My name is Marisa Kabas, and I'm an independent journalist who publishes The Handbasket. I'm reaching out about a matter that involves your team and that continues to trouble me.
In June of last year, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and I filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DC Metropolitan Police Department to compel them to release body camera footage from the March 17, 2025 DOGE raid on the US Institute of Peace. What followed was months of back and forth with their lawyers, arguing why it was in the public interest to release the un-redacted footage in its entirety. Though tiny segments were handed over, that wasn't enough: We wanted all of it.
On February 18, 2026, a DC judge ruled in our favor, and your reporter Mark Segraves sent a kind note of congratulations that day. Then on Monday, March 2nd, the footage was handed over to me and excitedly announced I'd received it and would be reviewing it in the coming days and sharing what I learned. When Segraves emailed me this past Thursday asking for my phone number, I didn't think much of it. But when he called me just before 2pm on Friday to let me know NBC4 Washington would be airing a segment at 5pm, I grew concerned.
Segraves said he'd obtained some of the footage via a FOIA request that week after he heard the footage had been released to me. He said he'd credit the work of RCFP and me, but it was little comfort. I asked if he'd known the day before when he emailed me for my number, why didn't he tell me then? He didn't have a good answer for that. He acknowledged all the hard work I'd done getting this footage released. I asked him if he could hold the story until Monday, to which he replied that he's "not just a blogger" (implying that that's all I am, presumably) and that he'd have to check with his editor. I said fine. Nearly an hour later he called back to say his editor refused to hold the story, but that they were happy to interview me via Zoom to add to the package, and I said I would.
What followed was two hours of furiously writing and posting clips of the footage to Youtube so I could get something published before the 5pm broadcast, and in the midst of that, recording a quick Zoom interview with a person who was about to take credit for my work. At 4:59pm ET, The Handbasket published a piece titled "Police body cam footage shows DOGE knew Institute of Peace was private property during raid." Then I tuned into NBC4 Washington via your website to catch the broadcast, and my instinct to rush to get something out first was proven right.
"It's a story you're seeing first on News4," your newscast began. "For the first time we're getting an inside look at what happened the day the Trump administration took over the US Institute of Peace. News4 obtained more than four hours of police body camera video from that day." What followed was more than six minutes of clips and commentary from Segraves, but it's not until six minutes and 21 seconds into the piece that he mentions my name (mispronounced though he asked for the correct pronunciation on Zoom), "The Handbasket blog," and the RCFP's foundational role in bringing this footage to light. I was angry, but didn't feel there was much I could do.
Then I saw the version NBC4 posted to Instagram and TikTok—the video itself made ZERO mention of the RCFP or my work, only briefly acknowledging it in the written caption on Instagram, and not even bothering to do that on TikTok. An average viewer with no background on the case is lead to believe that this footage was released because of your efforts. When I saw that, I decided I couldn't let this go.
It's difficult to explain what it's like to spend nearly a year working on a story only to have another reporter and outlet surreptitiously take credit for it; months of work and personal risk only to have another reporter lying in wait to swoop in. What NBC4 did was immoral, unethical, and to be frank, just truly sucked.
I just sent this email to the news director at NBC4 Washington about the unprofessional and disrespectful way they handled publishing the body camera footage of the DOGE raid on the US Institute of Peace that was obtained via my FOIA lawsuit:
09.03.2026 14:55
👍 4750
🔁 985
💬 112
📌 90
It's a widespread problem. And worse when, in many instances, reporters don't bother to identify the specific court, the judge, or the actual named parties, making it ridiculously difficult to independently find the original document they're reporting on.
07.03.2026 13:31
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
A funny thing about international law is that precisely because it is so tenuous, its practitioners understand the nature of law better than most lawyers and legal theorists
28.02.2026 10:16
👍 54
🔁 19
💬 2
📌 2
This is just bonkers, as evangelicals dominate Republican ranks in every branch of government. It shows that these extreme Christian nationalists don't want to just have a voice, they want Dominion
06.03.2026 17:14
👍 96
🔁 27
💬 5
📌 0
Lest this get drowned out with everything else going on right now:
04.03.2026 20:37
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
due to a fortuitous typo, leading candidates below 50% instead forced into a pun-off
04.03.2026 16:35
👍 39
🔁 4
💬 6
📌 0
🔥🔥🔥
04.03.2026 15:46
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
*We all* had 40+ years to stave off or correct the shift in judicial mindset that led us here. Between gutting Bivens and the steady expanse of qualified immunity, this was entirely foreseeable. I question framing this as just a problem of the most recent two years when Dems were in power.
03.03.2026 17:57
👍 7
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Also, the person conducting that dep is asking some deeply dumb questions (assuming, of course, their objective was anything other than spectacle).
