Pinned Tweet
The Ninth Circuit just ruled that Oregon could not force foster/adoptive parents to affirm a child’s gender identity—it’s unconstitutional compelled speech and a religious burden.
If the state can’t impose its orthodoxy on *foster* parents, it should follow that it may not rip a child from her biological parents under the same basic viewpoint-discriminatory rationale in CA.
@AlyashchenkoX's 14-year-old daughter was stolen by the State of California because she wouldn't affirm her transgender delusion.
She was fed into foster care by the 501(c)(3) nonprofit, EA Family Services (trans flag displayed on website).
Who is paying for it? You are.
Based on publicly available financial information, 99.7% of their $41 million annual revenue in 2024 comes from government grants (both state and federal).
Is it any wonder why the California foster system is so keen on stealing children from loving parents who don't "affirm" they delusions?
Of course not. They're financially and ideologically incentivized to steal as many children as possible - the more children in foster care, the more money private nonprofits get in return.
The question is why has the Trump administration not withheld federal tax dollars from this system of legalized kidnapping.
If they can do it with the children's hospitals who mutilate kids, why can they not do it with the foster care companies who steal them?
SquishJD retweeted
She does seem upset, but that’s probably because there’s no one from Cato Institute there to remind her that rebuilding from all this will have significant economic benefits.
SquishJD retweeted
We call on France to exercise restraint when dispersing the freedom fighters on the streets of Paris. These brave warriors for justice must receive immediate humanitarian aid, and their safety must be guaranteed in accordance with international law. Failure to comply will leave us no choice but to bring a case before the ICJ, in close cooperation with that renowned champion of human rights, Afghanistan.
SquishJD retweeted
Counterpoint: the Justices are good at figuring out what they think about a case of this magnitude, and Neal’s four coaches had zero effect on the outcome.
I don’t think I have ever seen a SCOTUS advocate claim so much personal credit for a win before…yeesh.
Five months ago, I argued against the President's $4 trillion tariffs at the Supreme Court.
In 237 years, the Court had never struck down a sitting President's signature initiative. Legal scholars said it was impossible. Some of my own colleagues said it was impossible.
We won. 6-3.
But the real story isn't what happened in that courtroom. It's what happened in the months before. And its the subject of my TED talk, coming out tomorrow.
I had the best legal team in the nation, especially Colleen Roh Sinzdak, the most outstanding legal strategist I know. Huge thanks, too, go to the Liberty Justice Center (and in particular its fearless and hyper-intelligent leader Sara Albrecht), who organized the client small businesses, as well as to the brave small businesses themselves.
I also had four teachers preparing me.
A mindset coach who'd worked with Andre Agassi.
An improv coach who taught me that "Yes, and" works in Supreme Court arguments the same way it works everywhere else.
A meditation coach who taught me stillness.
And Harvey.
Harvey predicted many of the questions the Justices asked — sometimes almost word for word. Brilliant. Tireless. Occasionally insufferable.
Here's the catch: Harvey isn't a person.
Harvey is a bespoke AI I built over the last year with a legal AI company, trained on every question every Justice has asked in oral argument for 25 years, and everything they've ever written.
Tomorrow, TED releases my talk about what really happened — and what I learned standing at that podium.
AI can predict. AI can analyze. What AI cannot do is the one thing that actually won the argument.
Connect. Read the room. Hear not just a Justice's words, but her worry — and answer the worry.
That is the irreducibly human skill.
Find yours. Go deeper. In this age of AI, that's where your edge lives.
The talk goes live Thursday, May 7 at 11am ET: go.ted.com/nealkumarkatyal
What's the irreducibly human skill in your work — the thing AI can't touch?
SquishJD retweeted
“The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth. Laws like Colorado’s, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments.” - Chiles v. Salazar
SquishJD retweeted
8 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices disagree.
You and Justice Jackson, respectfully, are unclear on how the constitution protects inalienable rights.
