[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

Where to begin:

“Damn! You over here like, damn, Kamala, come back to me!” Akademiks joked, speculating that Ross may regret his enthusiastic endorsement of Trump on the campaign trail, now that the president’s economic policy has cost him at least $10 million.

In August 2024, Trump appeared on Ross’s livestream, where the young influencer gifted Trump a $100,000+ custom Cybertruck, Rolex, and his endorsement. While he was visibly morose over the financial hit, he didn’t have anything negative to say about Trump.

Source: Latin Times

Nothing bad to say about the man who cost him eight figures — so far.

This influencer is among many who are why Harris-Walz made no inroads with white and Latino men. They feel a need to belong to a tribe and it’s one which pulls up the tree house ladder to prevent women especially those of color from joining.

Harris warned them and they still can’t fully acknowledge she warned them and they were wrong, let alone admit that really is a leopard sitting on their chests gnawing on their cheekbones.

I’d like to laugh but my investment portfolio is down by a lot and unlike 2008 there was no safe haven I could trust thanks to DOGE Muskrats mucking about in Treasury.

At some point we’ll have to rescue these guys like Bluebeard’s last wife because we’ll be rescuing ourselves at the same time.

~ ~ ~

And now for something critically important — an urgent call to action.

Go to Indivisible.org and read the explanation about H.R. 22, a bill which will disenfranchise a massive number of voters. This is one of the methods by which Trump will attempt to hang onto the White House as well as a stranglehold over executive functions. If voters are deprived of their right to vote, they won’t be able to remove bad representation at mid-terms let alone the general election.

https://indivisible.org/campaign/trumps-new-executive-order-eo-silence-americans-what-you-need-know

While all eligible voters will be affected, those most likely to be disenfranchised are married and divorced women because they will be assessed a poll tax in the form of additional identity documentation in the form of a marriage license. Trans persons and adoptees will also be affected negatively.

The bill also has a hole in it, and I’ll tell you right now it affects me, my father, and my sibling as an example. The word “territory” never appears in this bill, and my father is an American citizen born in what was then a territory, now a state.

Bill text at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr22/text

This legislation needs to die and the 107 Republican House members who co-sponsored it need to hear from their constituents that they are failing their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution.

Don’t let this slip by you, take action. We can’t trust the Supreme Court to do the right thing and protect Americans’ right to vote.

Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121

The Supreme Court intervened in two cases pertaining to Kristi Noem’s March 15 botched deportation effort yesterday.

First, John Roberts paused review of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case. And, shortly thereafter, the entire court ended James Boasberg’s Temporary Restraining Order on deportations under the Alien Enemies Act (captioned as JGG v. Trump), while holding that detainees must have access to habeas review before being deported.

Contrary to what you’re seeing from the Administration (and, frankly, many Trump critics), neither of these rulings settles Trump’s deportation regime, though the JGG opinion extends SCOTUS’ real corruption of rule of law in very ominous fashion (see Steve Vladeck on that, including his observation that just weeks after Trump called to impeach Boasberg, “Roberts has overruled Boasberg, in a move that Trump will view as sweet vindication”).

I’d like to consider them instead as means to help Kristi Noem clean up after her own incompetence. From a legal standpoint, there’s nothing (yet) unusual about the pause in Abrego Garcia’s case. Indeed, the timing of it may undermine the newly confirmed John Sauer’s efforts to win the case, as I’ll lay out below. As such it may interact in interesting way with the JGG opinion.

The JGG opinion intervenes in a TRO (which shouldn’t be reviewable at all) to take the case out of Judge James Boasberg’s hands the day before he was set to hear arguments on a preliminary injunction. That’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson laid out in her dissent: this was a naked intervention to prevent Boasberg from looking more closely.

I write separately to question the majority’s choice to intervene on the eve of the District Court’s preliminary-injunction hearing without scheduling argument or receiving merits briefing. This fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.

The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign-run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning. Surely, the question whether such Government action is consistent with our Constitution and laws warrants considerable thought and attention from the Judiciary. That was why the District Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent immediate harm to the targeted individuals while the court considered the lawfulness of the Government’s conduct. But this Court now sees fit to intervene, hastily dashing off a four-paragraph per curiam opinion discarding the District Court’s order based solely on a new legal pronouncement that, one might have thought, would require significant deliberation.

Jackson notes that, as a result, key parts of this legal dispute will not be fully briefed, as Korematsu was.

At least when the Court went off base in the past, it left a record so posterity could see how it went wrong. See, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.

The JGG opinion is silent about what happens to Boasberg’s contempt inquiry. While there are people, such as gay hair stylist Andry José Hernández Romero, whose deportation to El Salvador may have violated Judge Boasberg’s TRO and who — since he’s no longer in US custody — may not be stuck challenging their deportation in South Texas, it’s not clear whether any of the men who’ve been deported will be able to sustain the inquiry.

As for everyone else, the per curium opinion rebukes Trump’s original legal stance, which argued that Trump could declare a war and Marco Rubio could declare a bunch of people to be terrorists based on little more than tattoos and via that process deport them to slavery in El Salvador (though you wouldn’t know that from the Xitter posts of virtually everyone involved).

AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.

So courts, including SCOTUS, might yet find that Trump was totally unjustified in declaring his own little war. Courts, including SCOTUS, might yet rule Trump’s use of the AEA beyond the pale. But the legal review of that decision will take place in the Fifth Circuit, where such an outcome is far less likely than in DC.

Indeed, this decision might will be an effort to outsource the really awful work of sanctioning egregious constitutional violations to the circuit most likely to do so.

This was an entirely tactical decision, in my opinion. A gimmick. An unprecedented intervention in a TRO to prevent Boasberg from issuing a really damaging ruling in DC, yet one that affirmed thin due process along the way.

Meanwhile, consider how Abrego Garcia’s fate might complicate all this. As noted above, Roberts’ intervention, thus far, is not unusual. Indeed, by pausing the decision, Roberts made way for Abrego Garcia to submit a response, which corrected some of the false claims that John Sauer made in his filing, his first after being sworn in as Solicitor General. (Erwin Chemerinsky also submitted an amicus.)

Having held that detainees should have access to habeas before deportation, one would think that would extend to Abrego Garcia, who was not given time to challenge his deportation to El Salvador.

The government’s concession that the AEA detainees should get habeas review provided a place for SCOTUS to backtrack to without directly confronting Trump’s power grab. But consider how AUSA Erez Reuveni’s concessions, his admission that DHS knew there was an order prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador, limit SCOTUS’ ability to do the same. That’s one of two key points the Fourth Circuit — a panel of Obama appointee Stephanie Thacker, Clinton appointee Robert King, and Reagan appointee Harvie Wilkinson — made in its opinion, issued at about the same time as Roberts halted the order. Just as the government ultimately conceded that the AEA detainees were entitled to due process, the government conceded that Abrego Garcia should not have been deported to El Salvador.

