The Democrats should be seeking to abolish “qualified immunity” at all levels.

The rule in England and every other common law country is not simply that state agents need a warrant. It is that anyone seeking to enter land without permission (including state agents) is a torfeasor, absent a warrant or other special authorisation.

The point is that being able to search for crimes without warrants or process of any kind is a scary power, one that has long been contested. Trump’s ICE are trampling over constitutional protections that were a concern long before the revolution

There were many earlier challenges to general warrants in England, and to the logic behind them. Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes argued against them: Even they are at the base of abuses of power:

Even older than the Republic…

Calling the requirement for a judicial warrant before entering a person’s home one of the Democrats’ “new restrictions on federal immigration agents” crosses the line into outright falsehood. It’s in the Bill of Rights! A rule as old as the republic.

Excellent as always: English lawyer, @davidallengreen.bsky.social explains the recent Palestine Action ruling. This is not just of interest to fellow lawyer weirdos like me, but everyone

Rubio's speech at the MSC was not (and should not be) in the least bit reassuring for Europe, the fundamental substance not different to Vance last year This US Admin and Europe no longer share the same values This will continue to throw up risks in Ukraine, Greenland, big tech etc

An (as always) illuminating post on the Palestine Action judgement yesterday from @davidallengreen.bsky.social. Highlights govt over-reach in the first instance and the remarkable efforts of the legal team representing PA in achieving this win! emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-p...

And on Mandelson etc At New Statesman on why prosecutions on this area are difficult www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-... And on why UK govt has got itself into a hole on disclosure, on own blog emptycity.substack.com/p/three-reas... / davidallengreen.com/2026/02/thre...

On Trump's failed attempt to indict six members of Congress At @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th... And further points on the 1642/2026 comparison at my own blog: emptycity.substack.com/p/1642s-five... / davidallengreen.com/2026/02/1642... >

A busy week for constitutional commentary Some of my drivel On the Palestine Action court victory - at @prospectmagazine.co.uk within a couple of hours of judgment: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th... And later - further points on my own blog: emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-p... / >

“I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated.“

NEW What the Palestine Action judgment means - and what it does not mean How the High Court ruled against the government, but not with enthusiasm By me: emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-p... (A follow up to my Prospect post this morning.)

Please send help, I'm lost. Lost in the depths of legal arguments not yet articulated.

A busy week for constitutional commentary Some of my drivel On the Palestine Action court victory - at @prospectmagazine.co.uk within a couple of hours of judgment: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th... And later - further points on my own blog: emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-p... / >

“I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated.“

“I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated.“

"I have a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain."

Petition to make "I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future" the opening paragraph on every legal brief going forward.

“I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated.“

Good round-up of the many reverses for Trump this last week, both in court and out.

Oh.

And so. The Home Secretary and the Home Office threw everything at defending the botched proscription of Palestine Action. They failed. They may win on appeal. But. Today was a useful reminder that they don’t always get their own way. Terrorism law is important, but it should not be abused.

Tudor to Hotspur is basically Shakespeare's history plays in reverse.

Tudor to Hotspur is basically Shakespeare's history plays in reverse.

This. Cynicism about the law in widespread, but the law is not always cynical. The difficult bit is to work out the differences.

AOC: "Extreme level of wealth inequality leads to social instability and drives authoritarianism, right-wing populism, and really dangerous domestic internal politics. That is a direct outcome of the failure of democracies over decades to deliver."

I think the secret was mostly how embarrassingly weak the case for proscription was. If there had been any even vaguely reasonable justification the court would have sided with the govt, as they tend to with anything related to terrorism or national security.

NEW What the Palestine Action judgment means - and what it does not mean How the High Court ruled against the government, but not with enthusiasm By me: emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-p... (A follow up to my Prospect post this morning.)

Reading the Palestine Action judgment. This, from Yvette Cooper's statement explaining why PA were to be proscribed, is surprisingly revealing. She says that PA are being proscribed (a) to make them easier to prosecute (b) ...at least in part for non-terrorist actions 1/n

*reads other commentators on the Palestine Action judgment* *phew* I never read other pundits on a domestic legal matter before doing a piece, as it helps keep my commentary independent and avoids groupthink. I always work from the judgment, legal instrument, or other formal document.

One main message from the Palestine Action judgment is that Cooper and the Home Office really mucked up in how they went about the proscription.

NEW The High Court rules the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful. What did the judgment say and not say, and what has changed and not changed. And what happens next. Quick explainer by me at @prospectmagazine.co.uk www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

The problem was the gov's only tool for banning PA membership itself was full fat proscription. It seems fairly clear (the 'policy' ground aside) that the court would have readily permitted a ban which targetted only membership and assistance. When you have hammer etc.

Many good points caught here by the estimable @jamesrball.com The judgment was an impressive win for the claimant, but the court was certainly *not* impressed by Palestine Action.

Until and unless the High Court makes an Order quashing the prescription, the law today and tomorrow is the same as the law yesterday. Nothing at law has (yet) changed.

#BREAKING: The high court has ruled that the UK’s ban on Palestine Action is unlawful. Back in September, dag#BREAKING:argued the government had likely overreached in proscribing the organisation under terrorism law

Please see below.

IMPORTANT The court has not yet formally ordered the quashing of the provision, and so it still remains in force pending an Order - see highlighted text. So provision remains in force. Suspect government may seek urgent appeal before Order made.

This means that even if Palestine Action ad not won on Human Rights Act/ECHR grounds, Palestine Action would have won on another ground. No doubt this will be missed by a lot of media reporting of this judgment, but even if HRA repealed etc, Palestine Action would have *still won*.

Now Published The Palestine Action judgment www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u...

Wow! Palestine Action win judicial review - Guardian report. This is a *big* legal win. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...

Kudos to @netpol.org for being the first to report this.

Breaking: on two counts, the High Court has ruled that the Labour government's proscription of the campaign group Palestine Action was unlawful – a win for its co-founder Huda Ammori, who sought a judicial review of the ban

Wow! Palestine Action win judicial review - Guardian report. This is a *big* legal win. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...

In advance of the 10am handing down of the judgment in the Palestine Action proscription case, here are my two posts on what is at stake. At @prospectmagazine.co.uk: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th... Follow-on post at Substack: emptycity.substack.com/p/the-proscr...

The EU has the American system too and it’s also almost impossible to remove commissioners.

Robust removal power is more important than confirmation scrutiny, because often what makes an office-holder unacceptable is what they do in office, which obviously can't be known in advance.

It's not a new observation at this point but that wild Noem/Lewandowski story in WSJ really brings home the extent to which all the Trump 2 cabinet-level goblins see their jobs as flying private, doing short-form video, and screaming at underlings. They all hate each other and none of them can read.