Matt Cameron

@mattcameron

Fighting ICE since 2006, cohosting @openargs.bsky.social since 2024, playing your piano since 1987. Read my journal at

1.486 Folgt17.020 Follower3.304 Posts

Bluesky

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

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· 9d

hey @cnn.com there has got to be a way to report these stories about Trump being mad about charging decisions of individual US attorneys without normalizing the idea that the president personally supervises charging decisions of individual US attorneys, I know we can do this

CNN: The other source, a senior administration official, said Trump was “blindsided” by the court filing from Pirro, a longtime ally. “The president did not know beforehand that she was going to do that.”

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· 9d

to emphasize the point above: the "settlement agreement" REQUIRES the government to set the fund up, so if the 11th reverses Judge Williams (unlikely but certainly possible) & reinstates Attorney General Todd Blanche will say that he has no choice but to set it up again

COMPOSITION AND OPERATION OF THE ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND
A. An accompanying order of the Attorney General, issued within 30 days of the Effective
Date, shall establish funding and any other relevant requirements, rules, conditions, terms,
and waivers, which shall be treated as incorporated herein. The Attorney General may also
change the formal name of The Anti-Weaponization Fund by order. The corpus of The
Anti-Weaponization Fund's funding does not represent the value of any current claim by
Plaintiffs, but rather is based on the projected valuation of future claimants' claims, and
accordingly the corpus of The Anti-Weaponization Fund's funding is not taxable income
as to Plaintiffs, who receive no economic benefit from this Settlement Agreement.
B. The Anti-Weaponization Fund shall consist of five Members. Within 30 days of the
Effective Date, the Attorney General shall issue an order appointing the Members,
including the Chair of The Anti-Weaponization Fund, with such order being treated as
incorporated herein. One of the Members shall be chosen in consultation with
congressional leadership. The Members shall serve until The Anti-Weaponization Fund is
concluded as described below, unless they resign or are removed by the President, who can
remove any Member without cause. Any replacement shall be made by the same method
as the initial appointment. A quorum is three Members. A majority of a quorum is
authorized to take action.
C. Consistent with this Settlement Agreement, The Anti-Weaponization Fund shall have the
power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting
or denying claims. See In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig ''Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico. on April 20, 2010, No. 2:10-md-02179, ECF No. 1098 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2011).
The Anti-Weaponization Fund may make those procedures public in whole o

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· 9d

also just fyi one of Trump's arguments in that appeal (as argued Friday in this stay request) is that it is an unconstitutional restriction on his speech for a federal judge to say that the "settlement agreement" was illegal and prevent the parties from relying upon it

C. The Speech Injunction Is Overbroad, Is an Unconstitutional Prior Restraint,and Exceeds Any Sanctions AuthorityIn addition, Rule 11 and inherent authority cannot support an order forbidding thePresident, private Plaintiffs, federal agencies, and sweeping categories of associated persons from“referring to” the Settlement Agreement or invoking it in any future judicial, administrative,regulatory, arbitral, or other official proceeding. D.E.106 at 47. That unprecedented injunctionregulates future speech and advocacy, is unconstitutional, and is patently unlawful.The Sanctions Order’s command is a content-based prior restraint. It singles out onesubject—the Settlement Agreement—and suppresses one message, i.e., that the SettlementAgreement exists and may carry legal effect.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· 22d

I knew that Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry was so good at rigging districts that he inspired a Boston newspaper's description of the "gerrymander"--but TIL that this man *signed the Declaration of Independence.* Choosing your own voters is a founding principle of the United States

a contemporary map of the "Gerry-mander, a new species of Monster, which appeared in Essex South District in January last," with a political cartoon of the map on the left and map on the right

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· 22d

You'll never believe this but these are not in fact the three components of an FTO designation

Actual definition of an FTO from a relevant congressional report, with the third component being threats to US nationals or interests

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jul 14

ICE shot Joan Sebastian Guerrero in the head in front of his 3-yr-old daughter in his car today and didn't even try to pretend that the agent was acting out of concern for his own safety the way they usually do. No, he did it "out of concern for *public* safety." This seems very bad.

CNN headline: ICE officer "fearing for public safety" shot fleeing man, DHS says after hours of silence...

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jul 13

Thanks to Dunks for reminding us that abolition is the moderate position

Sign on a Dunkin' Donuts door stating "We Have Bagged ICE"

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jul 2

"Clowns have generally tried to avoid killing children. John Wayne Gacy has chosen a different path."

Nyt headline

Does Trump Worry About Conflicts of Interest? 'I found out that nobody cared.'

