Shaka, when the walls fell

Show Post

If you're interested in learning more about this practice--and what courts can do about it--I have an article, "Repeal By Surrender," forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review. shorturl.at/seWt9. This practice is legal (perhaps unlike collusive settlements), but courts can still mitigate its harms.

Show Post

But Steve's point about the Public Charge case is right. Roberts was unusually critical of the government's tactics, in a case the Court granted cert in despite a "mare's nest" of vehicle issues. And the Court accelerated review to try to address it in the Title 42 case. But now, crickets?

Show Post

In that case, there *was* full adversarial argument by the Trump administration defending the rule *before* the district court issued its relief. The Biden administration only dropped the pending appeals. What's happening here is much worse. It seems no judge has verified this relief is warranted.

Show Post

This is a great analysis of how troubling it is when courts grant judgments that vacate federal rules based on a quick settlement and no adversarial arguments. But it's important to distinguish between this and the "repeal by surrender" issue in the Public Charge case (AZ v SF) Steve notes.

Show Post