As the Government readily admits, Abrego Garcia was granted withholding of removal — “It is true that an immigration judge concluded six years ago that Abrego Garcia should not be returned to El Salvador.” Mot. for Stay at 16; see also Cerna Declaration at 53 (“ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time [of] AbregoGarcia’s removal from the United States.”).3 And “the Government had available a procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order, and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17. But, “the Government did not avail itself of that procedure in this case.” Id.; see Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (Mr. Reuveni: “There’s no dispute that the order [of removal] could not be used to send Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.” (quoting Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 25:6–7)); see also Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. at 531 (explaining that a non-citizen who has been granted withholding of removal may not be removed “to the country designated in the removal order unless the order of withholding is terminated”). Based on those facts, the Government conceded during the district court hearing, “The facts — we concede the facts. This person should — the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.” S.A. 98 (emphasis supplied).4

3 Consistent with this reality, the Government attorney appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr’g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that “the removal order” from 2019 “cannot be executed” and is not part of the record)).

4 Of note, in response to the candid responses by the Government attorney to the district court’s inquiry, that attorney has been put on administrative leave, ostensibly for lack of “zealous[] advocacy.” Evan Perez, Paula Reid and Katie Bo Lillis, DOJ attorney placed on leave after expressing frustration in court with government over mistakenly deported man, CNN (Apr. 5, 2025, 10:40 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/05/politics/doj-attorney-leave-maryland-father-deportation/index.html; see also Glenn Thrush, Justice Dept. Lawyer Who Criticized Administration in Court Is Put on Leave, New York Times (Apr. 5, 2025, 5:41 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/justice-dept-immigration-lawyer-leave.html. But, the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court, among other ethical obligations, and the duty to uphold the rule of law, particularly on the part of a Government attorney. United States Department of Justice, Home Page, https://www.justice.gov/ (last visited Apr. 6, 2025) (“Our employees adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior, mindful that, as public servants, we must work to earn the trust of, and inspire confidence in, the public we serve.”). [links added]

With footnote 4, the Fourth Circuit established that DOJ was attempting to retaliate against Erez Reuveni and his supervisor, August Flentje, because Reuvani told the truth. (See also Reuters, which was the first outlet I saw with the story, and ABC, the first to report that Flentje was placed on leave along with Reuveni.)

I was struck by the retaliation in real time, because in fact Reuveni did what a slew of other attorneys have had to do, confess he didn’t know the answers to obvious questions. But something — perhaps Sauer’s review that earlier fuckups may limit his ability to get relief at SCOTUS — led DOJ to overreact in this case.

That is, by retaliating against Reuveni so egregiously, Pam Bondi’s DOJ (Todd Blanche is reportedly the one who made the order, but it also happened after Sauer may have started reviewing the case), DOJ may have made it more difficult for SCOTUS to engage in similar gimmicks down the road.

The Fourth Circuit also anticipated that DOJ would lie about Abrego Garcia’s request to be returned.

5 To the extent the Government argues that the scope of the district court’s order was improper because Abrego Garcia never asked for an order facilitating his return to the United States, that is incorrect. See S.A. 88 (arguing that the district court has “jurisdiction to order [the Government] to facilitate his return, and what we would like is for the Court to enter that order”); see also S.A. 74–75; 85–87.

Indeed, Sauer did just that.

In opposing a stay of the injunction in the court of appeals, respondents insisted that they did “request[]” the injunction that the district court entered. Resp. C.A. Stay Opp. 9. But contrary to respondents’ characterization, the court did not merely order the United States to “facilitate” Abrego’s return, ibid.; it ordered the United States actually to “effectuate” it, App., infra, 79a. If there were any doubt on that score, the court’s memorandum opinion eliminated it, by reiterating that its injunction “order[s]” that “Defendants return Abrego Garcia to the United States.” Id. at 82a (emphasis added). Again, respondents clearly disclaimed such a request in repeatedly telling the court that it “has no jurisdiction over the Government of El Salvador and cannot force that sovereign nation to release Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from its prison.” Id. at 42a, 44

Ultimately, Sauer may get his proposed solution — that Abrego Garcia gets moved from El Salvador to someplace else. But before that happens, he’ll have to account for the Fourth Circuit ruling that there’s no convincing evidence that Abrego Garcia is the terrorist Kristi Noem claims he is and that DOJ itself laid out cause to return him to the US.

The Supreme Court exhibited a willingness to engage in a gimmick decision to bail Trump out of one fuckup Kristi Noem made the weekend of March 15, to ignore Judge Boasberg’s order and deport a bunch of men with tattoos into slavery. It has not yet bailed Trump out of the other fuckup, including Abrego Garcia on one of those planes. Thus far, Trump has made things worse by retaliating against Reuveni for refusing to lie.

Which just makes SCOTUS’ challenge — to invent a gimmick to bail Trump out — all the more challenging.

Update: Predictably, in his reply, Sauer blames Reuveni for not being told some unspecified sensitive information that might excuse the defiance of a judge’s order.

Respondents (Opp. 10-11) cite statements by the attorney who was formerly representing the government in this case, who told the district court that he “ask[ed] my clients” why they could not return Abrego Garcia and felt that he had not “received * * * an answer that I find satisfactory.” They likewise cite his statements that “the government made a choice here to produce no evidence” and that agencies “understand that the absence of evidence speaks for itself.” Opp. 12 (citing SA120, SA128). Those inappropriate statements did not and do not reflect the position of the United States. Whether a particular line attorney is privy to sensitive information or feels that whoever he spoke with at client agencies gave him sufficient answers to satisfy whatever personal standard he was applying cannot possibly be the yardstick for measuring the propriety of this extraordinary injunction.

Real judges would haul Sauer before them and insist he deliver that sensitive information withheld from the AUSA. Sadly, the Roberts court is well beyond that.

Trump acts on his stupid ideas, and on the foolish chatter of whatever loon has his ear. He and his courtiers and henchmen recite crackpot theories to justify working for their own ends, with no pretense of oversight by Trump or Republican legislators.

Some of these weirdo theories, like the tariff gibberish and Christian Nationalism, are well-known. They’ve been discussed in progressive circles for some time, and are occasionally acknowledged in the billionaire media. What I did not know, and what was rarely reported in the media I read, was the influence of a group of anti-democracy advocates.

Recently I began to read about Curtis Yarvin. Heather Cox Richardson mentioned him in one of her Letters To An American, and commenter TruthBtold linked to this substack reporting on Yarvin.  Here’s an article in Commonweal, Yarvin’s Case Against Democracy.

In 2012 Yarvin gave a speech titled How To Reboot The US Government. He gave more speeches and interviews on the subject and drew the attention of rich techbros and right-wing politicians like J.D. Vance. It looks like Elon Musk used Yarvin’s ideas first to remake Twitter as a hang-out for creeps, and then as a template for destroying our govenrment from the inside.

