Horsefeathers!

There's always a lot of debate about whether judges should be writing colorful opinions.  There's this opinion from yesterday referencing Orwell's 1984:

As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto “Ignorance is Strength,” this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not. The President’s House is a component of Independence National Historical Park that commemorates the site of the first official presidential residence and the people who lived there, including people enslaved by President George Washington. On January 22, 2026, the National Park Service (“NPS”) removed panels, displays, and video exhibits that referenced slavery and information about the individuals enslaved at the President’s House. 

The Hill reported about Judge Rufe's opinion here:

A federal judge ordered the National Park Service to restore exhibits about slaves who lived at the nation’s one-time executive mansion in Philadelphia, agreeing with the city that the Trump administration likely unlawfully removed the displays.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe invoked the dystopian novel “1984” as she blocked the Trump administration from changing or damaging the site, which is now an outdoor exhibition.

And then Lawfare covered Judge Leon's use of exclamation marks:

U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Leon loves exclamation marks. He uses a lot of them. Back in May, he opened his opinion striking down President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm of WilmerHale with the statement, “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!” The opinion also contained such memorable phrases as, “The causal chain contains at most two links, and it is certainly not highly attenuated!” and “All warrant summary judgment for WilmerHale!” 

Yesterday, Judge Leon struck again, this time in the civil case brought by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The 29-page order, which enjoins Hegseth from attempting to reduce the senator’s retirement pay for having made a video reminding servicemembers that they don’t have to follow illegal orders, contains no fewer than 14 sentences punctuated with an exclamation mark. Here they all are—some with a little context added, some nakedly unadorned:

• “Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!”
• “To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!”
• “Here, Senator Kelly's First Amendment claim presents a justiciable controversy!”
• “To say the least, those issues are in the wheelhouse of Article III courts, not military officials!”
• “Third, the outcome of the administrative process would, in all likelihood, be a fait accompli!”
• “Second, ‘the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration’ is severe!”
• “As applied to a sitting Member of Congress, the Parker rule has even less force!”
• “Indeed, if legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal by the Executive, our representative system of Government cannot function!”
• “Defendants respond that Senator Kelly is seeking to exempt himself from the rules of military justice that ‘Congress has expressly made applicable to retired servicemembers.’ Horsefeathers!”
• “The First Amendment ‘is a limitation on the power of Congress,’ . . ., not the other way around!”
• “There is no question that such actions would deter ‘a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff's position.’ . . . Indeed, they already have. Per an amicus brief submitted by forty-one retired officers, many veterans are today ‘declining’ to ‘participate in public debate on important and contested issues’ out of fear of ‘official reprisal.’ That is a troubling development in a free country!”
• “Defendants also argue that Senator Kelly has pied himself out of irreparable injury by asserting that he ‘intends to continue to speak on matters of public concern’ and ‘will not be silenced.’ Please!”
• “Put simply, Defendants' response is anemic!”
• “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”

All In

Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein took the witness stand in his own defense yesterday at his federal criminal trial in Greenbelt, Maryland, marking one of the most dramatic moments yet in a case that has captivated both the legal world and public audiences alike.

Facing a 16-count indictment that includes tax evasion, failure to pay taxes, preparation of false tax returns, and making false statements on mortgage applications, Goldstein took the stand after the government rested its case.

Goldstein acknowledged his long involvement in professional poker — moments that propelled him into both major winnings and equally massive losses — but insisted that at no point did he willfully break the law.

Throughout the testimony, Goldstein described:

• his reliance on accountants and office managers to handle tax filings, which he admitted he disliked doing himself;

• his passion for poker as a “weirdly intellectual thing,” where strategy and risk-taking are part of the game;

• his decades of legal practice — including arguing more than 40 cases before the United States Supreme Court — before retiring in 2023.

Perhaps most striking was his admission that he omitted significant gambling debts on mortgage applications to keep them from his wife. This candid acknowledgment was offered in context, he said, not as evidence of criminal intent but as personal discretion about private affairs.

Holly Barker from Bloomberg covered it in depth here.  Cross today.

Judge Peter T. Fay

 By John R. Byrne

An SDFLA trivia question: which judges served on our district court before being elevated to the appellate court (5th or 11th Circuit)? 

One such judge is Judge Peter T. Fay.  Judge Fay's Senate confirmation hearing for his district court post was held on October 13, 1970. There must have been something in the water they served on Capitol Hill that day because, like Judge Fay, the other judges who appeared with him before the committee (Judge Tjoflat and Judge King) also served on the federal bench for over fifty years (with Tjoflat and King still serving). 

