25 Comments
User's avatar
sunbirdie93@gmail.com's avatar

Even with a legal background, I can't keep my eyes from crossing. Thanks so much for the additional detail. I think I at least get the basic understanding now.

Expand full comment
Barry Goldman's avatar

This makes me ashamed to be a lawyer.

How can anyone defend this steaming horseshit?

Expand full comment
bakeneko's avatar

I am so happy to be a subscriber to your blog.

I can't imagine finding a better place to remove much of my daily "WTAF!?" reactions in trying to follow the courts' actions than in reading your concise, well-written and easy for a non-lawyer to understand reports.

Thank you for your fine reporting.

Expand full comment
kenberryinseattle@gmail.com's avatar

Thank you for this detailed clarification even though my head is feeling wobbly after reading this.

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

The wheels of Justice grind slow. We’ll see if they grind “exceeding fine.”

Expand full comment
Jonathan D. Simon's avatar

The things mere judges will do

To avoid Rogue SCOTUS review!

Expand full comment
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Very convoluted.

Real consequences are not in place yet, but there is a possibility that it has been left open. Cheers.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Agree with sunbirdie—an excellent job of making “sense” of this messy finger painting.

Expand full comment
Francesca Reitano's avatar

Thank you, Chris, for making a bit more explicable, the inexplicable. It seems some of the effing courts tie themselves in ridiculous knots trying to deal with Trump.

Expand full comment
John Wallach's avatar

I don't know how the Republic survives these judges that think the law is an instrument for Trump to achieve his aims instead of a process.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Trump judges, it seems, have codified his delay-delay-delay tactic as “proper” judicial behavior … easier than actually presenting case citations, I guess.

Expand full comment
STSteven's avatar

Superb explainer, Chris! Thank you. I especially liked the sentence from Judge Pan's opinion, "Our constitutional system was functioning as designed until a panel of this court improvidently intervened." I read this statement as a calling out to Judges Katsas and Rao for their seemingly partisan decision to grant mandamus back on August 8.

Expand full comment
Tammie Diepen's avatar

Exactly what I was thinking! I appreciate your analysis, Chris, as I feel like I am in an unlit section of tunnels that loop back into one another as I try to find my way through in the darkness, and your writings are the only beam of light, but they light the way like a thousand suns! Thank you!

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

I almost fainted from confusion

Expand full comment
Teddy Partridge's avatar

This explanation is what I rely on Law Dork for: unraveling the timeline and the vote counting so that we can all understand what actually happened.

Well dorked, Dork!

Expand full comment
Ornithomancer's avatar

Okay so as I understand it...

The two GOP judges... couldn't agree on the reason for the mandamus, and by extension don't really have an instruction to send back down because they viewed the original order from Boasberg as "not appealable", just a "boo. nerd. you suck." note so the majority of the rest of the DC circuit (minus one judge) decided that since the mandamus both didn't instruct to do anything and couldn't be held as precedent, that they were just like "fine we know you hate him whatever let's just send it back so it can keep proceeding"?

It sounds like... bullying? It sounds like those two judges were like "We can't actually *do* anything about it but fuck your face anyway"???

Do I have that right? Could I have that right? I'm so confused.

Expand full comment
bumpyjonas's avatar

The Trump appointees look bad. They don't care. If they did, they would have allowed the case to play out. This is where we are it seems.

Expand full comment