in a country where the Government
can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent."
Sorry if I missed it, but is there an essay/excerpt/podcast episode where you preview some of your arguments in here?
August 6, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Sorry if I missed it, but is there an essay/excerpt/podcast episode where you preview some of your arguments in here?