In the above photograph, from left to right, is Judge King, Judge Paul Roney, U.S. Senator Spessard Holland, U.S. Senator Edward Gurney (who was my great Uncle, randomly enough), Judge Fay, and Judge Tjoflat.

Judge Fay was also an excellent athlete and is in the Rollins College sports Hall of Fame for basketball, football, and, believe it or not, water skiing. FBA write up below.

Judge Peter T. Fay was nominated by President Nixon to the district court in 1970. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Fay served in the Air Force as a lieutenant. He served as a district judge until 1976, when President Ford nominated him to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which later split to form the Eleventh). In N.L.R.B. v. Crockett-Bradley, Inc., 598 F. 2d. 971 (5th Cir. 1979), Judge Fay denied the National Labor Relations Board’s request to hold an employer in contempt, finding that the inability to reach an agreement is not alone evidence of a bad-faith refusal to bargain. At the time of Judge Fay’s death, he was one of just 26 federal judges to have served on the bench for fifty years.

KBJ attended the Grammys

And people freaked out -- even though she was nominated for an award.  Sen. Marsha Blackburn is calling for an investigation!  From The Hill:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called for an investigation Thursday into Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for attending the Grammy Awards, where various artists criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Jackson was nominated in the Best Audio Book, Narration and Storytelling Recording category for her memoir “Lovely One.” The Grammy award went to the Dalai Lama for “Mediations: The Reflections of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.”

“Americans deserve a Supreme Court that is impartial and above political influence,” Blackburn wrote on social platform X. “When a Justice participates in such a highly politicized event, it raises ethical questions. We need an investigation into Justice Jackson’s ability to remain impartial.”

Blackburn also sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts “to conduct a thorough investigation” into the ethics of Jackson’s attendance at the award show and her “ability to remain impartial with respect to immigration matters that come before the Court.”

“For the following reasons, I urge you to conduct a thorough investigation into Justice Jackson’s attendance at this event and whether her presence at such an event complies with the obligation that a Supreme Court justice ‘act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,'” Blackburn’s letter to Roberts reads, according to a statement from her office.

 

"This job sucks."

That was an AUSA in Minnesota to the Court.  Bloomberg covers it here:

A US government attorney expressed unusual frustration in a courtroom proceeding about the difficulty in ensuring Immigration and Customs Enforcement complies with rulings ordering the release of migrants detained in the Trump administration’s Minnesota enforcement operation.

“The system sucks, this job sucks,” Julie Le, an attorney representing the US attorney’s office in Minnesota, said Tuesday in response to a federal judge’s questions on situations where courts have found ICE violated court orders in migrants’ cases, according to a person who was in the courtroom.

Le, who has been helping the US attorney’s office handle habeas petitions from migrants in Minnesota, compared pushing ICE and the Department of Homeland Security to comply as pulling teeth, and said she wished US District Judge Jerry Blackwell would hold her in contempt so she could get 24 hours of sleep, the person in the room said.

Le’s uncommon remarks come amid reports of new mass resignations of federal prosecutors in Minnesota. Justice Department lawyers have also struggled with a flood of habeas petitions related to the Trump administration’s crackdown of undocumented migrants, known as Operation Metro Surge.

The hearing Tuesday dealt with five separate habeas petitions from detained migrants, each of whom were transferred to other states as the US District Court for the District of Minnesota ordered their release. Blackwell called the hearing to determine how to move forward to ensure the administration complies with migrant release orders.

And here is the transcript.

Meantime, the U.S. Attorney's office in Miami is hiring!

🌟We are hiring! 🌟
👉Learn more here: https://t.co/EVfFGX8jEj pic.twitter.com/fhT0VgWsNx

— US Attorney Reding Quiñones (@USAO_SDFL) February 3, 2026

Judge James Lawrence King

By John R. Byrne

The portrait project launched by the South Florida Chapter of the FBA continues this week with a focus on Senior Judge James Lawrence King. President Nixon nominated Judge King to the bench in 1970 and he's been serving ever since, going on 55-plus years now, which is just an incredible run. In 1996, Congress designated the Miami Federal Justice Building as the "James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building" (which most everyone just calls the "King Building"). With that many years on the bench, Judge King's clerkship family is quite large and several of his law clerks have gone on to impressive careers here in Miami.

