Steven Mazie

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. BACKGROUND ...................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. I. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF JUNE 3, 2025......... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. II. THREE INMATES ALLEGE RETALIATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THIS CASE ............................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. III. THE COURT’S ENTRY OF THE NATIONWIDE PROTECTIVE ORDER ..... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ARGUMENT ............................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. I. THE INMATES’ RETALIATION ALLEGATIONS ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED. ............................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A. Former Inmate Dye’s Retaliation Allegations Are Unsubstantiated. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Inmate Meskill’s Retaliation Allegations Are Unsubstantiated. Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Inmate Pinson’s Retaliation Allegations Are Unsubstantiated. . Error! Bookmark not defined. II. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE. ..... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. A. The Protective Order Fails to Comply with Rule 65(d) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. The Protective Order Fails to Comply with PLRA’s Requirements ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. CONCLUSION ......................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Could someone please reset the "Hours without an embarrassing DOJ filing" clock to 0?

Get on that I’ve already fixed ours

One wonders how many Republicans might be speaking out if they weren't running for re-election

Seems bad that the official US foreign policy is now 🤷‍♂️

Trick play

This may be why Sotomayor did not join Kagan's dissent in the trans students emergency-docket order last night. (Jackson joined, Sotomayor did not. But Sotomayor did note her dissent.)

Sotomayor might be certain that the plaintiffs should lose on both the free-exercise and parental rights claim.

Not my biggest complaint about last night's twin shadow-docket orders, but pretty odd that they reside in two different places on the Supreme Court's website.

(Seems to be because the NY electoral map case only has concurring and dissenting opinions, not a majority or per curiam. But still.)

Fast and loose

The unofficial mascot of SCOTUS is the turtle, symbolizing slow, steady (and principled) deliberation.

Maybe it’s time to replace the turtles on the plaza & in the gift shop with hares—or Tasmanian devils.

“Confused” much more loaded imo! What term is appropriate for children who are not sure they are trans but are exploring their gender identity?

Trump’s Case for War With Iran Faces Growing Scrutiny U.S. intelligence showed threats from Iran loomed, as they had for years. But they were not imminent.

"U.S. officials and lawmakers with access to classified information ... say the administration’s assertions are incomplete, unsubstantiated, or flat-out wrong."

- Wall Street Journal

Hm not sure about that. Some kids in question are transgender. Others are not trans but questioning or gender fluid.

There’s no question what’s it’s going to do

A disturbing and hypocritical ruling on so many levels. Especially the due process holding.

The court JUST said there’s no deeply rooted right for women to control their own bodies. But there is a deeply rooted right for parents to know if their kids question their gender at school? Come on.

The Supreme Court in 2022: Women do not have a right to make important decisions about their health

The Supreme Court in 2026: Parents obviously have a right to make important decisions about their children’s health

bsky.app/profile/rick...

It was a big night for the conservative supermajority! They also did this bsky.app/profile/chri...

My favorite part here is Justice Thomas joining the majority to endorse a substantive due process right without any explanation after basically saying that substantive due process is evil and incoherent in his lone Dobbs concurrence.

My favorite part here is Justice Thomas joining the majority to endorse a substantive due process right without any explanation after basically saying that substantive due process is evil and incoherent in his lone Dobbs concurrence.

Wait there’s more! The Court has had a bunch of chances to consider this exact issue “the regular way“, via a full merits case, Kagan writes. But it chooses to weigh in prematurely via the shadow docket on a subtle and super controversial question.

And Kagan notes the special haste with this order, since the appeals court has not even finished its consideration of the case

The Court has been sitting on this application for weeks and there are multiple opinions, including a dissent from Justice Kagan, signed by Justice Jackson, ripping the majority for again making new on the emergency docket.

NEW at SCOTUS: the court votes 6-3 to block a California law preventing public schools from outing gender-questioning students to their parents.

I appreciate that note. I will cease and desist.

Schizophrenia over war strategy:

Hegseth: US is "laser focused" on stopping Iran's nuclear program and won't get bogged down with regime change

Trump: Hey maybe next step is boots on the ground for regime change

In Iran, Donald Trump is making history Too bad he has so little appreciation for its lessons

Perceptive Lexington column @economist.com from James Bennet highlighting Trump’s personal stakes in his rash new war
economist.com/united-state...

The right approach when you have a question about Supreme Court procedure: ask your Truth Social followers

There’s room for nuance in sorting thru what SCOTUS is up to, but Steve’s critiques of this piece are right on — the author plays fast and loose with data and centers the bizarre claim that the court is all about empowering Congress

The Trump court? Not quite The tariffs ruling reveals justices split over doctrine, not Donald Trump

It's not all about him.

My latest @economist.com on how to understand Trump's tariffs defeat at SCOTUS

www.economist.com/united-state...