Sources
Loading...
Additional media
Loading...
DeepNewz, mobile.
People-sourced. AI-powered. Unbiased News.
This is a helpful post on the Ho concurrence. Not directly related to the invasion point, but this line from Yoo quoted by strikes me as quite wrong about original meaning. Just bc VA was a critical (not *the* critical) it doesn’t follow its ratifiers get outsized say. https://t.co/tK0vBtzCys https://t.co/UlAxA6ZoIc
This is of course a good ruling, but I have a question: Why was Judge Ho yet again the only Fifth Circuit judge to take a bold stance—in this case, endorsing Art. I Sec. 10 "invasion theory"—by himself? Where are all the other conservative and originalist judges on CA5? https://t.co/cE0zrftJX5
ICYMI. The Fifth Circuit reluctantly dismissed a case where an attorney is accused of stealing clients, inviting the defendant to petition for en banc review to overturn a 44-year-old circuit precedent. https://t.co/sJgpUmybUu
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has faced significant legal scrutiny as it reluctantly dismissed a case involving an attorney accused of client theft, inviting the defendant to seek an en banc review to overturn a 44-year-old circuit precedent. Concurrently, a divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled that a lower court should have assessed whether Quinn Emanuel had the authority to represent Doraleh Container Terminal before enforcing a $486 million arbitral award against Djibouti. Additionally, Judge Ho of the Fifth Circuit endorsed the invocation of the Constitution's invasion clause in a case concerning river buoys, suggesting a strategic military decision directed at a foreign enemy within the state's authority. This endorsement has sparked discussions regarding the legal interpretation of