FBA write up below:

Judge James L. King is the first of our featured judges who is still serving our district as a senior judge. Judge King is a Miami native. He graduated from Redlands High School before attending the University of Florida for both his undergraduate and law degrees. Judge King served in the Air Force as a Judge Advocate General and then entered private practice. He was nominated to the district court by President Nixon in 1970. Judge King has written many notable rulings in his time on the bench, including ruling in Alexandre v. Republic of Cuba, 996 F. Supp. 1239 (Dec. 17, 1997), that relatives of the Brothers to the Rescue pilots shot down by the Cuban Air Force could sue Cuba for wrongful death. On April 30, 1996, the United States Congress renamed the Federal Justice Building at 99 N.E. 4th Street in Miami the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building.

Judicial Reception (Thursday, Feb. 12)

By John R. Byrne

Looking for something to do next Thursday? Join us at the Frost Museum of Science for the Judicial Reception put on by the South Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. This is always a great event. No speeches, formalities, or fancy evening wear. Just an opportunity to connect with our federal judges and fellow lawyers. 

You can get tickets through this link. I hope to see you there.

Wow, read this order

 It's short but very powerful.  I don't want to ruin it, but it ends this way:

With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike,
It is so ORDERED. 

Alexander brothers trial gets started

The opening statements were interesting.  Madison Smyser opened for the prosecution.  Teny Geragos (who opened in Diddy) and Deanna Paul opened for the defense. three women in a sexual assault case against 3 men.  

Howard Srebnick reserved opening for the third brother.  Have any of you ever reserved opening?  It's an interesting strategy when you have co-defendants who are laying out the defense.  It gives the defense another opportunity at the end of the prosecution case to address the jury.  

Here's ABC on the openings:

Three sons of wealth and privilege "were partners in crime" who used their money and status to lure women and girls with promises of trips, exclusive parties and celebrity encounters so they could sexually assault them, a federal prosecutor said Tuesday during opening statements in the trial of Alon, Oren and Tal Alexander.

"These three brothers masqueraded as party boys when really they were predators," the prosecutor, Madison Smyser, said. "The brothers used whatever means necessary -- sometimes drugs, sometimes alcohol, sometimes brute force -- to carry out their rapes."

The former real estate titans, Oren and Tal Alexander, along with their brother, Alon Alexander, have denied sexually assaulting anyone or running a sex trafficking conspiracy, as prosecutors have charged. They sat at the defense tables with their lawyers in suits and open-collar shirts.

***

"They came from a wealthy family, and they lived a life of luxury.  But their luxurious lifestyle had a dark side," Smyser said.

A defense attorney called the brothers successful, ambitious, arrogant young men "who liked and pursued women" so they could have as much sex as possible. 

"That's not trafficking. That's dating. That's hooking up," the lawyer, Teny Geragos, said during opening statements.  She said the accusers, many of whom are expected to testify under pseudonyms, are motivated by shame, regret or money.

Prosecutors told the jury of six men and six women they would see a recording of Oren Alexander's alleged rape of a then-17-year-old who will testify under the name Amelia.  She was "far from sober, almost incoherent" at the time and has no memory of what happened, Smyser said. 

***

The defense conceded the brothers were womanizers who jurors might find immoral but insisted they were not criminals.

"It was crude, it was arrogant, it will make you cringe," defense attorney Deanna Paul said.  "But we're not here for the Asshole Awards."

InnerCity Press covers the case in detail here, including Howard's cross of the first witness.  

 

 

Judge Alicia Valle's "Divestiture"

 By John R. Byrne

This past Friday, the Court held a retirement reception for Magistrate Judge Alicia Valle. She dubbed the event her official "divestiture." Magistrate Judge Hunt was the master of ceremonies for the event, which featured several speakers, including retired Magistrate Judge Barry Seltzer, Magistrate Judge Matthewman, Chief Judge Altonaga, and Holland & Knight partner (and former Valle law clerk), Cary Aronovitz. The speakers did an excellent job conveying Judge Valle's work ethic and heart. We also learned that, for years, Judge Valle and Judge Hunt coordinated their Halloween costumes (some great pairings, including Gomez and Morticia Addams of Addams Family fame).

Judge Valle was an excellent magistrate judge and universally respected by attorneys, civil and criminal alike. We're going to miss her. 