American presidents have generally tried to avoid appearing to profit from the office. President Trump has chosen a different path.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

yeah that's just wrong. The votes for the outcome are all that actually matter, he's just saying that the EO was only a statutory violation rather than a Constitutional one

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

Kavanaugh is openly inviting Congress to end birthright citizenship--something which he has just said that he does not believe is a Constitutional right--by legislation, and making it clear that if he is still around he'll uphold it. If they do, I would expect him to be with a majority which does.

For those reasons, to reiterate, the Executive Order does
not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does
contravene 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Consistent with the
Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or
otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to
birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens
unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has
not yet done so.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

THIS IS IMPORTANT. N.B.: Kav is not splitting hairs or drawing some kind of academic distinction here. He is saying clearly that he sees no Constitutional right to BC, so in theory no problem with an EO overruling it. He just doesn't believe that Trump can overrule Congress's enabling statute.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

Seeing some confusion on this point, so tbc: 1) birthright citizenship came down 6-3 2) Kavanaugh joined the outcome but dissented (not concurred) as to why 3) It is based in the only argument in this whole challenge which has ever concerned me

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

also why, just why. why are you making me read 194 pages about something that any third grader can immediately understand

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

SCOTUS deserves zero credit and no gold stars for declining to allow Trump to destroy one of our most clearly-stated Constitutional rights via executive order. But the fact that there were a total of 4 dissenting opinions (if only 3 votes) is deeply concerning. This issue will be back.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the
judgment and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion,
in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting
opinions.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

turns out that's a yes. Why did this need 31 pages

Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—
to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to
“every free-born person in this land.” Cong. Globe, 39th
Cong., 1st Sess., at 600 (Sen. Trumbull). We keep that
promise today.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

Kavanaugh is up next with NRSC v FEC, a major campaign finance decision which ends the restrictions on a political party's coordinated expenditures with candidates. He closes by noting that "the Court's decision today treats [all dark money] equally"

Court’s decision today treats all political parties equally. It
will allow all political parties—including the DNC and RNC
and the respective Senate and House campaign
committees, as well as other parties and party
committees—to participate more freely and compete more
fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely
with their candidates. Whether the Democratic party, the
Republican party, or other parties, all political parties and
candidates going forward can compete equally under the
same rules regarding coordinated expenditures and can
structure their fundraising, spending, and political speech
on a level playing field as they see fit within the law.
We reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

to her full credit, this case is the fourth time that Sotomayor has read her dissent from the bench. Per usual for her, it starts by telling the story of the person whose case is before them and what being able to participate in track and cross-country meant to them

The District Court granted a preliminary injunction barring the State from enforcing the ban against B. P. J., concluding that B. P. J. had shown that the ban was likely “unconstitutional as it applie[d] to her and that it violate[d]
Title IX.” 1 App. 439. The State did not appeal. B. P. J.
thus began participating on her school’s girls’ track and
cross-country teams.
B. P. J.’s mother reports that B. P. J. “has had the time of
her life participating on these teams.” 10 id., at 4406. She
has watched B. P. J. make close friends and gain a sense of
belonging. Her mother recalls taking B. P. J. to practice after hours and on weekends, and often witnessing B. P. J.
practicing her form in the backyard “by herself, for hours.”
Id., at 4407. Above all, her mother explains that B. P. J. “is
the happiest I have ever seen her when she is accepted for
who she is and able to participate in school sports.” Id., at
4408. In B. P. J.’s words, “[s]ports are an important part of
[her] experience at school,” she is “so happy to . . . have the
chance to participate,” she has “made so many new friends,”
and she “just want[s] to have the opportunity to [play]
school sports like any other girl.” 2 id., at 581.
Meanwhile, B. P. J.’s case proceeded to discovery. Because of the medical treatment that B. P. J. has received,
she has never experienced a traditional male puberty and
so has never experienced elevated levels of circulating testosterone. B. P. J. contends that, as a result, she does not
have an inherent athletic advantage due to her sex identified at birth and, accordingly, that her participation in girls’
sports does not threaten competitive fairness or safety,

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

as dismally expected, SCOTUS has signed off on discrimination against trans student athletes based on the court's own recent willful misinterpretation of "on the basis of sex" in Skrmetti--a case which fwiw I have to believe will go down as the Plessy v Ferguson of our times. Protect trans kids.

