Mike Sacks

Justice Department targets Cuban officials, aims for indictments The Justice Department has formed a working group to examine bringing federal charges against officials or entities within Cuba’s government.

Exclusive: The Justice Department has formed a working group to examine possible federal charges against officials or entities within Cuba’s government.

The effort comes as President Trump says the island’s government is his next target.

The Riders of Red Hook (Legends Never Die) YouTube video by Des Rocs - Topic

Knights of Cydonia vibes are strong (and intentional?) with this one

Judge Blocks State from Enforcing Abortion Ban Against Religious Objectors A judge has handed down a ruling that prevents Indiana from enforcing its near-total abortion ban against women who say the procedure is a requirement of their religious faith.

A narrow but important win in Indiana. Cracks in abortion bans start small, then they grow.

The Bygone Era of Supreme Court Support for Voting Rights Sixty years after upholding the Voting Rights Act, the Court has dismantled most of it.

Tomorrow marks the 61st anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama. It also marks the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court first upholding the Voting Rights Act.

We have gotten so, so far away from a Court that cares about democracy.

New from me at @brennancenter.org:

Cult

The Most Chilling Detail in the U.S. Attack on an Iranian Naval Ship The Iranian warship was taking part in an international exercise with many other countries—including the United States.

This is a chilling crime. A shame on our country. The Iranian ship was unarmed. The US knew this. The sailors were murdered by our navy, and the survivors were left to die at sea.
newrepublic.com/post/207429/...

Exclusive: US investigation points to likely US responsibility in Iran school strike, sources say Military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that killed scores of children on Saturday, two U.S. officials told Reu...

Reuters Exclusive

"U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school."

"The strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of U.S. conflicts in the ​Middle East."

OFUUPOS

Colloton’s been trying to rep the Normies but the line’s been breached

United States v. Charles, 159 F. 4th 545 - Court of Appeals... Rather than resolve the appeal based on circuit precedent as determined by the district court and urged by the government, the majority conjures up its own argument. The assertion is that the definition of machine gun under § 922(o) includes "(1) the Mark 38 machine gun system that is mounted on warships; (2) the M230 machine gun mounted on military helicopters; and (3) the M2 machine gun, which the military has mounted on armored vehicles." The majority then rejects Charles's facial challenge to the statute because an individual cannot "carry" these mounted weapon systems, so the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess them. The majority cites no authority and identifies no case in which the United States has asserted that § 922(o) encompasses the enumerated weapon systems or prosecuted anyone on that theory.

United States v. Charles, 159 F. 4th 545 - Court of Appeals... This approach is quite unfair to Charles and unsound as an adjudicatory practice. The government does not defend the statute on the basis that some "machine guns" are not bearable arms. Charles had no opportunity to address the proposition. It is not obvious that the majority's assertion is correct. A "machine gun" is defined as a type of "weapon," 18 U.S.C. § 921(24), and a "weapon" is " an instrument of offensive or defensive combat ... [such] as a club, sword, gun, or grenade." Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458, 470, 145 S.Ct. 857, 221 L.Ed.2d 332(2025) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2589 (def. 1) (1966)); see also Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2589 (def. 1) (1981) (same); Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 2314 (def. 1) (1933) ("an instrument of offensive or defensive combat ... [such] as a gun, a sword, a shield, etc."). Given that a club, sword, gun, grenade, and shield all can be carried, it is debatable whether the term "weapon" in this criminal statute should be construed expansively to include large mounted military weapon systems and the like. "A word is given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated." Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480, 487, 144 S.Ct. 2176, L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 911(2024) (internal quotation omitted); see Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 196 (2012) (explaining that "the most common effect of the canon is... to limit a general term to a subset of all things or actions that it covers"). The scope of the statutory definition is a matter properly left for a case in which the issue is raised, briefed, and necessary to a decision. This appeal should be resolved by *550 a straightforward application of circuit precedent.