Alexander Brothers trial to start

 The Miami brothers will be starting trial tomorrow with opening statements after a week of motions and picking the jury in SDNY.  Howard Srebnick and Jackie Perzcek have one of the brothers.  Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos (of Diddy fame) have another.  The judge is known for being as pro-prosecution as they come and has already precluded the defense from putting in basic evidence -- for example, that one of the brothers got married (which evidence would show withdrawal from any supposed conspiracy and is just basic background evidence that is always admissible).  That's what I like about trying cases here in SDFLA -- most judges (even the most prosecution friendly) will at least let you try your case.  

Here's CNN with a preview of the trial:

Federal prosecutors accuse two of New York’s top real estate brokers, and their brother, of sexually assaulting over a dozen women and young girls over a period that spanned more than a decade.

During the trial’s opening statements, which are scheduled for Monday, prosecutors are expected to describe to a jury how they believe the three brothers — Oren and Tal Alexander, the real estate brokers to the ultra-wealthy, and Alon, an executive at the family’s security company — used their wealth and position to lure women to lavish parties or vacation destinations, drug them with cocaine and club drugs, and violently rape and sexually assault them.

Law enforcement allege the brothers identified women they found attractive on dating apps through party promoters and chance encounters, and often would pool financial resources to pay for the women’s travel expenses, according to court filings. The alleged assaults occurred from 2008 until 2021 in luxury locations in the Hamptons, Aspen, Las Vegas, Manhattan, and during a Caribbean cruise, according to court filings. 

Judge Valerie Caproni, who is presiding over the trial in the Southern District of New York, ruled that several of the accusers can testify using pseudonyms, including women who were minors at the time of the alleged assaults. More than 20 women could be called to testify in the case.

Prosecutors have argued in court that they have text messages between the brothers and others arranging travel in addition to photos and videos. 

As of Friday, a jury of six women and six men was selected for the trial, which is expected to last at least a month.

 

 

Congress and DOJ Seek to Get Rid of Judges and Warrants

Two explosive stories this week reveal how the Department of Justice and its allied political forces are undermining judicial independence and constitutional checks on law enforcement.

1. House Leadership Backs Impeaching Federal Judges

House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly announced support for impeaching federal judges whose rulings block the Trump administration’s agenda. Johnson signaled he is “for it” when asked about impeachment resolutions targeting at least two judges accused by senators of “egregious abuses” of power. The push is centered on judges who have issued orders adverse to the administration’s immigration and other policies. Pretty troubling.

This isn’t just rhetorical bluster — Legislators have introduced resolutions against judges like James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman, and Johnson’s willingness to embrace impeachment raises the specter of legislative retaliation for judicial rulings, undermining the separation of powers that anchors our constitutional system.

2. ICE Can Enter Homes Without Judicial Warrants

Across the law enforcement landscape, another alarming shift is unfolding: an internal ICE memo disclosed this week authorizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to forcibly enter private homes without a judge-signed warrant, using only an administrative immigration document for individuals with final deportation orders. This breaks with long-standing Fourth Amendment norms requiring a judicial warrant for residential entries and seizures.

Whistleblowers say the memorandum, drafted in May 2025, is being used to train new ICE officers, even though it conflicts with previous training that limited administrative warrants to public arrests. Critics contend this policy effectively instructs agents to bypass constitutional safeguards, and legal challenges are already brewing.

Orin Kerr has a lengthy post explaining the law here. 

Who is going to stand up for our judges and our Constitution?

Israel's Impending Constitutional Crisis

By John R. Byrne

I hope everyone has recovered from the Miami's heartbreaking loss in the national title game (or, at least, the Hurricane fans out there). Still a great season, and I foresee the Hurricanes clocking in at #1 in the prestigious SDFLA Blog 2026 Pre-season Poll.* 

Separately, sharing Judge Altman's review of Yonatan Green's book "Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel." In the review, Altman highlights the sweeping power of the Israeli Supreme Court and, in particular, its relatively unconstrained power of judicial review. 

*Prediction will hinge on the Hurricanes landing Duke QB Darian Mensah in the transfer portal (Duke is trying to stop that).

Hammer Time

A number of sources inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida tell me that the entire office was summoned yesterday at 4:00 p.m. 

Mandatory attendance. 

No agenda disclosed. 

At the meeting, the U.S. Attorney reportedly said that defense counsel* in a recent trial unearthed old tweets by Will Rosenzwieg criticizing Donald Trump. He then said that the defense "forced" the government's hand in firing Rosenzweig. Losing the trial after being "forced" to fire a prosecutor was not an option.