Yarvin claims that democracy has failed and that the only way forward is to get rid of it and replace it with a dictatorship, or a monarchy. It’s a view shared by a lot of people on the far right, and for different reasons by the same filthy rich thugs who’ve been wrecking our country out of hatred for the New Deal and all things that make life better for working people. I’ll be looking into Yarvin’s writings in my next series.

Background

This stuff is wild. To orient myself, I read a chapter written by Joshua Tait in a book, Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy. The book is supposedly available through your library. Tait focuses on a blog Yarvin wrote under the name Mencius Moldbug, Unqualified Reservations.  He gives an introduction to Yarvin’s theory of neoreaction, and his rejection of democracy.

Neoreaction’s basic assumption is that humans desire power. Interpreting democracy through this framework, Moldbug claims that democracy’s appeal is that it disperses power widely, indulging the mass desire for useless fragments of power. Since power-seeking is pervasive, society trends toward greater division of power and a concomitant erosion of order. Democracy is a “dangerous, malignant form of government which tends to degenerate, sometimes slowly and sometimes with shocking, gut-wrenching speed, into tyranny and chaos.”

Trump and his henchmen don’t acknowledge the anti-democratic aspect of Yarvin’s thought, at least not so far, unless you consider Trump’s third-term garbage. They just follow his plan for destroying the institutions that diffuse power; and work at concentrating power into the hands of Musk and Trump. Yarvin’s views  can be seen as justifying the unitary executive theory, and for presidential kingship, as contemplated by John Roberts and his anti-democratic colleagues in Trump v. US.

In his blog Yarvin traces out the development of his theories of history, economics and other matters. The blog ran from 2007 to 2014. He has a substack, Gray Mirror, which began in May 2020 (after Tait’s article) where he posted drafts of his book Gray Mirror: Fascicle I: Disturbance, published January 2025. The title is Yarvin trolling: fascicle is close to fascist, but means something else. I’m reluctant to buy the book so I plan to read from the two online sources first. He shows up on other social media sites, but I’m not going there.

I plan to focus on the anti-democracy material and his views of human nature. We’ll see how that holds up.

Defending Democracy

I won’t defend democracy here. I follow Americans like John Dewey and Richard Rorty. See, e.g. Rorty’s Achieving Our Country. My rationale for defending democracy is my understanding of human nature, which I discussed in my series on individuality.

But I also think that we as a nation have for a long time regarded democracy as background for our lives. We see it as a game we watch on TV. We yell at politicians as we would yell at referees. We don’t think of democracy as making any demands on us, much less as something that requires our constant maintenance and improvement.

Caveat

It’s very difficult to write about material with which you fundamentally disagree. There’s a strong tendency to minimize any good points, and to mock rather than try to understand.

I plan to be very careful about separating Yarvin’s words from my thoughts on how to understand what he’s saying, and to try to indicate where I’m having trouble following an argument, so that readers can check my thinking. That should help with the bias problem.

It’s important to note that Yarvin isn’t some Qanon weirdo cranking out conspiracies. I assume that he’s read the material he cites, and that he has tried to be intellectually honest. That distinguishes him from craven ideologues like the SCOTUS right-wingers and from lazy hacks like David Brooks.

Final thought

Yarvin and the filthy rich idiots he influences are dangerously wrong, wrong in a deeply fundamental way. They think they know what’s best. Not what’s best for you and your family and community. They think they know what’s best for the future of the human race.

I have always said — and reiterated, in some form, on Friday — that the most immediate way to reverse the damage Trump is doing is seizing opportunity out of a catastrophe he creates.

The most likely way you will get Republicans to start breaking from Trump, the most likely way you will get Republicans to actually take action against Trump rather than simply mewling weakly, is if a catastrophe threatens the world Republicans — as distinct from average Americans — care about.

The global crisis Trump has created is one such possible moment. But it will require keeping focus and wits in a moment of chaos.

Last week, Democrats had several moments of solidarity, first with the Cory Booker Senate speech, then with Saturday’s protests. Those twin events gave aging white liberals who, before this moment, often complained about fecklessness, a sense of direction.

Then there’s the opportunity created by chaos. Both Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson have warned against Trump’s tariffs. Last week the Senate passed a Tim Kaine bill reversing Trump’s claimed emergency on which he based his Canadian tariffs (with Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell voting in support). Chuck Grassley’s bill with Maria Cantwell to reclaim Congressional authority over tariffs has seven of the 13 GOP supporters it would need to pass so far (with Grassley, Collins, Murkowski, and McConnell, plus Thom Tillis, Jerry Moran, and Todd Young). Don Bacon is introducing a similar bill in the House (where it would need more supporters to bypass Mike Johnson’s control).

There’s more overt opposition from the banksters who foolishly believed that Trump would help business, with Bill Ackerman undergoing a moment of cognitive dissonance in real time.

Thus far Trump has doubled down in the face of whatever lobbying he’s getting privately.

But Trump is, in my opinion, wildly overestimating his leverage over foreign countries and probably even Wall Street. China immediately responded to Trump’s tariffs with retaliation. I expect China has a belief that it can cut the US out of global trade flows, and eventually undermine the US role as reserve currency — though to be sure, Trump has telegraphed plans to retaliate using using precisely those tools.

Not only have Trump’s attacks on Canada reversed the Liberal Party’s fortunes [corrected] in advance of an election this month. But Mark Carney’s hard line has quieted Trump’s taunts (at least until after the election). And his experience as a central banker of both Canada and England makes him a natural leader of efforts to make sense of this chaos.

The EU has not yet decided on a response, but among the tools under consideration are sanctions against US tech companies.

Which is to say, other countries may soon disabuse Trump’s fantasy that he wields absolute power.

But in the last several weeks, Trump has gotten several court rulings that will help him accelerate his assault on the Federal government. A week ago Friday, a conservative panel on the DC Circuit ruled that Trump has authority to fire commissioners on panels that Congress has mandated to operate independently, effectively overruling Humphrey’s Executor [corrected] in anticipation that SCOTUS may ultimately do so. The plaintiffs are asking for an en banc review, as of yet to no avail. In the wake of this and an earlier DC Circuit ruling, Trump has successfully argued that Trump has broader authority to dismantle agencies than District judges have initially recognized. And this ruling makes it more likely that Trump will go after the Fed. [Update: The full Circuit reversed and unfired the commissioners.]

Then on Friday SCOTUS overruled a Temporary Restraining Order, thereby permitting Trump to cancel grants to teachers involving DEI, suggesting that the court will eventually side with DOJ’s argument that existing grants must be litigated in Court of Federal Claims. This reflects Amy Coney Barrett switching positions from an earlier USAID lawsuit. This will lead District court judges to pause before granting similar TROs on an Administrative Procedures theory.

