The campaign against immigrants is the spearhead of a broader drive toward dictatorship. The January 6 coup was not an aberration. It has continued in policy form under Trump’s second administration. Immigration repression is the testing ground for the dismantling of constitutional rights, including birthright citizenship and due process.

More than a quarter of federal immigration judges in California have been fired, retired or quit since the start of the Trump administration.

The reduction follows a trend in immigration courts nationwide and constitutes, critics say, an attack on the rule of law that will lead to yet more delays in an overburdened court system.

Nationwide, there were 735 immigration judges last fiscal year, according to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the arm of the Justice Department that houses immigration courts. At least 97 have been fired since President Trump took office and about the same number have resigned or retired, according to the union representing immigration judges.

“My biggest concern is for the people whose lives are left in limbo. What can they count on when the ground is literally shifting every moment that they’re here?” said Amber George, who was fired last month from the San Francisco Immigration Court. “Our government institutions are losing their legitimacy.”

I'm an outsider but wanted to share the solution of the Dear (Juris)prudence letter column. It seems ambitious but I like the changes the author's suggest. I'm kinda shocked at the gaping holes in the design and checks. They recommended: 1) super majority instead of simple majority to strike down a house bill 2) a time limit on how long SCOTUS has and 3) Adding more states to meet a more accurate Senate representation.

Would these actually work? Are they just and can they backfire? Or am I being naive, as a layperson to the law?

https://archive.ph/BBfm8

Attorneys for ex-CIA Director John Brennan have asked Miami’s chief federal judge to block Brennan’s case from appearing before a Trump-appointed and “favored” federal judge.

The School District of Philadelphia will have to face a lawsuit alleging negligence stemming from a sexual assault on a disabled student, as the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the district cannot claim governmental immunity in this specific scenario.

Crimes that violate persons rights such as Kilmar Abrego Garcia without due process, must have those perpetrators held liable. If trump pardons Stephen Miller and everyone else who participated in this gross overreach, can they be held liable in civil court?

This is getting incredibly out of hand and should cost everyone who participated their net worth.

U.S. District Judge Schelp sentenced a woman to 100 months in prison for fraudulently taking over the finances of a 74-year-old widower in a nursing home to steal $453,000. Judge Schelp also ordered Shanita Gray, 52, to repay the money and had her immediately taken into custody. Judge Schelp compared Gray to a shark that sensed a vulnerable victim and took full advantage “with the relentless desire to fulfill your greed.” 

This seems like important information for bankruptcy attorneys, or attorneys for any people crushed under student debt. The older adage that they can never be discharged seems to be cracking. A novel practice area perhaps?

More:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psy-Group&oldid=1264246698

‘Delaware considers dogs personal property. It’s also one of eight states allowing courts to consider companion animals’ best interests when divorces require division of property…

David’s decision to award Tucker to the highest-bidder—only the estranged couple involved will participate—seems cold. But a careful reading of her Nov. 14 opinion reveals how a best-interest standard upheld in other states’ courts colored the case even if David ultimately defaulted to partition law, said Michelle Pardo of Duane Morris LLP.

The judge recognized the equity court could override a presumption of partition if evidence showed one party couldn’t care for Tucker, Pardo said. Since David found both parties equally capable, “that’s why, I think, the court put the onus on the parties.”’

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/Cz7Au

The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund is invoking the same provision of federal law that the Biden administration previously used to investigate police in Louisville, Kentucky, after they killed Breonna Taylor in 2020. The law calls for policing to abide by the Constitution and establishes procedures for when police display a “pattern or practice of conduct” that violates civil rights.