404 Permitting is gonna get wild for a while after this I think

Tergdor said:

---

So, what gun stuff just became legal now that the ATF is borked? Bump stocks back on the menu?

---

Bump stocks were rules legal two weeks ago, my friend...

aggiehawg said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

---

Suck on that, Jack Smith!

---

Need another assist for my ignorance.

---

The DC case against Trump involves that same statute. The Court says it doesn't apply to the events of Jan 6th. That guts the DC case. Remaining charges are very weak without those obstruction charges under Sarbanes-Oxley.

---

Woah, woah. It did NOT say that.

The Fishcer opinion is not going to help Trump as to Trump's case. It would have helped Trump if it said January 6 wasn't an "official proceeding" covered by the statute, but it didn't. It also said "creating false evidence" is covered by the statute (page 8-9 of majority).



Of note as to the various January 6 defendants, KBJ in her concurrence and Barrett in her dissent both say Fischer might well have violated the law under the narrowed interpretation of the statute announced today. So, stay tuned, more to this story. There's going to be a lot of fact intensive debate in a lot of D.C. court rooms coming up.

Quote:

---

KBJ:

That official proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6567. And it might well be that Fischer's conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding "in ways other than those specified in (c)(1)." Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer's prosecution under 1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

First today is City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

6-3 by Justice Gorsuch

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent

The 9th Circuit is reversed.

Quote:

---

The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.

The court holds that it does not need to reconsider its decision in Robinson v. California, in which the court held in 1962 that states could not criminalize the status of narcotic addiction. Robinson, Gorsuch writes, "cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit's course." In Robinson, he explains, the court "expressly recognized the 'broad power' States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws."

The public camping ordinances at issue in this case, Gorsuch reasons, "are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson."

Gorsuch writes that "Homelessness is complex" and its "causes are many." But the Eighth Amendment, he concludes, does not give federal judges the primary job "for assessing those causes and devising those responses."

In a concurring opinion, Thomas contends that Robinson was wrongly decided.

---

---

Mock trial tryouts I made this exact argument when I was tasked to defend a city who had passed a similar ordinance. The homeless guy was homeless because he fled an island country that "sunk" due to climate change. I did not make the team but it sure looks like I was right.

...This is a big win for Trump as well. It knocks out a substantial part of the case of Jack Smith against the former president. It also knocks out hundreds of convictions...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 28, 2024

I thought this would be posted pretty quick

Ornithopter said:

---

404 Permitting is gonna get wild for a while after this I thinkI do a lot of these. Was already gutted in Texas by Sackett decision.

---

Yup. I do a lot of these. Was already gutted in Texas by Sackett decision.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

First today is City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

6-3 by Justice Gorsuch

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent

The 9th Circuit is reversed.

Quote:

---

The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.

The court holds that it does not need to reconsider its decision in Robinson v. California, in which the court held in 1962 that states could not criminalize the status of narcotic addiction. Robinson, Gorsuch writes, "cannot sustain the Ninth Circuit's course." In Robinson, he explains, the court "expressly recognized the 'broad power' States enjoy over the substance of their criminal laws."

The public camping ordinances at issue in this case, Gorsuch reasons, "are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson."

Gorsuch writes that "Homelessness is complex" and its "causes are many." But the Eighth Amendment, he concludes, does not give federal judges the primary job "for assessing those causes and devising those responses."

In a concurring opinion, Thomas contends that Robinson was wrongly decided.

---

---

Mock trial tryouts I made this exact argument when I was tasked to defend a city who had passed a similar ordinance. The homeless guy was homeless because he fled an island country that "sunk" due to climate change. I did not make the team but it sure looks like I was right.

---

Holy Woke-Loaded Fact Pattern, Batman!

Ours were much more simple -- Biker gang beats the crap out of customer at a fast food restaurant who starts it, or egg-shell plaintiff suffers brain damage after a drunken fall trying to get into your vehicle.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

---

Suck on that, Jack Smith!

---

Need another assist for my ignorance.