So the Office assembled its “dream team” of prosecutors—David Turken, Roger Cruz, and Rob Moore—to try the case.

In front of the entire office, the trio was presented with the first-ever “Golden Hammer” awards. Actual, oversized, shiny golden hammers. ...

 * Defense counsel vehemently denies it, says it's completely untrue, and it didn't come from them.

SCOTUS decides a 4th Amendment case

It's been a while! The decision is Case v. Montana, which held: Brigham City’s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss and was satisfied in this case. From SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a Montana man who was convicted of assaulting a police officer. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled in Case v. Montana that police officers in Anaconda, Montana, did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they entered William Case’s home without a warrant, rejecting Case’s contention that the police officers needed “probable cause” to go into his house. Under the Supreme Court’s earlier cases, Kagan wrote, it was enough that the police officers reasonably believed that Case – whose former girlfriend had called them to tell them that Case had threatened to commit suicide – needed emergency assistance.

The case began in 2021, when Case told his former girlfriend, identified in court papers as J.H., that he “was going to kill himself” and would also shoot any police officers who came to his house. J.H. called 9-1-1, which sent three police officers to the scene for a “welfare check on a suicidal male.”

Although Case did not answer when police officers knocked on the door or yelled into an open window, the police officers saw empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and what they believed to be a suicide note in the house. The police officers were also aware that Case had threatened to commit suicide before; on another occasion, police officers believed that Case was trying to goad them into shooting him.

Roughly 40 minutes after they arrived, the police officers entered the home. Case was hiding in a closet in an upstairs bedroom, where he was holding a black object that officers believed was a gun. One officer shot Case in the abdomen; another officer discovered a handgun in a laundry hamper near Case.

Case asked the trial court to exclude the evidence that law enforcement officials obtained after they entered his house, arguing that police officers should have had a warrant. But the state courts rejected that argument, prompting Case to come to the Supreme Court.

Case contended that if police officers enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency assistance, they must have probable cause “to believe someone is in urgent need of help.” On Wednesday the Supreme Court disagreed. In an 11-page opinion, Kagan acknowledged that the sanctity of the home is at the core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the people from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” As a general rule, she explained, “[w]hen the intru­sion is into that most private place, ‘reasonableness’ usu­ally means having a warrant.” But there are exceptions to that general rule, she continued, including “the need to provide an occupant with emergency aid.”

Speaking of SCOTUSblog, its founder Tom Goldstein started his trial this week. I think they opened today. More on that soon.

First Amendment and UF

Really interesting First Amendment order out of the 11th Circuit involving a UF law student and some really horrible speech.  2-1 in favor of UF.  Branch write the opinion, Lagoa joins, and Newsom dissents.

From the introduction:

The University of Florida ("UF") expelled Preston Damsky,
a law student, for posts he made on X (formerly Twitter), including
one post that stated, "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary." Damsky then sued Chris Summerlin, UF's Dean of Students, arguing that UF violated his First Amendment rights. UF
now appeals the district court's order granting Damsky a
preliminary injunction and requiring UF to reinstate him as a
student. We find that UF is likely to succeed on the merits because
Damsky' s speech was likely not protected by the First Amendment.
UF was allowed to regulate Damsky's speech because, particularly
when read in context, his statements were reasonably interpreted
as a call for extralegal violence that caused a serious disruption to
other students' educational experiences and the school's ability to
provide its services. Accordingly, we grant UF's motion for a stay
of the district court's injunction pending appeal.

From the dissent:

Based on a post that Preston Damsky published on his
personal "X'' account,* the University of Florida ("University" or
"UF") expelled him from its law school, just a semester shy of his
expected graduation. Damsky sued on the ground that his
expulsion violated the First Amendment, and he sought a
preliminary injunction requiring the University to reinstate him. In
a thorough opinion, Judge Allen Winsor granted Damsky
preliminary injunctive relief, prohibiting the University from
"continuing to take adverse actions against" him and ordering him
returned to "normal standing" at the law school. Dist. Ct. Order,
Nov. 24, 2025, at 28.
Today, this Court stays Judge Winsor's order. I respectfully
dissent. The University hasn't shown a reasonable likelihood that
it will succeed in its effort to vacate or modify the injunction,
which, to my mind, correctly concludes that Damsky's posthowever
disgusting- enjoys constitutional protection. 

