Mike Sacks

@mikesacks

Senior Advisor @courtacctability.bsky.social. Democracy advocate. Former political-legal journalist. Retired competitive air guitarist. Former Congressional Candidate. Second-Best dad ever.

1248 Siguiendo26.063 Seguidores4642 Publicaciones

YouTube YouTube YouTube YouTube Website Bluesky

lesbian

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y mikesacks.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· 28d

After appearing to slam the door shut on any challenges before going through the administrative complaint process, CADC says in a FN that maybe it’ll perhaps open the door a crack but maybe not who knows!

We decline to adopt a general "irreparable harm" exception by which parties can evade jurisdictional channeling provisions. When Congress channels claims to a particular forum, it imposes the constraints of that forum on the channeled claims. AFGE v. Sec'y of Air Force, 716 F.3d 633, 638-39 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Here, Congress has channeled claims against the Postal Service to the Commission and allowed the Commission up to 90 days to adjudicate those claims. 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a)-(b). An irreparable harm exception would undermine Congress's creation of the exclusive review scheme and the remedial limitations that accompany it. Cf. Patten, 9 F.4th at 928 ("Allowing challengers to proceed through a more general statute is particularly inappropriate when doing so would eviscerate specific requirements of the narrower scheme."). Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that many statutory review schemes "require parties to wait before [obtaining appellate review], even when doing so subjects them to significant burdens." Axon, 143 S. Ct. at 904 (cleaned up).
With a few exceptions, such burdens do not permit parties to circumvent review schemes established by Congress.

Because the government challenges the district court's 2022 grant of summary judgment, we need not address whether the statutory review scheme would have foreclosed all meaningful judicial review at the preliminary injunction stage, when the States sought to halt the Postal Policy Changes only months before the November 2020 general election. Cf. Axon, 143 S. Ct. at 903-04 (recognizing that a statutory review scheme may not provide meaningful judicial review of certain "here-and-now" injuries that are "impossible to remedy" if judicial review is deferred).

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· 28d

CADC says district court had no jurisdiction to block Trump’s attempt to mess with the USPS’s ability to process mail-in ballots in advance of the 2020 Election. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...

Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WILKINS and RAO,
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO.
RAO, Circuit Judge: In 2020, the United States Postal Service made changes to the collection, processing, and delivery of the mail. Several states and municipalities sued in district court, arguing in part that the postal changes would affect voting by mail in the November 2020 election. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against the postal changes and later granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on one of their claims.
We conclude the district court had no jurisdiction over that claim. Congress created a review scheme that channels certain complaints about Postal Service policies first to the Postal Regulatory Commission, with subsequent review in this court.
This statutory review scheme displaced the district court's jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim. See Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994). We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

In the summer of 2020, the Postal Service implemented a set of operational changes that we refer to as the "Postal Policy Changes." The Postal Policy Changes included a reduction in the number of high-speed mail sorting machines, a decrease in employee overtime, the elimination of late or extra mail delivery trips, and a change in the sequence by which some mail carriers sort and deliver the mail. Federal law requires the Postal Service to seek an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission before making a "change in the nature of postal services" that will "generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis." 39 U.S.C.
§ 3661(b). The Postal Service did not request an advisory opinion from the Commission before making the Postal Policy Changes.
In the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Congress provided that complaints about certain Postal Service actions may be filed with the Commission, with review of Commission orders available exclusively in this court. Id.
S§ 3662-63.
The states of New York, New Jersey, and Hawaii, the city of New York, and the city and county of San Francisco (the
"States") opposed the Postal Policy Changes. Instead of making use of the Postal Commission review scheme, the States filed suit in district court. The States argued that the changes, implemented just months before the November 2020 general election, impeded their provision of public services and the ability of their residents to vote by mail. They raised three claims in their August 2020 complaint, including a claim that the Postal Service failed to request an advisory opinion from the Commission before making the Postal Policy Changes.

In September 2020, the district court held that the States were likely to succeed on the advisory opinion claim and granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Postal Policy Changes. The court rejected the government's argument that, under Thunder Basin, the Postal Commission review scheme precluded district court jurisdiction over the States' advisory opinion claim. In the district court's view, the review scheme provided a separate avenue for relief that did not displace the court's original jurisdiction over suits against the Postal Service. The court also emphasized that the review scheme would not provide the States with meaningful judicial review because the Commission may take up to 90 days to act on an administrative complaint, and the States needed immediate relief ahead of the November election. See 39
U.S.C. § 3662(b).
Two years later, the district court granted summary judgment for the States on the advisory opinion claim and for the government on the States' other claims. The court affirmed its previous holding that it had jurisdiction over the advisory opinion claim because the Postal Commission review scheme was merely supplemental and district court review was necessary for the States to obtain prompt relief from the Postal Policy Changes. Concluding that the States' advisory opinion claim succeeded on the merits, the district court permanently enjoined the Postal Service from implementing one of the Postal Policy Changes—the elimination of late or extra trips— without first requesting an advisory opinion from the Commission.