---

The DC case against Trump involves that same statute. The Court says it doesn't apply to the events of Jan 6th. That guts the DC case. Remaining charges are very weak without those obstruction charges under Sarbanes-Oxley.

---

Woah, woah. It did NOT say that.

The Fishcer opinion is not going to help Trump as to Trump's case. It would have helped Trump if it said January 6 wasn't an "official proceeding" covered by the statute, but it didn't. It also said "creating false evidence" is covered by the statute (page 8-9 of majority).



Of note as to the various January 6 defendants, KBJ in her concurrence and Barrett in her dissent both say Fischer might well have violated the law under the narrowed interpretation of the statute announced today. So, stay tuned, more to this story. There's going to be a lot of fact intensive debate in a lot of D.C. court rooms coming up.

Quote:

---

KBJ:

That official proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6567. And it might well be that Fischer's conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding "in ways other than those specified in (c)(1)." Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer's prosecution under 1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.

---

---

Having a rough couple of days are we?

Rockdoc said:

---

I thought this would be posted pretty quick

---

The moment the Court granted cert. on Fischer I expected them to at least nibble around the edges of 1512(c)(2). And it would have some effect on Smith's DC case against Trump. The actual decision went further than I expected.

AggieRain said:

---

Ornithopter said:

---

404 Permitting is gonna get wild for a while after this I thinkI do a lot of these. Was already gutted in Texas by Sackett decision.

---

Yup. I do a lot of these. Was already gutted in Texas by Sackett decision.

---

Same. At this point, I feel like 404 permitting (and environmental regulation in general) needs a specific judiciary to handle judicial interpretation like how patent law gets it.

Tergdor said:

---

So, what gun stuff just became legal now that the ATF is borked? Bump stocks back on the menu?

---

Answered above. Lack of patience and scrolling don't mix.

I mean, I can offer tweets from law professors if that's the level of engagement we're going to have.

This ruling should *not* affect the charges against former President Trump, which meet even the narrower reading of the statute adopted by the majority.

But for other January 6 defendants, it opens the door to possible re-sentencings or re-trials.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2024

Maybe others pointed this out, but I found this in the syllabus significant, pertaining to how the narrowed 1512(c) would apply in the Trump prosecution:

"For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence—rather than altering incriminating evidence. " https://t.co/YcP3xhC7AQ

— Lee Kovarsky (@lee_kovarsky) June 28, 2024

Someone has to carry the water for the left.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

UncivilLaw on YouTube is having a dance party in his office. The happiest I've ever seen the guy.

---

That's a very happy fat man! Gotta do some cardio to party like that!

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I mean, I can offer tweets from law professors if that's the level of engagement we're going to have.

This ruling should *not* affect the charges against former President Trump, which meet even the narrower reading of the statute adopted by the majority.

But for other January 6 defendants, it opens the door to possible re-sentencings or re-trials.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2024

Maybe others pointed this out, but I found this in the syllabus significant, pertaining to how the narrowed 1512(c) would apply in the Trump prosecution:

"For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence—rather than altering incriminating evidence. " https://t.co/YcP3xhC7AQ

— Lee Kovarsky (@lee_kovarsky) June 28, 2024

---

Someone already did that and the prof said you're wrong.

Rearview said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

So, what gun stuff just became legal now that the ATF is borked? Bump stocks back on the menu?

---

Bump stocks were rules legal two weeks ago, my friend...

---

Was too busy watching baseball

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Barrett with Soto and Kagan?

---

There have been some strange bedfellows this term.

---

Yeah...because Jackson sided with the majority in this one...

Interdasting.

---

Jackson saw the writing on the wall for minority activists and their 'Action Networks.' Republican administrators could start arresting anyone blocking traffic if it resulted in a federal juror being late to court.

Rapier108 said:

---

Someone has to carry the water for the left.

---

Or for the law. I don't think having differing opinions on what the SCOTUS opinion means has to do with carrying water for any side necessarily. Some folks tend not to count their chickens just yet.