The courts have slowed Trump down and on some matters the courts will continue to be a brake, but the twin legal theory that Trump can fire anyone and after installing his own leader dismantle what is left will accelerate some kinds of attacks. It may also encourage him to fire Jerome Powell, which will really spook the markets.

The 2008 bank crash created an opportunity that Barack Obama largely squandered in his effort to save the big banks from their own foolishness. Here, the foolishness is all Trump’s, with banks and hedgies on the hook only for their arrogance that they would be better off with a racist nihilist. That presents a kind of opportunity, even if Trump’s personal appeal counsels indirect counterattacks (for example, on Elon rather than Trump) for the moment.

Here, the task remains the same as it was last week, and the week before, and the week before that. Hold DOGE accountable for dismantling the government. Warn about what DOGE (and Congress) are in the process of doing to Social Security and Medicaid. Make government visible, especially with stories of those fired and great government projects killed. Get non-political networks — PTAs and library reading groups and disease communities — involved in the fight. Tell the stories of the human beings stripped of their due process rights.

Do everything you can to peel off right wingers.

Help your neighbors.

To the extent you are able as you try to protect your retirement and pay the bills, though, try not to lose your head over Trump’s economic catrastrophe. Lots of people are losing their head right now and the people around Trump are stuck defending tariffs on penguins, badly (and inconsistently). It is absolutely horrible, and billions of people are being hurt by Trump’s attacks.

The economic calamity is of a piece with the constitutional one. And the economic calamity may present a path out of both that and the constitutional calamity.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

In her post about Saturday’s “Hands Off” protest rallies, Marcy noted the “increasingly constrained media” — coverage by U.S. news media which doesn’t reflect facts on the ground of importance to the public.

This has been a problem since at least the buildup to the Iraq War, when massive anti-war protests took place and little coverage emerged in mainstream media, or Occupy Wall Street’s prolonged resistance with little reporting documenting its activities.

Much of this can be blamed on the corporate-owned nature of most U.S. news media, combined with the rolling change in business model over the last 30 years since the internet became a common household feature.

But some of the blame also lies with the movements and organizations that continue to act as if this is the 1970s instead of 2025.

Let’s look at how the largest print news media outlets covered the protests.

First, the largest print outlets by circulation as listed by Press Gazette as of March 6, 2025:

I’ve taken screenshots of the print edition first page where available from these ten newspapers, via Newseum.org.

~ 1 ~

The Wall Street Journal — doesn’t have a Sunday edition. Tomorrow’s edition will likely be the most read of the week, and many leaders of U.S. industry will do so tomorrow. Will it cover the “Hands Off” protest rallies at all? Or will it try to keep the business class in the dark while serving up tariff news.

~ 2 ~

The New York Times:

The rally did make the front page though it’s below the fold and confined to a photo and blurb, the story itself on A18. This is an utter embarrassment — a massive gathering in its own backyard and this is all the attention it gets.

At least the story was syndicated and featured elsewhere in US newspapers, just not in the paper of record where one of the largest rallies took place.

~ 3 ~

Next, the New York Post.

It’s as if nothing happened in New York City at all. What a useless POS. This is the Late City Final edition, too, making it even more obvious the Murdochs don’t want to acknowledge the rally.

~ 4 ~

The Washington Post is smaller in terms of print circulation than the Murdochs’ NYPOS. Who would have thought that would ever happen? But this is probably a key reason why:

That pathetic little photo and blurb is all a nationwide protest rally garnered lest Bezos and his weak sauce managing editor piss off his orange overlord. No freaking wonder the number of people willing to buy a print edition has dropped below a NYC tabloid.

Relatedly, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson resigned from WaPo — one less reason to read.

~ 5 ~

On to USA Today, a paper built to be a national outlet: there is no print edition on either Saturday or Sunday.

I will note that the outlet’s digital edition allows readers to tweak the content they see; while Saturday’s rallies didn’t appear in the top segment, there are two choices related to the rallies from which readers can choose.

One might wonder if the selections help shape editors’ future coverage choices.

~ 6 ~

The sixth largest print newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, is even worse than the Washington Post as far as coverage of the rallies is concerned.

You almost need a microscope to find a reference to coverage on the first page; Nazi-friendly Kanye West garners at least eight times the page space. No wonder LAT continues to bleed subscribers.

~ 7 ~

Minnesota is home to a bright star among the nation’s top print outlets: the Star-Tribune gave the rallies the top spot.

Finally, the seventh largest print paper deep in the heartland recognized a nationwide protest by millions of Americans against an 11-week-old administration.

~ 8 ~

The eighth largest paper, Newsday, is a local tabloid covering Long Island, NY, and nearby NYC. Apparently nothing of note happened in NYC on Saturday as far as Newsday is concerned, though editors managed to choke out two words, “nationwide rallies” in the lower left column. I didn’t highlight them — see how long it takes for you to find them.

~ 9 ~

Honolulu Star Advertiser is the ninth largest print edition, a paper with more challenging physical distribution than the rest above as it is the largest in Hawaiian islands. Unfortunately I couldn’t locate a copy of the print edition for Sunday. Here’s its digital entry covering the protests which began five hours earlier in Eastern Time Zone:

Not great considering the lead time it had to cover the events. However the right-hand column identifying subscribers’ favorites tells us protest coverage was important to readers in spite of the less-than-stellar placement on the digital front page.

~ 10 ~

The Seattle Times is no stranger to covering protest rallies:

Above the fold, large amount of text on the front page, and a great photo conveying both the crowd’s energy and a localizing landmark in the background. Thumbs up.

~ Other ~

I should note the two major wire services’ coverage, beginning with the nonprofit Associated Press:

No story on digital front page but a good slice assigned to a collection of rally photos. An article on the rallies is the second most read article as I type this.

Reuters’ articles about the protests weren’t high on its digital page but they did occupy the slot for news about the United States and included a story about the related protests in Europe.

Online news media may have done a better job than print media did; the “Hands Off” protests occupied the top slot in Google News on Sunday based on this screenshot taken about 2:00 pm ET:

One interesting detail: note the time of each story’s publication. NYTimes’ piece was roughly 10 hours later than the others featured here. Why?

~ ~ ~

All of the above is a very lengthy way of saying the US media is still disappearing millions of Americans by editorial fiat. These same outlets which failed to dedicated adequate space to national and international protests against the Trump administration less than three months after inauguration day are missing a critically important story.

Worse, they may also be missing the stories that drove protesters to the streets. The signs tell observers Americans are pissed off about an unelected oligarch rifling through their Social Security; they feel betrayed by a president undermining the rule of law and national security, so intent on enacting authoritarian rule.

And they haven’t yet begun to feel the economic pain from tariffs though they are angry already about the deep damage to their retirement portfolios. When tariffs begin to eat at their household expenses, these kinds of protests are only going to swell.