Third, the plaintiffs also argue that the States’ laws
unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender
individuals—specifically, biological males who identify as
female.
That argument, too, is unavailing. To begin, under this
Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the laws do not classify based
on gender identity or transgender status. 605 U. S., at 517.
The laws classify on the basis of biological sex. By contrast,
if a school had a co-ed sports team but prohibited all
transgender individuals from participating on the team,
that would be a distinct transgender classification and,
unlike today’s cases, would presumably not be analyzed and
justified as a classification based on biological sex.
That said, even if the laws made a transgender or genderidentity classification, this Court “has not previously held”
that intermediate or other heightened scrutiny applies to a
transgender or gender-identity classification. Ibid.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

in just a few moments we will be receiving the definitive answer to the most complex legal question of our times: Does "all persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States" mean that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States?

text of the 14th Amendment, with "all persons born or naturalized... are citizens of the United States" highlighted

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

Sabriel is black bloc 24/7, we're in trouble

Shitty blackberry camera photo of a black cat named Sabriel

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 30

after re-reading the Prairieland indictment I should probably disclose that I am a member of an "Antifa Cell" (Signal group chat w/disappearing messages) practicing "need-to-know" (not posting on petsitter dot com) "opsec" (coordinating with local catsitters before going out of town)

From the second superseding Prairieland indictment: "To hide their involvement in illegal conduct, the Antifa Cell emphasized and practiced "operational security" or "opsec" in their communications. For example, members used an encrypted messaging app to coordinate with each other. This app allowed for group chats and had auto-delete and delete-after-a-defined-time functions, which caused communications among the Antifa Cell to be permanently deleted."

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

When I say that today's decision in Slaughter comes directly from Project 2025, I mean that P2025 literally demanded that the administration take the position that Humphrey's Executor was wrongly decided and should be revisited "sooner than later." static.heritage.org/project2025/...

P2025: "One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Executor"

Project 2025: The Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey's Executor upholding agency independence seems ripe for revisiting--and perhaps sooner than later

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

They're not wrong that the Federal Reserve is a unique agency, but this logic should have held in Slaughter too. They just know without needing to be told that what's left of US credibility as a global economic power is cooked if we no longer have an independent apolitical central banking system

Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not
the courts. That is why we cannot accept the Government’s
contentions in this case. To do so would allow the President
to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for
any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after. That would turn for-cause protection into
little more than at-will employment.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

The companion case in Cook OTOH is about the President's same power to reserve one of the governors of the Federal Reserve. As predicted, SCOTUS is reticent to get involved--presumably per the well-known American legal precept that You Don't Fuck With the Money

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

Finally, the two related cases of Slaughter and Cook--probably the two most important and least understood decisions of the term, coming down exactly as expected. As specifically requested by Project 2025, "Humphrey's Executor" is out and independent executive agencies are a thing of the past

"If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it"

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

Alito when Jackson orders an extra large plate of grande nachos for the table

From Alito's Chatrie dissent: "I cannot support this irresponsible escapade"

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

Chatrie v. US was the term's biggest 4th Amendment decision, re: "geofencing" warrants. Immediate relief to see it's a Kagan joint. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location info! (I mean, *I* already knew that personally but good stuff from the court here)

Today, we consider how the Fourth Amendment applies
to that use of a geofence warrant. Answering that question
in full would mean deciding whether the police conducted a
Fourth Amendment “search” when they acquired the cellphone data leading to Chatrie’s arrest and, if so, whether
that search was reasonable given the features of the warrant they employed. We decide the first part of that inquiry
today, concluding that the police conducted a search when
they gained access to Location History data. An individual
has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his
cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a
third-party tech company. We leave to the Court of Appeals
the further question whether, given the warrant issued, the
search here was reasonable, meaning that each of its steps
was properly described with particularity and found to be
supported by probable cause

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

also some minor good news on the order list: court declines to take Alan Dershowitz's libel suit against Fox, but Thomas uses the chance to take the Trump position on the NYT v. Sullivan standard

thomas dissent in SCOTUS order denying cert to Alan Dershowitz in which he argues that "actual malice" standard for defamation should be reversed

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 29

last day of SCOTUS season starts off with a good one: 5-4 in Watson v RNC that federal law does not pre-empt how Mississippi counts mail-in ballot received after election day

Watson v RNC: JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court.
Three federal statutes set the day for the election of Representatives, Senators, and the President. A Mississippi
law permits the counting of absentee ballots postmarked by
election day but received up to five days later. We must
decide whether the federal election-day statutes preempt
Mississippi’s law. They do not.

Matt Cameron@mattcameron· Jun 26

I *do* actually believe that a credible story of Trump directing the coverup of a break-in carried out with the intent to plant surveillance bugs in the DNC ahead of his re-election would be in the news for awhile, but also do you even hear yourself anymore man www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...