I think only 24 of the Jan 6 defendants will be exonerated by this, so anyone jumping up and down like its vindication for all those convicted might want to wait just a bit.

Same for Trumps case....Except, Smiths case will never get to trial. Cannon has seen to it that its dragged out...can't completely blame her since she's so inexperienced, but as soon as Trump is elected, its all shut down so really arguing about it seems moot.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Someone has to carry the water for the left.

---

Or for the law. I don't think having differing opinions on what the SCOTUS opinion means has to do with carrying water for any side necessarily. Some folks tend not to count their chickens just yet.

I think only 24 of the Jan 6 defendants will be exonerated by this, so anyone jumping up and down like its vindication for all those convicted might want to wait just a bit.

Same for Trumps case....Except, Smiths case will never get to trial. Cannon has seen to it that its dragged out...can't completely blame her since she's so inexperienced, but as soon as Trump is elected, its all shut down so really arguing about it seems moot.

---

Wrong trial.

SwigAg11 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Someone has to carry the water for the left.

---

Or for the law. I don't think having differing opinions on what the SCOTUS opinion means has to do with carrying water for any side necessarily. Some folks tend not to count their chickens just yet.

I think only 24 of the Jan 6 defendants will be exonerated by this, so anyone jumping up and down like its vindication for all those convicted might want to wait just a bit.

Same for Trumps case....Except, Smiths case will never get to trial. Cannon has seen to it that its dragged out...can't completely blame her since she's so inexperienced, but as soon as Trump is elected, its all shut down so really arguing about it seems moot.

---

Wrong trial.

---

Really? I thought the Turley quote ("rips off the wings of the plane Smith was trying to fly") was about Jack Smiths trial in relation to the SCOTUS opinion today. Or are you saying the case Cannon is handling is a different one? I'm aware of that, my point was that that case (documents) is never going to trial, but the other charges against Trump about election interference aren't automatically wiped out bc of the opinion today.

BluHorseShu said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Someone has to carry the water for the left.

---

Or for the law. I don't think having differing opinions on what the SCOTUS opinion means has to do with carrying water for any side necessarily. Some folks tend not to count their chickens just yet.

I think only 24 of the Jan 6 defendants will be exonerated by this, so anyone jumping up and down like its vindication for all those convicted might want to wait just a bit.

Same for Trumps case....Except, Smiths case will never get to trial. Cannon has seen to it that its dragged out...can't completely blame her since she's so inexperienced, but as soon as Trump is elected, its all shut down so really arguing about it seems moot.

---

Wrong trial.

---

Really? I thought the Turley quote ("rips off the wings of the plane Smith was trying to fly") was about Jack Smiths trial in relation to the SCOTUS opinion today. Or are you saying the case Cannon is handling is a different one? I'm aware of that, my point was that that case (documents) is never going to trial, but the other charges against Trump about election interference aren't automatically wiped out bc of the opinion today.

---

Judge Cannon is handling the documents trial and not the J6 trial. I may have misunderstood what you meant in your first comment there.

Edit: I had assumed that Jack Smith was on both Trump federal trials so I misunderstood your comments.

SwigAg11 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Someone has to carry the water for the left.

---

Or for the law. I don't think having differing opinions on what the SCOTUS opinion means has to do with carrying water for any side necessarily. Some folks tend not to count their chickens just yet.

I think only 24 of the Jan 6 defendants will be exonerated by this, so anyone jumping up and down like its vindication for all those convicted might want to wait just a bit.

Same for Trumps case....Except, Smiths case will never get to trial. Cannon has seen to it that its dragged out...can't completely blame her since she's so inexperienced, but as soon as Trump is elected, its all shut down so really arguing about it seems moot.

---

Wrong trial.

---

Really? I thought the Turley quote ("rips off the wings of the plane Smith was trying to fly") was about Jack Smiths trial in relation to the SCOTUS opinion today. Or are you saying the case Cannon is handling is a different one? I'm aware of that, my point was that that case (documents) is never going to trial, but the other charges against Trump about election interference aren't automatically wiped out bc of the opinion today.

