Cristian Farias

@cristianfarias

Legal journalist and beachgoer. I write and talk about courts, the law, and the politics shaping them in a number of places. Working on a new thing. Signal: cristianfarias.33

639 Folgt20.063 Follower3.804 Posts

Website Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir cristianfarias.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· 24d

Imagine finding yourself in the unenviable position of writing this inherently self-contradictory hogwash—under which no firearm, no matter how deadly, can ever be banned so long as it’s really popular! Better path is to dissent in protest at your betters’ shoddy work.

Screenshot from ruling, which reads in part:

Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation. That is so even when the regulations are passed with the intention of reducing gun violence.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· 26d

Slightly off-camera: The quads.

Cristian shooting a vertical video in downtown Manhattan. He’s wearing 5-inch shorts.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· 28d

Your post reminded me of

Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein share an embrace at the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· 29d

Too blessed to be stressed.

A Gmail home screen icon with 150,000 unread emails.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 12

I don’t remember if Lindsey Graham or Brett Kavanaugh melted down first, but their back-to-back, angry outbursts are part of the reason Donald Trump didn’t pull the nomination after Christine Blasey Ford came forward.

An angry Lindsey Graham during the Senate confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh.

An angry Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 8

Better a little bit of beach than no beach.

Cristian at the beach. He’s holding a towel and wearing a blue baseball cap, a navy tank top, light 5-inch shorts, white socks, and suede Birkenstock clogs.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 8

One of these is not like the other.

Two book jackets side by side:

The Second Founding, by Eric Foner; and The Second Founding, by Ilan Wurman.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 8

Hard to believe I wrote this six years ago, in the middle of a pandemic, right before the Supreme Court beheaded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. How far have we fallen. nymag.com/intelligence...

Screenshot from New York Magazine article, which reads:

And yet, in a broader sense, the prospect of a president politicizing crises and agency decision-making is not at all academic. The future of the CFPB matters because expertise and policy solutions without political interference have always mattered. As if to inject an added dose of reality to the proceedings, Clement during his argument raised the specter of a president intent on politicizing a public-health emergency, and the dire consequences that would flow from that. “In the current situation, you see people are trying to make a political football out of dealing with a pandemic disease,” Clement said in a not-so-veiled reference to the government’s fumbled response to the coronavirus. “So maybe Congress decides: You know what makes sense? Let’s have the head of CDC be protected by for-cause removal because that’ll make sure people get good advice and it doesn’t become political.” Such legal protections simply don’t exist at the moment, which means Trump could handily, and constitutionally, act on the recent calls to #FireFauci that have emerged on the right. Similarly, at least one health expert who was removed from his post after resisting Trump’s unproven pharmaceutical fixations has already raised alarms. Doctors like him deserve protections too. Kavanaugh and other conservative legal activists may think congressional limits on the president’s removal authority, even in the realm of public health, are bad for the presidency overall. But what’s bad for the presidency may be precisely what the nation needs right now.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 8

Landmine sumo squat hold. (About 20 seconds.)

Cristian holding a 135lb barbell in between his legs splayed wide. He’s making a face.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 7

This was a choice.

An entry featuring images of pregnant Katie Miller, Usha Vance, and Karoline Leavitt, with the subheadline and text:

Pregnant Women in the Trump
Sphere

It's a potent image for an administration that has made clear its position that women should be having more children. These three women - Usha Vance, Katie Miller and Karoline Leavitt — create a portrait of idealized femininity, the counterpart to the masculine bravado put forth by the men of White House.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 2

And so it begins. open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

A Substack post by Jack Goldsmith, titled:

The Powerful, Resilient, Independent Supreme Court

The vindication of its authority is remarkable

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jul 2

The Supreme Court asked the Trump Justice Department to weigh in on this case, which an incarcerated transgender woman won at a preliminary stage in the lower court. What could possibly go wrong. www.scotusblog.com/cases/roybal...

A SCOTUSblog case screenshot, which reads:

Roybal v. Griffith
PENDING PETITION
DOCKET NO.
25-442
OP. BELOW
10th Cir.
Issue
(1) Whether a transgender inmate's challenge to sex-based prison policies is subject to heightened scrutiny under United States v.
Virginia, or subject to the deferential standard of "reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests" under Turner v. Safley; and (2) whether a rule prohibiting cross-identified-gender strip searches in prisons is contrary to the flexible and deferential rule adopted in Bell v. Wolfish and reaffirmed in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 25

The Supreme Court of the United States has concluded, as a matter of law, that Donald Trump and his administration's racism and vitriol toward Haitians—in its termination of TPS—is not "overtly racial." Justice Kagan, in dissent, calls them out: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Screenshot of court opinion, which reads, in part:

Haitians are “eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats.
They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that
live [in Springfield, Ohio].” 2 App. 802; see id., at 644. And:
Haitians are also eating “other things too that they’re not
supposed to be.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitians in the
United States “probably have AIDS.” Id., at 698. And:
Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, [and]
disgusting.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitian immigration is
“like a death wish for our country.” Id., at 698. And: Haitians, along with some others, are “poisoning the blood” of
our country. Id., at 698. And: “Why is it we only take people
from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why
cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?”
Id., at 699. The majority briefly replies that those remarks
are not “overtly racial,” ante, at 21, but it is hard to know
what that means. Haitians are Black. (Norwegians and
Swedes not so much.) The references—of filth, disease, and
primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes
and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being
made today of any White community. No very “sensitive
inquiry,” of the kind Arlington Heights compels, is needed
to see them for what they are, 429 U. S., at 266; judges, as
we often say, are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from
which ordinary citizens are free,” Department of Commerce,
588 U. S., at 785. The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into
the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 25

I didn’t think I’d be keeping up with the Supreme Court from a room overlooking the beach, but here we are.