Americans can’t count on corporate-owned media to do the right thing when they are already failing. A different approach to communication will be necessary to convey solidarity with other Americans while telling the Trump administration and state governments aligned with Trump that Trumpism isn’t working and the public demands better.

I can think of a specific example here in Michigan that feels like a bellwether, an indicator the national media isn’t getting this moment right by a long chalk.

Benzonia, a tiny town in Benzie County, located in northwestern lower Michigan, had a “Hands Off” protest rally. There were an estimated 350 participants. What’s unusual is that Benzie County is very red; it’s only voted for Democratic presidential candidates three out of the last ten presidential elections, and only four times since 1884. The county has only ~15,000 residents. Benzonia is also located 33 miles from Traverse City, where an estimated 4,000 people participated in a rally. Benzonia rally participants chose to protest in very small municipality in a lightly populated red county; their numbers represented roughly 3% of persons who cast a vote in that county in 2024. The number of participants may have been more since media typically underrepresent participants; another local observer estimated 500 attendees.

This isn’t the only such example; there are many more like it given over 1000 protest rallies across the country. At least a local media outlet from a small blue city covered Benzonia’s rally; how many frustrated red towns weren’t afforded that?

More local organizing is necessary to help Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and free association, to express their frustration with the Trump administration’s repeated failures to ensure laws are faithfully executed.

But that organizing needs to address the repeated failures of a corporate-owned media environment as well, finding ways to make it difficult for media to avoid coverage, and developing alternatives to corporate-owned media to ensure coverage happens anyhow.

Share in comments below how your local media covered the “Hands Off” rallies.

_______
Image used with this story is from the 2017 Women’s March.

Yesterday, hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of people came out to protest Trump’s assault on democracy, including a live protest in Paris and an all day live and Zoom one in Dublin.

Indivisible says there were over 1,400 events. For those of showed up to a protest — here, at Place de la République in Paris — you may have made new friends or met old friends (very old, Christy Hardin Smith and I kept complaining!!).

There were several stories (most notably in New York City) about police staffing wildly inadequate to the numbers, largely because cops underestimated turnout. But everything was peaceful, with volunteers managing traffic in lieu of cops.

The sheer numbers are important. But especially because of increasingly constrained media (NYT has no coverage of the protest on its front page, but at least the story on seven random people is no longer there), it will be key for this event to lead to further localized organizing.

If you protested, share your story!

Listen on Spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

Trump is well on his way to causing, with his stupid tariffs, the same kind of economic damage as COVID did, but without a global epidemic as catalyst and excuse, just himself and the batshit advisors who refuse to tell him no.

At least some of Trump’s handlers hope this will lead one after another country to supplicate Trump, begging for favors. Depending on who you ask, that may have been one of the poorly considered and often conflicting goals.

But even before price hikes start to affect consumers, there are signs of pushback.

After the Senate passed a (thus far) mostly symbolic law sponsored by Tim Kaine reversing Trump’s emergency declaration for Canada, Chuck Grassley teamed with Maria Cantwell to propose restoring Congressional authority over such taxes. (Grassley did not support Kaine’s bill; Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell did.) See this Aaron Fritschner thread for an explanation of why this second effort might have more prospect of success: because the House has not yet stopped time with regards to the latest emergency Trump declared to accrue more power.

The pure insanity of Trump’s tariffs is best (ahem) personified by his inclusion of Heard and McDonald Islands, which are inhabited largely by penguins.

Two tiny, remote Antarctic outposts populated by penguins and seals are among the obscure places targeted by the Trump administration’s new tariffs.

Heard and McDonald Islands – a territory which sits 4,000km (2,485 miles) south-west of Australia – are only accessible via a seven-day boat trip from Perth, and haven’t been visited by humans in almost a decade.

[snip]

Like the rest of Australia, the Heard and McDonald Islands, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island are now subject to a tariff of 10%. A tariff of 29% was imposed on the Norfolk Island, which is also an Australian territory and has a population of about 2,200 people.

Heard Island, though, is barren, icy and completely uninhabited – home to Australia’s largest and only active volcano, Big Ben, and mostly covered by glaciers.

It is believed the last time people ventured on to Heard Island was in 2016, when a group of amateur radio enthusiasts broadcast from there with permission of the Australian government.

Taken literally, Trump’s inclusion of two islands (over)run by penguins means that he believes American workers cannot compete with penguins without some kind of help — a 10% tariff — to level the playing field. A glacier field.

Right wingers who applaud Trump’s insanity are, effectively, confessing that their own industry and pluck is no match for a colony of penguins.

The penguins are useful for something beyond the MAGAt confessions that they are not as industrious as penguins. They help to identify how the Trump Administration came up with this hocus pocus.

James Surowiecki figured it out — the Administration took the trade deficit (Surowiecki later figured out it’s only the trade deficit in goods, not services) and split it in half.

This was largely confirmed when the Deputy WH Spox attempted to dispute Surowiecki’s description, only to confirm that’s precisely the formula they used (sorry, you need to click through for the pure dumber-than-a-penguin-glory).

So because the penguins have shown up as trading partners in a few different years, they’re included on here.

Russia is not. Russia, Belarus, North Korea. The Administration says that’s because sanctions effectively mean we have no trade with them, but we do — certainly more than we do with the penguins.

I guess Trump is more terrified of the Russians than he is the penguins.

This is a shit show. But it’s the kind of shit show that may disrupt the Republican lockstep in Congress. Whether the penguin tariffs were the cause, John Thune had to pull the first of the budget resolutions that were supposed to give legal sanction for Trump’s agenda (as well as massive tax cuts to the rich) yesterday. And Teddy Cancun Cruz has spoken up against the sanctions, calling them (accurately) taxes.

Even before constituents start to pay through the teeth, Republicans are beginning to accurately describe that these are taxes.

It’s unclear how this will end up, and billions of people will be hurt in the process (though, as with much else that Trump has done out of pique this Administration, China will likely find a way to capitalize on Trump’s idiocy). But this is the kind of disruptive event that presents opportunity to disrupt Trump’s power.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I don’t have the words for Donald Trump’s liberation-by-massive-tax-increase yesterday. I’ll let an academic handle it:

The one problem with France 24’s video above is that it repeats Trump’s bullshit, even though it offers a rebuttal to the tariffs themselves.

The “economically illiterate” bullshit it repeated was the percentage Trump claimed other countries assessed the US. The numbers are skewed.

One potential source for the inaccuracy: AI. Krishnan Rohit queried several AI platforms and received a freakishly uniform response which may explain Trump’s numbers.

The rest of the thread can be found here.

Somebody with more smarts about large language models (LLMs) and AI will have to validate this, but it sure looks fishy. Given Team Trump’s predilection for appointing/hiring individuals based on ideology and affinity with Trump, it’s not impossible AI was relied on during the tariff formulation and rollout process, versus the expertise and experience of qualified individuals.