When Congress has channeled claims away from district courts, we must enforce that jurisdictional choice. Because of the Postal Commission review scheme, the district court had no jurisdiction over the States' advisory opinion claim.
Accordingly, we vacate the grant of summary judgment for the States and remand with instructions for the court to dismiss the advisory opinion claim.
So ordered.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jul 11

My sister ruled and still rules

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jul 9

Here’s the video: www.instagram.com/reel/DP2ZqBV...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jul 9

October 2025…

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jul 8

CA8 sends the Turtle Mountain case back to the district court to apply Callais. I imagine the district court will then say the plaintiffs lose. But then will the plaintiffs appeal back to CA8 and have that court again say VRA has no private right of action? storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

KBJ to Roberts: good on you today, but you're still a neoconfederate.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

KBJ, accord

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

Roberts has spent his entire career dedicated to the neoconfederate project of gutting the Reconstruction Amendments so I read this passage of his exalting the Reconstruction Congress with all the irony he fails to grasp.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

KBJ provides a useful, though non-exhaustive, hitlist of the cases we must overrule to fully vindicate the 14th Amendment's promise of an "anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation."

I suspect, though, that JUSTICE THOMAS and I disagree about when
and how that promise has been denied by this Court. My list is long (and
sadly only getting longer). For a sampling, consider: Civil Rights Cases,
109 U. S. 3 (1883); Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896); De Lima v.
Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1 (1901) (otherwise known as the Insular Cases);
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901) (same); Korematsu v. United
States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944); Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974);
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279 (1987); Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 701 (2007); Shelby
County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529 (2013); Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. 181 (2023)
(SFFA); Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U. S. ___ (2026).

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

KBJ smash

JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins
as to the introduction and Part I, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to
respond to some of the themes in the principal dissent. Despite his longstanding endorsement of a “colorblind” Constitution, JUSTICE THOMAS now surprisingly suggests that
the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial
measure, relating only to “freed slaves such as Dred Scott,”
post, at 56, and those who shared with them certain characteristics, post, at 1 (“no other homeland”); post, at 21
(“called America home”). It is for this reason, he says, that
“children who were born in the United States but [to parents] not domiciled here” are not entitled to claim birthright
citizenship. Post, at 3–4. But that narrow vision of the
Fourteenth Amendment bears little relationship to the history of its ratification. Even worse, JUSTICE THOMAS’s telling elides the entire point of the Second Founding: The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste,
antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot
treatment for the dark stain of slavery.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

Not even Alito would sign onto this unadulterated anti-trans Thomas bit

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 30

I'll count it www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, concurring in the judgment in part
and dissenting in part.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 29

Gorsuch's Slaughter concurrence is wild: 1) Unitary Executive rules! 2) But actually it doesn't. 3) Congress should take its power back! 4) But I don't think it will. 5) So SCOTUS should grab more power!

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 29

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 29

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 29

Called it www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and in
which KAVANAUGH, J., joined as to all but Parts II–C–2 and III.

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.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 25

I’ll count it www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, dissenting.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 25

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 25

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 24

Trump 2.0 judge issues 23-page advisory—er, sentencing—opinion backing recent Republican laws passed to challenge governing SCOTUS precedent they believe the Roberts majority will overrule storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
No. 4:25-cr-00103-JMD
ANTHONY A. MOORE,
Defendant.
SENTENCING OPINION
The Court issues this opinion to explain why, contrary to common belief, Supreme
Court precedent does not prohibit capital punishment for nonhomicide sexual offenses
against children. Instead, a person who commits sexual offenses against a child can obtain relief under the Eighth Amendment from capital punishment only if he can prove that "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for that] crime." Kennedy v. Louisiana,
554 U.S. 407, 434 (2008). The Supreme Court's factual finding that a national consensus
existed in 2008 against capital punishment for rape offenses involving children does not foreclose a court from finding, two decades later, that any national consensus is long gone and that those who harm children may now be executed.

It is not for this Court to say what the most appropriate charge is for a crime like the
one Moore has committed. The Constitution commits that decision to legislators and
prosecutors. Those actors chose not to press heavier charges here, which may reflect their
view that this offense, though severe, was not as egregious as other sexual offenses.
But to the extent prosecutors and legislators are declining to seek historically
authorized penalties like capital punishment because they think Kennedy categorically
prohibits those punishments, that view is mistaken. Kennedy said nothing about offenses
that involve child pornography. And for other offenses, Kennedy requires courts to make a factual determination about whether there is a national consensus today against the death
penalty for the crime at issue. The Supreme Court made that fact finding in 2008. But since
then, sexual offenses against children have exploded in frequency and harm, the concerns
the Supreme Court expressed about evidentiary issues and proportionality have dissipated,
and a groundswell of States in just the last three years have enacted legislation to impose
capital punishment on these offenders. Society can "evolve" in ways that take crime more
seriously and give children greater protection. A court need not reflexively conclude today
that the Constitution prohibits historically authorized penalties like capital punishment
against those who commit sexual offenses against children.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2026
oshua
JOSHUA M. DIVINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF MISSOURI

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

They just granted a case that seems ripe for their overruling Bivens...except the petition didn't ask them to do so and they didn't sua sponte present the question in the grant www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

KBJ calls for Congress to respond again to the Roberts majority's power grab, but recognizes that her colleagues may keep the bait-and-switch game going:

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and
JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

The Roberts majority sides with China's interests in one case and against Cuba's interests in another. The common factor in this communist split decision? Corporate interests win both. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p... www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

I'll count it www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join as to Parts I, II, III, and V, dissenting.

Mike Sacks@mikesacks· Jun 23

All of this. rabbijilljacobs.substack.com/p/on-aipac-a...