03.03.2026 16:19
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Another contrast—this time, between this case and United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U. S. 495 (2025)—is also striking. In Skrmetti, several parents challenged Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The suit raised claims grounded in both equal protection and substantive due process. As to the latter, the parents in Skrmetti, similarly to the parents here, asserted a right “to make decisions concerning medical care for their minor children.” Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2023, No. 23–466, p. 34; see id., at 18 (invoking a “right of parents with respect to the care, custody, and control of their children, including in decisions about medical care”). And in support of that right, the Skrmetti parents relied on the same precedents the Court does today: Parham, 442 U. S. 584, and Pierce, 268 U. S. 510. See Pet. for Cert., No. 23–466, at 34–36; ante, at 5–6. But the Court, when deciding to grant certiorari in Skrmetti, limited its review to the equal protection issue: It would not even hear the parents out on their substantive due process claim.
This footnote in the Kagan dissent specifically called out how they avoided this sdp claim in the Skrmetti case but then decided it here in an emergency shadow docket posture here. It's all calvinball where the principal is whatever hurts trans people.
03.03.2026 02:43
👍 122
🔁 37
💬 2
📌 0
03.03.2026 02:43
👍 38
🔁 12
💬 1
📌 0
The Court will not belabor the point. The DOJ’s actions in this area are unprecedented, to say the least. Reliance on historical norms, standards and, frankly, decency, cannot be seen as given. More importantly, any inclination to balance the patients’ privacy interests against the government’s needs over-legitimizes the latter. Left to its devices, the DOJ would trample states-rights to amass deeply personal information ‒ regarding minor children ‒ in service of its crusade to eliminate medical care that, until recently, was in its own eyes legal. It remains so in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Righteousness and rhetoric, regardless of how fervent, is no substitute for political- and legislative-process. The time for muscle-memory genuflection, or benefit of the doubt, is over. The subpoena exceeds the DOJ’s statutory authority. The DOJ would usurp the States’ regulation of the medical profession. Its rhetoric regarding gender-affirming care reflects callous indifference, if not abject cruelty. There is more than a “whiff” of ill-intent. Doc. 52 at 3. Arguably, it is closer to a stench.2 The terms of the December 24th Order are reaffirmed, with no anonymized production, and a Rule 58 Judgment will issue. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fed. judge smacks DOJ for appealing out of order, then says the Trump administration does not deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case involving DOJ's attempt to seize the private medical information of trans patients, including children.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
03.03.2026 02:43
👍 109
🔁 28
💬 0
📌 4
![Introducing her view that “commonsense principles of communication” can sometimes help resolve disputes over the meaning of statutory terms, JUSTICE BARRETT points to
an old chestnut. Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 512, 514 (concurring opinion). Suppose a legislature used the phrase “who-
ever drew blood in the streets” in a criminal statute imposing punishment. As a matter of “common sense,” JUSTICE BARRETT says, it would “‘g[o] without saying’” that the law
doesn’t apply to a surgeon accessing a patient’s vein to save his life. Ibid. That is because the phrase “drew blood” is
susceptible to two conventional idiomatic meanings: one “applicable to violent encounters with man or beast” and
the other “to medical procedures,” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 357 (2012) (Scalia & Garner). And any](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:aeh25pysb2rcvipzfijs72gh/bafkreiaadv7eemxtz5twls6kpkqqseqcrazubwzfaubaqmroejcb4ljlym)
Introducing her view that “commonsense principles of communication” can sometimes help resolve disputes over the meaning of statutory terms, JUSTICE BARRETT points to
an old chestnut. Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 512, 514 (concurring opinion). Suppose a legislature used the phrase “who-
ever drew blood in the streets” in a criminal statute imposing punishment. As a matter of “common sense,” JUSTICE BARRETT says, it would “‘g[o] without saying’” that the law
doesn’t apply to a surgeon accessing a patient’s vein to save his life. Ibid. That is because the phrase “drew blood” is
susceptible to two conventional idiomatic meanings: one “applicable to violent encounters with man or beast” and
the other “to medical procedures,” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 357 (2012) (Scalia & Garner). And any
![ordinary person faced with that phrase in a penal law would
find it obvious which meaning applies. Ibid.; see also Ne-
braska, 600 U. S., at 512 (BARRETT, J., concurring).
The difficulty is, our major questions cases are different.
Often, little about them “‘goes without saying.’” Ibid. Take
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120
(2000). There, the question was whether the FDA could
regulate tobacco products. Id., at 125. Looking only to com-
mon sense, the answer would have been yes. Congress au-
thorized the FDA to regulate “drugs,” which Congress de-
fined expressly and broadly as “‘articles (other than food)
intended to affect the structure or any function of the
body.’” Id., at 126. As a matter of common sense, nicotine
qualifies as a “drug” based on this statutory definition, as it
might even as a matter of everyday speech. West Virginia,
597 U. S., at 721–722 (noting the “colorable textual basis”
for the executive branch’s interpretation in Brown & Wil-
liamson). Still, we held the FDA could not regulate tobacco
products. Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 159–160.