Whatever the case, Trump just rolled out a massive tax increase on the American public. Oddly, CNN conveyed this succinctly in spite of its bent toward pro-Trump rhetoric:

Note the rollout using one of the stupidest Trump appointees across either of Trump’s terms — Peter Navarro. He’d parrot bullshit all day if a mic is shoved in his face.

Also note the phrase “repeated belief,” not a fact but a belief. Team Trump expects the public take what they are saying on faith and not on the basis of past experience.

And then the outright lies CNN’s Chris Isidore points out in that bit emphasized with a red underline: tariffs are NOT paid abroad but here in the US by the importer. The tariffs are added to the cost of goods sold, thereby increasing the likelihood prices to consumers will be higher very soon.

Another academic explains how tariffs — taxes on buyers of imported goods work. See Richard Wolff’s explanation at 5:17 to 6:20 in this video:

Tariffs on imported goods = taxes on us.

You like coffee and tea? It’s going to be more expensive, especially since we don’t grow tea here and our coffee industry is minuscule, consisting of Kona coffee beans. Even fabric for clothing made in the US will be more expensive because we don’t have a fabric industry here in the US any longer at any serious scale; it would take years to re-establish manufacturing here.

Re-establishing industries to replace products now so much more expensive will be challenging given the cost of materials and the competition for labor both to build facilities and staff them after completion.

It’ll take much longer than the 10 years over which this massive tax increase is supposed to generate $6 trillion dollars in revenue — that’s about $1800 per American citizen, $150 more a month.

This country has made this same stupid choice before, so stupid it became part of a movie’s economics teacher’s schtick:

What does uber conservative Ben Stein think about this iteration of voodoo economics rising from the grave, wearing orange foundation and a straw-like hairdo, stomping about as if credibly alive? What does he think about Trump kicking off an unnecessary recession and possibly a depression with his irrational import duties?

This entire mess represents two facets of Trump his base haven’t accepted or ignored. He’s the kind of guy who likes to destroy stuff but can’t successfully build a better version afterward, as if he’s permanently stuck in the demolition phase of construction.

He’s also a plain old fashioned mafioso. All of this is a form of shakedown, borne by the American public as well as global trading partners. You know he’d lift tariffs on any country that offered him vigorish of some form. Quid pro quos are his thing.

He’s a made man — which may explain why tiny islands with US bases on them being assessed tariffs, but Russia isn’t.

Are we really supposed to believe that because trade with Russia is so low that Russia should escape tariffs altogether, while our most valuable trade partners haven’t?

As predicted, yesterday Judge Dale Ho dismissed the indictment against Eric Adams with prejudice, meaning the Trump Administration can’t charge Adams anew if he fails to do their bidding on immigration.

In his opinion explaining his decision, Ho engaged in a great deal of legal analysis, but ultimately it came down to this: even though DOJ’s explanations for the request to dismiss the indictment don’t hold up, because there’s no way to continue prosecuting Adams, Ho would end up having to dismiss the case in 70 days anyway on Speedy Trial grounds.

Thus, whatever teeth the public interest inquiry might have under Rule 48(a), denying dismissal as contrary to the public interest would be futile as a practical matter where, as here, the Motion was filed by DOJ itself. See id.; Nederlandsche, 453 F. Supp. at 463. While the Court could deny the Motion, allow seventy days to pass, and then dismiss the case on Speedy Trial Act grounds, it is hard to see what good that would accomplish.

Ho finds, for a bunch of reasons (including precisely the appearance of impropriety that DOJ claimed motivated their abandonment of the prosecution) to dismiss with prejudice, so the case is not hanging over Adams’ head. And so, having decided to dismiss with prejudice, Ho does so now rather than later (though he doesn’t say it, he does so with enough time that NYC voters can hold Adams accountable for this stinky deal).

[G]iven that seventy days from the date of this Opinion would take us uncomfortably close to the June 24, 2025 New York City mayoral primary election,60 the Court concludes that, if dismissal is inevitable, the public interest weighs in favor of its happening now rather than later.

In the process, Ho dismisses all the arguments DOJ made to justify the request.

First, he dismisses one of two reasons given for the dismissal — the appearance of impropriety — as a pretext. Ho cites his own opinion rejecting the claim when Mayor Adams’ team made it earlier.

45 To the extent that Mayor Adams argues that he has been prejudiced from extrajudicial statements about the case, see Adams Br. at 19-20, the Court has rejected two prior motions under Rule 6 raising these issues. See First Rule 6 Order; Second Rule 6 Order. Moreover, the Government itself has, until the filing of the Rule 48(a) Motion, denied that Mayor Adams has suffered any prejudice from any pretrial publicity throughout this litigation. For example, in response to Mayor Adams’s First Rule 6 Motion, the Government observed that there was no evidence that news articles about the investigation into his alleged illegal activity “put pressure on senior Justice Department officials to approve the indictment,” induced any grand jury witness to testify, or affected the grand jury’s decision to indict the Mayor. Gov’t First Sanctions Opp’n at 21-23. The Government also argued that Mayor Adams “ha[d] not established reason to believe that a future trial jury w[ould] be prejudiced by the news coverage of this case.” Id. at 23. The existence of such prejudice is typically uncovered through voir dire, which obviously has not happened here (nor will it). See United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 106 (2d Cir. 2000) (“When a trial court determines that media coverage has the potential for unfair prejudice, it is obligated to canvass the jury to find out if they have learned of the potentially prejudicial publicity and, if necessary, voir dire the jury to ascertain how much they know of the distracting publicity and what effect, if any, it has had on that juror’s ability to decide the case fairly.”).

But Ho also repeatedly adopts the word “pretext,” the one Hagan Scotten used to describe that excuse in his resignation letter.

As to Emil Bove’s claim that the indictment was hindering Adams’ ability to govern, Ho uses the public appearance Adams made to show that he was able to help the Administration in spite of the indictment.

The dispute here, however, seems to be more about how to interpret the facts than what the facts are. In a February 3, 2025 letter to DOJ (which they filed on the docket without prompting from the Court), Mayor Adams’s counsel asserted that the Mayor’s “independent abilities to exercise his powers have also been complicated by his indictment.” See Letter from Adams’s Counsel to DOJ. Specifically, they noted that [the Mayor’s] powers allow him to take actions such as preventing the Office of the Corporation Counsel from litigating challenges to immigration enforcement, preventing appointed city employees from taking public stances against enforcement efforts, reopening the ICE office on Rikers Island, and directing the NYPD to supply manpower to assist federal immigration agents. Id. Mayor Adams’s counsel did not explain how the Mayor’s exercise of these powers had been “complicated” by this case. Instead, they provided a list of discrete policy options that the Mayor could choose to exercise. And then, three days after DOJ issued the February 10 Decisional Memo directing SDNY to move to dismiss the Indictment (and one day before the Rule 48(a) Motion was ultimately filed), Mayor Adams decided to take one of these official acts, announcing that “he would issue an executive order allowing federal immigration authorities into the Rikers Island jail complex.” Br. of Amicus Curiae State Democracy Defenders Fund et al. at 5, ECF No. 152-2; see also ECF No. 150-4 at 152 (news article stating that “New York City Mayor Eric Adams said Thursday he will use his executive powers to allow federal immigration authorities back into the city’s sprawling Rikers Island jail complex, marking a substantial shift in the city’s sanctuary policies that prevent it from enforcing immigration law”). It seems that the Indictment was not, in fact, a barrier to that particular policy decision.