To which another judge was all OH MY GOD THAT IS SO STUPID bc he knew his Trumpy colleagues were just making stuff up so they could in the future say “carryable” machine guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment

United States v. Charles, 159 F. 4th 545 - Court of Appeals... Federal law defines a machine gun to include "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 18 U.S.C. § 921(24) (incorporating by reference 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)). This definition includes (1) the Mark 38 machine gun system that is mounted on warships; < (2) the M230 machine gun mounted on military helicopters; 3. and (3) the M2 machine gun, which the military has mounted on armored vehicles. fI The plain meaning of the word "bear" in the Second Amendment is to "carry," and, when used in conjunction with the word "arms," it means "carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation." Heller, 554 U.S. at 584, 128 S.Ct. 2783; see also Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 691, 144 S.Ct. 1889 (discussing the limits on the Second Amendment's right to "carry" weapons and firearms). As a threshold matter, an individual must be able to "carry" the firearm under the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S. at 584, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (the individual must be able to "wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket....") (cleaned up and citation omitted). Each of the above machine gun examples requires mounting to a heavy support structure. An individual is unable to "carry" any of these machine guns. Because *548 there are machine guns, including the Mark 38, the M230, and the M2, that are not bearable weapons, the regulation of at least those weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment. Because § 922(0) is constitutional in some of its applications, this facial challenge fails. Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 693, 144 S.Ct. 1889.

Judge Stras cites back to an opinion he joined last year that said bc “bear” in 2A’s language means “carry,” and “carry” means able to pick up and hold, and that there are some machine guns that cannot be carried, then the fed ban doesn’t facially violate the 2A. scholar.google.com/scholar_case...

4 Although we held in United States v. Fincher that "possession of [a machine] gun[] d[oes] not fall within the protection of the Second Amendment," 538 F.3d 868 872 (8th Cir. 2008), it is hard to square with Bruen. Compare id. at 873 (concluding

that possession of a machine gun was not protected by the Second Amendment because it was not "reasonably related to a well-]regulated militia"), with Bruen, 597 U.S. at 20, 26-30 (explaining that the right "does not depend on service in the militia" and requires firearms regulations to be consistent with the Second Amendment's "text and historical understanding"); see also Charles, 159 F.4th at 546-48 (analyzing a facial challenge to § 922(o) under Bruen, not Fincher).

Oh look a Trump judge on the 8th Circuit suggesting in a footnote that the federal ban on machine gun possession may be unconstitutional under Bruen

ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03...

I just took the Swipe for Democracy quiz. Are you a match? Swipe right on the issues you believe in. Get your compatibility score with Mike Sacks for Congress. Warning: Lawler's red flags may shock you.

Now you gotta donate to my campaign, those are the rules.

Have some fun with it first:

mikesacksforcongress.com/swipe

I am, indeed, running for Congress.

Factory worker and cab driver

mikesacksforcongress.com

*full and newly Trumpified CA3. Still lots of Dem judges on that court. But Trump flipped the full court and most if not all of its Republican judges, including the non-Trumpy ones, are likely votes to strike down NJ’s assault weapons and high capacity magazine bans.

CADC upheld DC’s high capacity magazine ban back in 2011 when also upholding DC’s assault weapons ban. Then-Judge Kavanaugh woulda struck the assault weapons ban down under his made-up history and tradition test that SCOTUS adopted in Bruen. But he reserved judgment on the magazine ban:

DC’s highest court splits with every fed appeals court that’s reviewed high capacity magazine bans since Bruen. The full court may vacate this, but the fully and newly Trumpified 3rd Circuit is likely to strike down NJ’s similar law along with its assault weapons ban. So the issues are SCOTUS-bound.

Good news that the execrable Kristi Noem has been fired, but Trump should really be firing Stephen Miller, the primary engineer of the vile ethnic reengineering agenda and murderously violent civic tensions that are sucking all of them into a bottomless political sinkhole, Trump included.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge: On January 20, 2025, the President issued Executive Order No. 14163, "Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program." 90 Fed. Reg. 8459 (Jan. 20, 2025). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a), the President determined that "entry into the United States of refugees under the [United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States" and directed that "entry into the United States of refugees under the USRAP be suspended" pending further findings. Exec. Order. No. 14163, § 3(a). In response to the Executive Order, the Department of State suspended all funding of the USRAP program, purportedly pursuant to a different executive order entitled "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid." Exec. Order No. 14169, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (Jan. 20, 2025). Pending further review, this included the suspension of funding for (1) processing applications from persons outside the United States seeking refugee status here and (2) domestic resettlement services for refugees admitted to the United States. Plaintiffs are refugees who have been recently admitted to the United States; refugees who have been approved for resettlement in the United States but remain outside the country; U.S.-based individuals seeking admission for their family members or sponsees; and three organizations that had cooperative agreements with the State Department to provide overseas processing and domestic resettlement services. Plaintiffs allege that Executive Order No. 14163's suspension of the refugee program violates the Refugee Act