---

Judge Cannon is handling the documents trial and not the J6 trial. I may have misunderstood what you meant in your first comment there.

Edit: I had assumed that Jack Smith was on both Trump federal trials so I misunderstood your comments.

---

You are right. The J6 trial in DC is where the 1512(c) is being used against Trump. The documents case in FL is where Judge Cannon is presiding. The prosecutor in both is Jack Smith.

Lol at Tribe. How does the Chevron ruling take power away from Congress and give the executive branch more power.

Are liberal lawyers always complete ******s?

Chevron is now overruled. The administrative state just died. The imperial judiciary joins the imperial presidency, relegating Congress to a secondary role except when it legislates with unrealistic specificity and foresight.

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) June 28, 2024

Quote:

---

Lol at Tribe. How does the Chevron ruling take power away from Congress and give the executive branch more power.

Are liberal lawyers always complete ******s?

---

Tribe has deranged for years now. he used to be respected a long time ago. I studied his hornbook when I was in law school, in fact. But he started going crazy during the end of the Clinton second term during the Monica Lewinsky impeachment.

The death of the administrative state should be celebrated! We have 3 branches of government, not 4.

Amazing the number of legal experts that show up on these threads. Many thanks to Hawg and other lawyers who know what they're talking about. Your analysis is appreciated.

Make sure you come back on Monday for the grand finale with the Trump immunity decision. That one is going to be a doozy with all sorts of concurring and dissenting opinions. I'd be surprised if we don't get some sort of opinion from all of the justices. It will be complicated but we will do our best to uncomplicate them for you.

Government already noting in filings Fischer doesn't categorically reject 1512(c)(2)'s application to January 6. Stay tuned for continued wrangling and fighting in various district court rooms

The aftermath of SCOTUS's Fischer ruling begins:

In the case of Richard "Bigo" Barnett, seen kicking his foot on a desk of Pelosi's office, prosecutors highlight the limited reach of the decision, noting it "did not reject the application of § 1512(c)(2) to January 6." pic.twitter.com/mxSbVULhZI

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) June 28, 2024

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I mean, I can offer tweets from law professors if that's the level of engagement we're going to have.

This ruling should *not* affect the charges against former President Trump, which meet even the narrower reading of the statute adopted by the majority.

But for other January 6 defendants, it opens the door to possible re-sentencings or re-trials.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 28, 2024

---

Interesting wordage. Law professor using lawyer wording..........big difference in The ruling "should" not and The ruling will not.

Some folks don't like to admit they're wrong.

Logos Stick said:

---

Lol at Tribe. How does the Chevron ruling take power away from Congress and give the executive branch more power.

Are liberal lawyers always complete ******s?

Chevron is now overruled. The administrative state just died. The imperial judiciary joins the imperial presidency, relegating Congress to a secondary role except when it legislates with unrealistic specificity and foresight.

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) June 28, 2024

---

Me learning a bunch of lawyers are now out of a job and their careers completely wiped out https://t.co/qIDIIFXdrV pic.twitter.com/iY4KRmThRY

— Aetius (@AetiusRF) June 28, 2024

Based, can't wait for these to be forced to do something else.

The blue and yellow flag in Tribe's x handle says it all, LOL.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Lol at Tribe. How does the Chevron ruling take power away from Congress and give the executive branch more power.

Are liberal lawyers always complete ******s?

Chevron is now overruled. The administrative state just died. The imperial judiciary joins the imperial presidency, relegating Congress to a secondary role except when it legislates with unrealistic specificity and foresight.

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) June 28, 2024

---

Me learning a bunch of lawyers are now out of a job and their careers completely wiped out https://t.co/qIDIIFXdrV pic.twitter.com/iY4KRmThRY

— Aetius (@AetiusRF) June 28, 2024

Based, can't wait for these to be forced to do something else.

---

Learn to code.

Did I do that right?