From that, Ho laid out how this creates the appearance of a quid pro quo.

The parties deny that Mayor Adams’s Rikers Island decision—which appears to be contrary to New York City Code53—reflects a quid pro quo. The record contains no contemporaneous notes of what was actually said during the January 31 meeting at DOJ,54 but counsel for Mayor Adams have represented in a letter to the Court that “we never said or suggested to anyone . . . that Mayor Adams would do X in exchange for Y, and no one said or suggested to us that they would do Y in exchange for X,” adding: “We are prepared to confirm these points under oath in sworn declarations.” See Def.’s Feb. 18, 2025 Letter at 2. The Court appreciates counsel’s willingness to supplement the record and facilitate further inquiry by the Court beyond the materials that they have affirmatively submitted without solicitation. E.g., Letter from Adams’s Counsel to DOJ.

But the Court finds that additional factual investigation—even if permissible—is unnecessary at this time. Whether anyone expressly incanted the precise words that they “would do X in exchange for Y” is not dispositive. As the Second Circuit has explained, “[a]n explicit quid pro quo . . . need not be expressly stated but may be inferred from the official’s and the payor’s words and actions.” United States v. Benjamin, 95 F.4th 60, 67 (2d Cir. 2024), cert. denied,

No. 24-142, 2024 WL 5112284 (Dec. 16, 2024); see also Benjamin, 95 F.4th at 68 (noting that while a “quid pro quo must be clear and unambiguous, there is no reason why it cannot be implied from the official’s and the payor’s words and actions.”); cf. Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 274 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“The official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express terms, for otherwise the law’s effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods.”). The Court need not and does not make any conclusive findings as to whether there was an explicit bargain here.55 It is sufficient to note that the facts, as put into the record by Mayor Adams’s legal team, do not support the notion that continuing this case will impede the Mayor’s ongoing immigration enforcement efforts—they instead suggest that dismissal of the case will facilitate future efforts by the Mayor, in alignment with the administration’s policy preferences

53 N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 9-131(h)(2) (“Federal immigration authorities shall not be permitted to maintain an office or quarters on land over which the department exercises jurisdiction, for the purpose of investigating possible violations of civil immigration law; provided, however, that the mayor may, by executive order, authorize federal immigration authorities to maintain an office or quarters on such land for purposes unrelated to the enforcement of civil immigration laws.”).

54 As noted above, the Sassoon Letter states one of her colleagues took contemporaneous notes but that those notes were confiscated at the end of the meeting. Sassoon Letter at 3 n.1. The February 13 Bove Letter in response references these events as well. See Feb. 13 Bove Letter at 3 n.3.

55 If such factual findings were necessary to the Court’s decision, additional evidentiary proceedings could then be appropriate.

The footnotes here are — as footnotes usually are — the sweet spot. Ho notes that Adams agreed not just to cooperate with Trump’s immigration enforcement, but to do so in defiance of New York City law.

And then he effectively says, if you don’t like my judgement that there is at least the appearance of a quid pro quo, we can reopen the evidentiary proceedings, in part by examining the notes that you seized from an AUSA on the case.

Judge Ho dismisses much of Bove’s effort to impugn Danielle Sassoon and Scotten by pointing out that it is irrelevant to the issue before him. DOJ said they were only relying on the two reasons to dismiss the indictment: the pretextual claim of appearance of impropriety that Ho had already rejected, and the infringement on Adams’ ability to do his work that Ho described as a quid pro quo. So they can’t, after the fact, attempt to manufacture real bias by posting communications from the prosecutors out of context.

In any case, Ho was unimpressed with Bove’s attempt to smear the prosecutors, finding it unexceptional, for example, that one of Scotten’s friends thought he would make a good judge.

Finally, the parties raise related issues in their briefs that do not appear in DOJ’s Rule 48(a) Motion. For reasons explained below, a court cannot properly grant a Rule 48(a) motion on the basis of rationales that were not raised in the motion. But even considering these additional points on the merits, the Court finds them either inapposite or unsupported by the record. For example, DOJ attaches various exhibits to its brief consisting of communications involving the former prosecution team and asserts that they show “troubling conduct” at USAO-SDNY. DOJ Br. at 1. But these communications were not public until DOJ sought to rely on them; as a matter of logic, they could not have affected “appearances” in this case. Moreover, the notion that DOJ sought dismissal because of improper conduct by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team is belied by the February 10 Decisional Memo itself, which makes clear that DOJ, in reaching its decision, “in no way call[ed] into question the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case.” February 10 Decisional Memo at 1. At any rate, the Court has reviewed these communications carefully and finds that they do not show any improper motives or violations of ethics canons or the Justice Manual by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team or by former U.S. Attorney Sassoon.49

49 The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution state, in relevant part, that “the attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 9-27.220 (2023). There is nothing in the USAO-SDNY communications indicating a violation of these principles. For example, one communication indicates that a friend of AUSA Scotten believed that he would make a good federal judge. See ECF No. 175-4. The Court has reviewed this communication and finds that it shows nothing noteworthy, only that AUSA Scotten was focused on his current job “first,” rather than on any possible future opportunities. Id. Another communication—an email circulating a draft letter to the Court—refers to the Williams op-ed as a “scandal,” ECF No. 175-3, but the use of that informal shorthand in an email does not suggest that any of the individual AUSAs on the case, or the U.S. Attorney at the time, had any inappropriate motives or otherwise violated Justice Department policy or guidelines for purposes of its Rule 48(a) Motion, disclaimed any reliance on the suggestion of improper purposes in this prosecution.

Plus, there’s no way these could substantiate the appearance of impropriety claim justify dismissing the case, because Bove only made them public after the fact.

Similarly, Ho rejected Bove’s belated claims that there was something problematic with the case itself — and in a footnote, insinuates that Pam Bondi and Chad Mizelle were the ones engaged in misconduct by sharing their opinions about the strength of the case in violation of local rules.