Cristian in beachwear taking a mirror selfie in a hotel room, leaning against a bed.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 22

Had a great Father’s Day. I went for an early-morning swim, was not smoked by some teen in the swim team. Concerningly, the kids gifted me my first-ever pair of Birkenstocks. Plus, of course, a handmade coaster. The killer tan got tanner. I mostly succeeded at not thinking about the Supreme Court.

A handmade coaster with a kid drawing of a dad and his kid with the inscription. “I ❤️ dad.” The dad looks tan and looks just like Cristian, except for the stick arms and legs, and is wearing a blue shirt with green shorts. The kid has long hair is wearing a pink dress. The kid says, “I ❤️ you,” to which the dad responds, “Thank you!”

Cristian lounging on a lawn chair, looking tan and content. He won’t be frame-mogged.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 18

Only one of these people does not have a collar gap. Listen to him. www.nytimes.com/video/opinio...

A screenshot showing Cristian sitting behinda desk with a bookshelf behind him. He’s wearing a light blue blazer, a lighter blue shirt, and a white pocket square with a purple trim. The words “Cristian Farias, legal journalist” appear on screen.

A screenshot showing John looking down while speaking. He’s wearing a dark suit, a white shirt, and a patterned red tie. The words “John Roberts, chief justice of the United States” appear on screen.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 17

Some impostor took my handle, so I had to get creative. Lord, please help me.

A TikTok QR code for Cristian, who can be found @cristian..farias

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 11

The Constitution is safe for another week. In the interim: I love Elena Kagan for this bit of candor. It is not often that justices explain their differences of opinion with those they agree with, much less in dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Screenshot of dissenting opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, which reads:

My views about the proper use of legislative history in statutory interpretation fall someplace in between the majority's and the principal dissent's. The one-sentence version is: Reliance on legislative history may be appropriate when statutory text in context remains, after careful re-view, stubbornly ambiguous. I do not find Section 47(b) to exhibit such a lack of clarity. For the reasons JUSTICE JACKSON gives in Parts I and II of her dissenting opinion, the text, structure, and statutory history of Section 47(b) support recognition of a private right of action. I therefore gladly join those parts of JUSTICE JACKSON's dissent, while abstaining from the opinions' further debate about the meaning of the House and Senate Reports.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 6

Yup.

A Mexican breakfast in León, Guanajuato.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 6

So this is what turtle crossing signs are for.

Cristian stands on a bike path, surrounded by greenery and some electric power lines, and points to a turtle on the path. He’s in bike gear with a bike behind him.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 4

A friend sent along this Pride slop. I don’t know whether to laugh or weep.

An AI-created illustration of all nine Supreme Court justices in colorful, sequined dresses and party wear, smiling and surrounded by farm animals. A barn and a U.S. flag is seen in the background.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 3

The Roberts Court is a version of the same anti-Black Supreme Court that helped bring Reconstruction to a screeching halt. nymag.com/intelligence...

An excerpt from an article in NYMag:

The falsehood at the center of Callais has little to do with law. It's instead a narrative device — the familiar redemption story a historically anti-Black Supreme Court has told for generations: that the Reconstruction amendments, chief among them the 14th Amendment, are colorblind and don't tolerate any actions to remedy the effects of centuries of Black subjugation. This narrative arc, many thought, culminated in 2023 with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended the use of affirmative action in higher education. Yet that ruling rears its head early on in Callais to advance the idea that consciously remedying a history of racism is itself racist and that judges are empowered to police when the remedies go too far for their liking.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 3

For the first time in history, I think, six justices on the Supreme Court sign on to an idea that ours is a "colorblind Constitution." And it did so in explaining the meaning of Louisiana v. Callais, allowing the state of Alabama to eliminate a Black-majority congressional district. Dark stuff.

Excerpt from Supreme Court order, which reads, in part:

In Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U. S. ___ (2026), to resolve
the tension between vote-dilution claims under §2 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and our colorblind Constitution,
we updated the standards for §2 liability established by
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986).

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· Jun 2

How is this person 38?

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· May 31

Let me take you on a journey.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· May 24

The kids agree that I’m entitled to this parking spot, despite the textual ambiguity and their not-toddler size.

A parking sign that reads: “Customer With Child Parking,” which includes a picture of a shopping cart with a toddler sitting on it.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· May 16

I’ve been saying this.

A push notification with an image of a bodybuilder’s torso and well defined buttocks in black briefs, with the following text:

The Wall Street Journal

Is the Secret to Men's Longevity a Great Butt?

Famous and powerful men have discovered that the key to a long, healthy life may be rock-solid glutes.
now

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· May 15

Whoa: A federal judge blocked Texas from enforcing SB4, a Biden-era law that has been caught in litigation for a while and that is squarely preempted by federal law. TL;dr Texas can’t have its own immigration system and laws. This highlighted bit caught my eye: www.aclutx.org/app/uploads/...

Excerpt from ruling:

In the 250th year of our great nation, will we cease to engage with the rest of the world as the United States and instead be viewed as some form of confederation of independent states?

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· May 14

Excerpt from brief Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent:

In capital cases, we rarely intervene to preserve life. I cannot understand the Court's rush to extinguish it, much less in the circumstances of this case. With respect, I dissent.

Cristian Farias@cristianfarias· May 13

I can’t believe how smol and un-jacked the new He-Man is. Lundgren would easily bench press him. I … think I’m gonna skip it.