of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (codified in various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.), and that the defunding of USRAP violates various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. The district court issued two preliminary injunctions prohibiting the enforcement or implementation of §§ 3(a), (b), (c), and 4 of Executive Order No. 14163 and the suspension of USRAP funding and reinstating the terminated cooperative agreements. The Government sought review. Our task is to determine whether the President's actions were within the statutory authority granted him under the INA. Whether we agree with those actions is beside the point: "The wisdom of the policy choices made by [the President] is not a matter for our consideration." Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 165 (1993). "We do not sit as a committee of review...." TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194-95 (1978). We conclude that, with one exception, Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. We thus vacate the preliminary injunctions in large measure.

We recognize the enormous practical implications of this decision. There are over one hundred thousand vetted and conditionally approved refugees, many of whom may have spent years completing the USRAP process in a third country only to be turned away on the tarmac. But such a result is one potential consequence of Congress's sweeping grant of power to the President to "suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f). Whether that consequence reflects prudent policy is not a question for this court. To hold otherwise would be to substitute our judgment for Congress's, and the President's authority under § 1182(f) precludes much of Plaintiffs' request for relief here. Because Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges to Executive Order No. 14163, the cessation of refugee processing and admissions, and the funding of refugee resettlement services abroad, we reverse those portions of the preliminary injunctions as an abuse of discretion. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 32. But because Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their APA challenge to the termination of cooperative agreements 76 PACITO V. TRUMP to provide domestic resettlement services, we affirm the district court's preliminary injunctions to the extent they require the Government to reinstate such cooperative agreements necessary to provide the resettlement services described in § 1522 to refugees who have been admitted to the United States. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

LEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I agree with Judge Bybee's magisterial analysis in Section IV.A. explaining why 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) authorizes the President to suspend the admissions of refugees. I, however, dissent on two points, both of which are close calls. First, I do not think we have jurisdiction over the organizational plaintiffs' claims because they effectively seek reinstatement of funding for refugee resettlement services. Such breach-of-contract claims seeking money from the federal government must be heard by the Court of Federal Claims. Second, even if we do have jurisdiction, I believe the better reading of the statutory provisions is that the United States has discretion whether to fund these services. I also write separately to highlight what happened in the district court because it reflects a recent trend that I fear will erode the credibility of the judiciary. To be clear, courts can and should intervene if the President oversteps legal bounds. We, however, must not be seduced by the temptation of judicial resistance: District courts cannot stand athwart, yelling "stop" just because they genuinely PACITO V. TRUMP 77 believe they are the last refuge against policies that they deem to be deeply unwise. Otherwise, we risk inching towards an imperial judiciary that lords over the President and Congress. CJ. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 858 (2025) (warning against "embracing an imperial judiciary").

All-Republican CA9 panel mostly unblocks Trump’s EO suspending and defunding US Refugee Admissions Programs.

GWB judges in majority.

Trump judge in partial dissent says Trump shoulda totally won, and accuses judges standing up for the law of “imperialism.”

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

Federal Vacancies Act posters, activate!

Oh man looking forward to the Senatorial Courtesy on this clown’s confirmation

I know you’re joking but

Dismantle CIA black sites and hold accountable all those responsible for them

Muse is where Radiohead shoulda gone after The Bends

Team TOOL

Team America 2 is gonna be wild

You rule! Now send all your people!

Opinion | This Summer, Students From Hundreds of Colleges Will Heed One Urgent Call

Here's your antidote to the Miami Herald piece about the Florida campus Nazis:

www.nytimes.com/2026/03/04/o...