Our site is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit & free to the public. We've also published thousands of primary-source J6 documents, exclusive records like the Fulton County grand jury transcripts, and detailed play-by-play coverage of J6 trials. If you'd like to support: givebutter.com/journalism/annabower1

ok normally judges shouldn’t do this imo. But this isn’t a normal situation

🚨 SCOOP: U.S. and Iran reach deal but need Trump's final approval, officials say

It's going to be hilarious (in the soul-crushing way) to see how fast Alabama goes to #SCOTUS for a stay of this ruling under Purcell, after obtaining relief from the Court from a similar injunction <checks notes> 15 days ago on the ground that it *wasn't* too close to the election.

i don’t think he will personally. I think he’ll look for someone in the Cuban armed forces to deal with. But leaving Raul alone will be table stakes for Trump here.

I look in the replies accusing Steve of being naive (I’ve done it in the past myself!) but he’s right here. I don’t see 5 agreeing “yeah we lied.”

I don't know what the Court will do. But it *does* seem like at least two of the justices in the Callais majority may want to avoid provoking a dissenting opinion here that says "you lied."

oh

Ok saying idiotic things isn’t helping. There are no legal theories to use here.

ICYMI: We obtained the grand jury testimony of Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, Brian Kemp, Brad Ratffensperger, Cassidy Hutchinson, Marc Short, Greg Jacob, Boris Epshteyn, Michael Flynn, Chris Carr, Lin Wood, Mark Meadows, Cleta Mitchell, and more. You can read & search the transcripts on our site👇

i was not prepared tbh

The biggest problem was Infantino’s making Trump front and center

Actually curious here- the case was remanded to the district court. Presumably to enter judgment? What if the district court invokes Purcell?

Quite a remarkable exchange between Justice Alito (concurring) and Justice Jackson (dissenting) respecting the Supreme Court’s decision to issue the judgment in the Louisiana redistricting case immediately: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Lost his Hungarian connection

Good article but a little behind the news - Hochul has already promised a redistricting, Sherrill spoke positively about it, Wes Moore was already for it. The most intriguing will be Shapiro. If he’s running in 28, he will have to do it imo. /1

The reassertion of control of the court’s docket intrigues me

Bari Weiss magic

King Charles descended from the Normans btw. The Normans whupped Anglo-Saxon ass at Hastings

Re-reading SCOTUS's 2023 decision in Counterman, in which the Court held that state must prove that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. Must be more than mere hyperbole, but that speaker seriously intends violence.

Indict this man!

Statue of limitations has not expired on this tweet.

Great!

it’s absolutely sanctionable. What do you mean it’s not sanctionable? If you filed something like this in a run of the mill case, you would be told to withdraw it or the court would strike it.

2 things: 1/ obviously non- WH events won’t be at the WH. 2/ the 7 inch glass is good for threats outside the ballroom not inside the ballroom.

TRUMP: *starts illegal war crashes economy disappears people off the streets unleashes government death squads to execute Americans for protesting loots the treasury and is just super fuckin' racist every day* DEMOCRATS: Guy's not doin' great for America NEWS MEDIA: Wow. Let's tone it down, huh?

lol

They would never ask and Trump doesn’t have a ballroom to offer.

lol wut? First, it would be incredibly inappropriate to have the WHCA dinner at the White House. Second, no White House would permit it. Are you an idiot?

He was of course going to do this but also……. a whca hosted and organized dinner would not happen at the fucking White House

First-hand report from former FCC Chair Ajit Pai on "lax security" at the WHCD. x.com/AjitPai/stat...

I understand the sophisticated academic argument that there’s been a partisan/ideological “realignment” on standing, but can we maybe indulge the possibility that the courts are just being inconsistent?

I’ve been asking for weeks

Apropos of the @stevevladeck.bsky.social debate with Baude/Re, the Baude/Re argument posits that if the government won at the DC Circuit, the presumption of irreparable harm due to stopping Exec Branch policy wouldnt occur, since they will not be the movant for relief before SCOTUS. Makes no sense

This thread is worth reading but I suggest a re-reading of Llewellyn is in order.

“Harm to the government only matters for emergency applications when the government is the moving party” is not just a normatively bizarre argument; it’s inconsistent with countless cases in which #SCOTUS has analyzed the harm to governmental respondents—whether finding it to be conclusive or not.

"As is so often the case with commentary about the emergency docket, the Court’s defenders make arguments that sound outwardly reasonable, but that depend entirely on cherry-picking their examples and ignoring the counterexamples." Me on the barrage of commentary attacking the Times' #SCOTUS scoop:

wow

Amazing

Why is the Acting Attorney General doing this as opposed to the US Attorney for Alabama?

lol

stupid Trump tweet for many reasons but one of which is that Spain had higher GDP growth than the US over the last year (3% vs 2%)

GOP lawyer Joe diGenova, now running Trump’s “Grand Conspiracy” probe, said earlier this month that Pam Bondi had “nixed” him from the role www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/gop...

Wrote about a court blocking *actual* jawboning by the Trump admin... and how the people who spent the last 5 years screaming about how supposed Biden admin jawboning (for which they presented no evidence since it didn't happen) was the worst thing ever, are completely silent about this case.

WHERE HARPER’S LETTER #2 WHAR

that’s not from Pulp Fiction

Yes does it say when they’ll start paying?

Jamal is too nice to say "utter hypocrisy," but that's what this is. Today's #SCOTUS treats *all* coercive relief against the executive branch as imposing irreparable harm on the government. For that proposition, they cite a 2014 opinion by ... Chief Justice Roberts. Its absence here is deafening.

Joe Digenova? Lol wut!

There’s so much to say about the remarkable reporting from Jodi Kantor & Adam Liptak—and I’ll say a lot of it in Monday’s newsletter. But the most striking thing about all of it is the role & behavior of Chief Justice Roberts. “Calling balls and strikes” this ain’t: www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/u...