 

*Both the majority and the dissent explain that Twitter is now X.  I think everyone knows that now, just like we all know that opinions from the old 5th Circuit control per Bonner!

Magistrate Judge News

 Congratulations are in order for two good people -- first to Detra Shaw-Wilder on her investiture. 

And second to Yeney Hernandez, who the judges voted on at their judges' meeting today to be our newest magistrate judge.  

Have a great weekend and GO CANES!

Andy Adler wins in SCOTUS -- again

Congrats to AFPD Andy Adler for this 5-4 habeas victory in the Supreme Court, which held: Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion for postconviction relief, and Subsection 2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under Section 2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.

Adler convinced Roberts and Kavanaugh to join the 3 moderate Justices for the majority, which starts this way (per Sotomayor):

Congress has created a comprehensive scheme to address when and how state and federal prisoners can seek postconviction relief in federal courts.  A state prisoner can file an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. §2254. A federal prisoner, by contrast, can file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence under §2255.  Each provision contains its own procedural and substantive requirements that an individual must satisfy. This case concerns the more complicated situation when a prisoner returns to federal court after a prior attempt for relief has failed. In this situation, Congress has enlisted the courts of appeals to play a gatekeeping role in the consideration of second or successive filings brought by federal and state prisoners. Under this system, before a prisoner can bring such a filing in a district court, a court of appeals must certify that the filing meets certain threshold conditions. Section 2244 governs authorization requests made by state prisoners, and §2255(h), in turn, governs requests made by federal prisoners. The two have distinct requirements, but through a limited cross-reference in §2255(h) to §2244 for how a filing is “certified” by a “panel,” Congress has borrowed certain of the procedures that apply to state prisoners and applies them to federal prisoners too. This case presents two questions regarding which aspects of §2244 fall within the scope of §2255(h)’s cross-reference. The first is whether §2244(b)(3)(E), which prohibits the “denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application” from being the “subject of a petition for . . . a writ of certiorari,” bars this Court’s review of authorization decisions concerning the motions of federal prisoners. If it does, this Court would lack jurisdiction to hear this case. The Court holds that it does not.  In the narrow cross-reference to the procedures in §2244, Congress has not clearly indicated that it intended to incorporate §2244(b)(3)(E)’s certiorari bar. The second question is whether §2244(b)(1), which directs courts to dismiss a claim “presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application,” applies to motions filed by federal prisoners. It does not: Section 2244(b)(1), by its express terms, applies only to state prisoners’ habeas applications under §2254, not to federal prisoners’ motions under §2255. 

Should 92 year old Judge Hellerstein preside over the Maduro case?

 Jeffrey Toobin says no here:

There is no simple procedural mechanism for lawyers, or the public, to challenge the fitness of judges. A culture of deference — and the fear, especially among active lawyers, of courting retribution — limits most inquiries into the abilities of aging judges. The parties can ask a judge to recuse himself for bias, but that is not the issue here. What tends to happen, rather, is that peers tend to step in informally and gently encourage a judicial colleague to step aside. The chief judge of the Southern District of New York, Laura Taylor Swain, should make such an overture to Judge Hellerstein if he does not himself recognize the need to face reality.

We've had the issue come up in our District three times that I can think of... I wonder how they will handle it in NY. 

"Justice For Venezuela at Last"

 That's the title of this WSJ op-ed by our very own Judge Roy Altman.  It starts this way:

My family in Caracas awoke to loud explosions on Saturday morning. They came to learn, at daybreak, that the country’s repressive dictator, Nicolas Maduro, had been seized in a daring raid by American commandos. “God willing,” my cousin whispered into a phone, still afraid of who might be listening, “this is the end of our decades-long nightmare.” 

That’s a hope my family shares with the millions of Venezuelans who have been exiled over the past two decades.

I’m only the second Venezuelan-born federal judge in U.S. history. A few years ago, at the end of an emotional and lengthy federal-murder trial, I went to thank the jurors for their weekslong service to our country. When I entered the jury room, I found the foreman, a man in his mid-40s, fighting back tears. He explained that he had read about my own family’s journey from Caracas to South Florida, that he too had fled Venezuela with his family and that he only wished his grandfather—a lawyer who had been forced to escape the Maduro regime—could have lived long enough to witness what our jurors had seen: an important federal trial in America, presided over by a free Venezuelan-American judge and a free Venezuelan-American foreman.

“One day,” I promised as I embraced him, “you’ll live to see a free Venezuelan justice system too.”