Comment on A Dead Heat

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Justice Department had improperly wielded a federal obstruction law in prosecuting hundreds of people for their roles in the January 6 attack on Congress. The court’s decision focused on the DOJ’s use of a statute—enacted in 2002 after the Enron accounting scandal—that prohibits obstructing a federal proceeding.

In one of the most highly anticipated decisions this term, the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old legal doctrine, so-called “Chevron deference,” under which judges had been expected to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of laws that are ambiguous. The ruling, split 6-3 along ideological lines, will have far-reaching consequences, experts say, and could impact all sorts of federal policies, from health care and taxes to climate change. The cases at the center of this decision—Relentless, Inc.

During the four years of the Trump presidency, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed more than 430 legal actions against the Republican administration. In preparation for the possibility of Trump winning a second term, the organization is gearing up again for a busy time, laying out potential legal and advocacy actions. The hope of publicly speaking about the plan, ACLU President Deborah Archer says, is to offer “a glimpse into the power potential and the ability we have to fight back.” During Trump’s first term, several of the ACLU’s lawsuits opposed his immigration agenda—such as family separation and the travel ban on foreigners from Muslim-majority countries—with varying degrees of success.

While they may have punted yesterday, today’s rulings will help rein in the deep state, free unjustly imprisoned J6ers, and civilize America’s cities.

They tipped their hand with a fair debate and revealed their hand with the post-debate analysis.

Why was he articulate one moment, and speaking gibberish the next?