$4.5M attorneys' fees awarded in Mirabelli case, the one involving parents / teachers suing to enjoin CA school districts' secret gender transitions.
The court refers to CA defendants' meritless arguments on mootness and improper / excessive litigation tactics
This quoted post is unavailable.
SquishJD retweeted
One of the best federal judges I ever tried a case in front of was E. Robert Coyle in the Eastern District of California.
Before being appointed he was a business transactions attorney.
Never tried a case in his life.
Great piece by @shipwreckedcrew covering the Ninth Circuit's "wackadoo" practice of turning an administrative stay into stay pending appeal / PI.
The panel said the 9th Cir. practice "flagrantly violates" the core principles governing both administrative stays and full stays pending appeal.
It also violates the standards and timelines under Nken for a substantive stay pending appeal.
The whole point of an administrative stay is that it's a short-term stopgap device to "freeze legal proceedings" till the court can fully consider a stay pending appeal or some other emergency relief.
SquishJD retweeted
Did no one think this through? Is the consequence of this complaint that all government attorneys must not only decide whether they think they have legal authority to do something, but they must also ask, "Is the D.C. Bar going to agree with me?"
J. Kagan's critiques of the emergency docket in Mirabelli suffer when in 2021 (Whole Woman's Health) she argued (dissent) that #SCOTUS should *intervene* to *GRANT* emergency relief, citing that the majority acted without guidance from the lower appeals court.
But in 2026 Mirabelli she voted to DENY emergency relief on similar procedural grounds (necessity of further appellate process).
In Mirabelli this week, Justice Kagan condemned the Supreme Court's failure to wait for the 9th Circuit's en banc process to complete.
But in a voting-rights case from the 6th Circuit, her own previous practice conflicts with this objection.
As @shbarclay aptly notes, in a voting-rights case w/ a virtually identical procedural posture, Justice Kagan did not treat an unresolved en banc petition as a reason to wait to address a matter on the interim docket.
This is a must-read article linked in the OP.
The juxtaposition of these two cases (Mirabelli and WWH) reveals Justice Kagan demands immediate SCOTUS intervention when it helps her side, with procedural complaints about the shadow docket in support, and insists on delay / non-intervention when it doesn’t help her side, with similar procedural complaints as the basis.
Further discussion in @shbarclay's article from today on this very topic:
scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-e…
In Mirabelli this week, Justice Kagan condemned the Supreme Court's failure to wait for the 9th Circuit's en banc process to complete.
But in a voting-rights case from the 6th Circuit, her own previous practice conflicts with this objection.
As @shbarclay aptly notes, in a voting-rights case w/ a virtually identical procedural posture, Justice Kagan did not treat an unresolved en banc petition as a reason to wait to address a matter on the interim docket.
This is a must-read article linked in the OP.
"What is called judicial aggression at One First Street is often just a response to judicial aggression one floor down." My latest @SCOTUSblog post on why this week's criticisms of the emergency docket have it backwards. scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-e…
Kagan’s “regular order” complaint is outcome-determinative: In 2021 (Whole Women's Health) she argued SCOTUS should *intervene* with emergency relief, using the "regular order" procedural argument to *support* emergency relief rather than denying it. But in 2026 Mirabelli she demanded SCOTUS *wait* for 9th Cir. en banc exhaustion on same grounds.
@shbarclay @BorisSpider14
In Whole Women's Health, Justice Kagan dissented from the denial of the application for emergency relief. In Mirabelli, she dissented from the grant of emergency relief. In both cases, she critiqued the shadow docket's departure from ordinary appellate process -- but voted for emergency relief in WWH but not Mirabelli.
SquishJD retweeted
So I understand that many people worried President Trump would not follow Supreme Court orders. Does that worry carry over to "nearly 200 ex-Judges" trying to convince their former colleagues not to follow those orders? Seems like a massive norms violation!
Nearly 200 Ex-Judges Tell Supreme Court: Your Unreasoned Emergency Orders Are Not Binding law.com/nationallawjournal/2…