The Rule 48(a) Motion does not allude to the possibility of other reasons for dismissal beyond the two set forth on its face. See Rule 48(a) Mot. ¶¶ 5-6. To the contrary, the Motion suggests that there are none. See id. at 3 (seeking dismissal “[b]ased on the foregoing” reasons). At the February 19 conference, DOJ confirmed that there were no other bases asserted in the Motion. See Feb. 19 Conf. Tr. at 22:18-22 (confirming that the Court’s “understanding that the motion contains no statement about the government’s views regarding the strength of the case in terms of the facts or the legal theory” is “correct”); id. at 22:18-25 (stating that “[t]here are two” bases for the Motion, neither of which concerned the merits). While counsel for DOJ stated “I do have other concerns” about the case, he disclaimed reliance on them for purposes of the Rule 48(a) Motion, explaining that the Government is “not asking the court to rely on any” reasons for dismissal beyond what is stated in the Motion itself. Id. at 22:5-13. And DOJ’s February 10 Decisional Memo is unequivocal in this regard, stating that “[t]he Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based, which are issues on which we defer to the U.S. Attorney’s Office at this time.” Feb. 10 Decisional Memo at 1 (emphasis added). It was only in response to this Court’s Order requesting further briefing on several questions, none of which concerned the reasons for the Motion, that DOJ raised this additional ground for dismissal.57

57 To be sure, in his February 13 letter to U.S. Attorney Sassoon, Acting DAG Bove stated that he has “many other concerns about this case,” which he described as turning on “factual and legal theories that are, at best, extremely aggressive.” Feb. 13 Letter at 7. Mayor Adams also points to a statement by the Attorney General that the case was “incredibly weak,” and has previously referenced similar statements to the same effect by the DOJ Chief of Staff. See Adams Br. at 6; Def.’s Feb. 21, 2025 Letter at 1. Assuming these concerns were well founded, they still do not contradict the February 10 Decisional Memo’s statement that DOJ reached its determination regarding dismissal without assessing the strength of the case. Separately, the Court notes that the statements referenced by Mayor Adams appear to violate Local Criminal Rule 23.1, which prohibits extrajudicial statements regarding an “opinion . . . in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation . . . if there is a substantial likelihood that the dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice.” S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. L. Crim. R. 23.1(a). The Rule provides that “[a]ny opinion as to . . . the merits of the case” “presumptively involve[s] a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of this rule.” Id. at 23.1(d)(7). [my emphasis]

I noted the problems with Mizelle and Bondi’s interventions at the time.

You can’t retcon the reasons for dismissing the case, Judge Ho says, because it would undermine the political accountability that is one purpose for judicial involvement in a Rule 48(a) motion.

None of this is meant to suggest that it would be wholly impermissible for the government to have, in addition to valid reasons that are expressly stated, other unstated reasons for dropping a prosecution. But if the reasons actually articulated in a Rule 48(a) motion itself are insufficient, and dismissal can be justified only by resort to other grounds, then the omission of those other reasons misleads the court and the public, undermining political accountability. Under such circumstances, it would flout Rule 48(a)’s requirement of leave of court to grant a motion based on belatedly offered rationales. See Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 620 (“Rule 48(a)’s requirement of judicial leave . . . contemplates exposure of the reasons for dismissal.”). Here, DOJ has affirmatively asked the Court to rely on the reasons in its Rule 48(a) Motion and has argued that these reasons are a sufficient basis for granting the Motion. See Feb. 19 Conf. Tr. at 22:5-17. The Court therefore cannot permit DOJ to rely on a post hoc rationale not stated in the Motion itself. “[W]hen so much is at stake, . . . the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people.” Regents, 140 S. Ct. at 1909. For these reasons, the Court cannot consider DOJ’s belated merits-based arguments in adjudicating this motion. [my emphasis]

In the last pages of the opinion Ho does a number of things that may have application outside of this case. He adopts Sassoon’s point that the comparison of the Adams case to the Viktor Bout case is inapt. More importantly, the Bout case was a quid pro quo. It doesn’t help Bove claim this wasn’t a quid pro quo, it does the opposite.

First, it is odd that DOJ would analogize its decision to dismiss Mayor Adams’s indictment—which it vehemently denies is a quid pro quo—to a prisoner exchange that was explicitly a quid pro quo. Moreover, it is inapt to compare an exchange negotiated between two sovereign nations, neither of which is beholden to the laws of the other, to the Government’s decision to dismiss the indictment of an elected public official who is subject to local, state, and federal laws.

The unprecedented nature of DOJ’s rationale is particularly concerning given its view that its decision is “virtually unreviewable” because it “invocates concerns about executive power that go right to the core of Article II of the Constitution.” Feb. 19 Conf. Tr. at 23:20-24. If that is correct, DOJ’s position has rather broad implications, to put it mildly. For instance, DOJ endorsed the view that the government can apply this rationale to virtually any public official with immigration-related responsibilities—ranging from a local police commissioner to the governor of a border state—and determine that they are essentially immune from criminal liability. See id. at 32:22-34:8.

Where I’m most intrigued, Ho likens what DOJ is doing here — using the threat of prosecution to coerce states — to Congressional attempts to do the same.

Threatening federal indictment to compel compliance with federal regulatory objectives by a state or local official also raises significant federalism concerns. It is well established that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997). Although this prohibition has typically been applied to acts of Congress, the principles that underpin it—namely, federalism and political accountability—would similarly preclude an attempt by the federal executive branch to coerce a state or local official into implementing federal policy objectives. 58

See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 9-16.110 (2020) (cautioning that “[p]lea bargains with defendants who are elected public officers can present issues of federalism . . . when they require the public officer defendant to take action that affects his or her tenure in office”). Here, the fact that, after DOJ made the decision to seek dismissal of his case, Mayor Adams decided to issue an executive order in alignment with current “federal immigration initiatives and policies,” Rule 48(a) Mot. ¶ 6, but in apparent conflict with New York City law, see N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 9-131(h)(2), is troubling to say the least. It suggests that the federal government is using the pendency of a federal indictment to override the City’s laws in favor of its own policy goals.

58 That prohibition applies even where state or local officials consent to federal compulsion, because “[t]he interests of public officials . . . may not coincide with the Constitution’s intergovernmental allocation of authority.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 183 (1992). “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States . . . as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States.” Id.

But this is what Trump is doing left and right: Threatening states, cities, and private entities to try to get compliance with Trump’s orders. And while federalism would only apply this holding to government entities, Trump has already retaliated against New York’s other elected leaders for personal grievances. Pam Bondi has even threatened criminal prosecution in the immigration context.

So don’t be surprised if you see this opinion cited down the road.

Emil Bove attempted to force through his corrupt deal quietly, with pretextual excuses for doing so. When that failed, he turned to retaliation against at least Sassoon and Scotten. Whatever else this opinion does — no matter how unsatisfying it is that Adams will escape accountability, and it is — Ho used this opinion to lay out judicial record that Bove’s claims are bullshit.

Ho can’t stop Bove’s corrupt deal. But this opinion may forestall follow-on weaponization of this case.