Other cases follow suit. We have ruled that the term “air
pollutant” does not include greenhouse gases, even though
greenhouse gases pollute the air. Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 316, 323–324 (2014). We have
held that the phrase “‘[r]egulations . . . necessary to pre-
vent the . . . spread of communicable diseases’” does not in-
clude eviction moratoriums, even without questioning that
eviction moratoriums were necessary to prevent the spread
of COVID–19, a communicable disease. Alabama Assn. of
Realtors, 594 U. S., at 761, 764. And we have said that clos-
ing coal power plants is not the “‘best system of emission
reduction,’” even while acknowledging that closing them
would reduce emissions. West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 721,
732–735.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:aeh25pysb2rcvipzfijs72gh/bafkreibxudsab2ecasofje7shebbjoj2i52apdguij2h6d3epe3lglsscy)
ordinary person faced with that phrase in a penal law would
find it obvious which meaning applies. Ibid.; see also Ne-
braska, 600 U. S., at 512 (BARRETT, J., concurring).
The difficulty is, our major questions cases are different.
Often, little about them “‘goes without saying.’” Ibid. Take
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120
(2000). There, the question was whether the FDA could
regulate tobacco products. Id., at 125. Looking only to com-
mon sense, the answer would have been yes. Congress au-
thorized the FDA to regulate “drugs,” which Congress de-
fined expressly and broadly as “‘articles (other than food)
intended to affect the structure or any function of the
body.’” Id., at 126. As a matter of common sense, nicotine
qualifies as a “drug” based on this statutory definition, as it
might even as a matter of everyday speech. West Virginia,
597 U. S., at 721–722 (noting the “colorable textual basis”
for the executive branch’s interpretation in Brown & Wil-
liamson). Still, we held the FDA could not regulate tobacco
products. Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 159–160.
Other cases follow suit. We have ruled that the term “air
pollutant” does not include greenhouse gases, even though
greenhouse gases pollute the air. Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 316, 323–324 (2014). We have
held that the phrase “‘[r]egulations . . . necessary to pre-
vent the . . . spread of communicable diseases’” does not in-
clude eviction moratoriums, even without questioning that
eviction moratoriums were necessary to prevent the spread
of COVID–19, a communicable disease. Alabama Assn. of
Realtors, 594 U. S., at 761, 764. And we have said that clos-
ing coal power plants is not the “‘best system of emission
reduction,’” even while acknowledging that closing them
would reduce emissions. West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 721,
732–735.
Gorsuch is criticizing Barrett’s approach to the MQD here, but I think most people would read this and think, “Sounds like you guys issued some embarrassingly bad decisions in the past.”
20.02.2026 16:15
👍 41
🔁 12
💬 2
📌 2
Putin and Trump stand on a platform in front of Air Force One. "SKA 2" is partly visible on the front of the platform at the bottom of the frame.
This ska revival is gonna suuuuuuuck.
20.02.2026 05:40
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
The Gods Must Be Muppets
18.02.2026 23:35
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
PIGS IN HAMLET!!!
(Am I doing this right?)
18.02.2026 23:32
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
NY Times headline: "Border Officials Are Said to Have Caused El Paso Closure by Firing Anti-Drone Laser
People familiar with the episode said the use of the technology was not coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration. Officials targeted what they thought was a drug cartel drone, but turned out to be a party balloon, they said."
OP has underlined "turned out to be a party balloon."
The next time anyone tells you that someone subject to law enforcement action "must have been doing something wrong," remember this moment.
12.02.2026 17:34
👍 1
🔁 2
💬 0
📌 0
@atheists.org urges the Senate to:
• Deny funding for DHS, ICE, or CBP, without true safeguards against abuse;
• Require real accountability for shootings, deaths, and civil rights violations; and
• Halt all deportations to nations where atheist individuals face imprisonment, torture, or execution.
29.01.2026 15:39
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
An extraordinary document. Read it.
“Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. … ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
28.01.2026 22:42
👍 8451
🔁 3441
💬 235
📌 208
Amazon X-Ray mistaken lists the cast of The Office for an episode of Columbo.
I guess I missed this episode of The Office during its initial run!
28.01.2026 23:19
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Blurry close-up image of a cat's face as it inspects the camera lens.
Whatcha doin?
26.01.2026 17:32
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Unbelievable.
Well, you know where to find me, Seth.
13.01.2026 21:57
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
As of a few minutes ago, calling it a "scam, spam, or deceptive," YouTube deleted the entire "The Thinking Atheist" channel.
13.01.2026 20:53
👍 141
🔁 53
💬 75
📌 24
The legal profession needs to be more open to #Linux.
Seriously.
13.01.2026 21:34
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
I'm not wasting data on my wifi hotspot just so Microsoft can interrupt my card game with idiotic ads.
13.01.2026 21:34
👍 3
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
A pop-up in Windows Solitaire:
"You need an active connection to the Internet to play this difficulty. You can still play Easy or Random decks offline. Would you like to play online?"
Why?!?!
13.01.2026 21:34
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
