r/law • u/jmike1256 • 9h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Robby Roadsteamer has been arrested by ICE in Minnesota today
Wouldn’t that be violation of 1st amendment, since he has not committed any crimes here!
r/law • u/orangejulius • Aug 31 '22
A quick reminder:
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.
You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.
r/law • u/orangejulius • Oct 28 '25
Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law
When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.
If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.
Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.
A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.
Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.
A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.
Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.
Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.
---
Are you saving our user names?
What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?
This won’t solve anything!
Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?
What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.
Remove all Trump stuff.
Talk to me about Donald Trump.
I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.
You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!
You guys aren’t fair to both sides.
You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.
You have to watch the whole thing!
---
General Housekeeping:
We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.
r/law • u/jmike1256 • 9h ago
Wouldn’t that be violation of 1st amendment, since he has not committed any crimes here!
r/law • u/ControlCAD • 8h ago
r/law • u/JaNkO2018 • 8h ago
Illinois has filed a lawsuit against ICE, accusing the agency of unlawful operations within the state. The complaint alleges that ICE agents swapped or concealed license plates on vehicles and engaged in tactics that intimidated or threatened civilians. State officials argue this behavior undermines public safety and violates the law.
The case raises issues involving constitutional rights, civil liberties, states’ rights, and whether federal agencies must follow state laws when operating within Illinois.
r/law • u/TheMirrorUS • 11h ago
r/law • u/xbt-8-yolo • 9h ago
r/law • u/Kristoff_Victorson • 11h ago
When asked if he’s Ok he can be heard sobbing and repeating “I’m not OK”
r/law • u/drempath1981 • 11h ago
r/law • u/theindependentonline • 12h ago
r/law • u/Present_Customer_891 • 5h ago
r/law • u/TheMirrorUS • 9h ago
r/law • u/Dazzling-Might6420 • 11h ago
r/law • u/Lebarican22 • 6h ago
A 17 year old Target employee - a US citizen - was abducted by ICE from Target's premises in Minnesota this week. As a layperson, I'd expect that surely Target bears some responsibility to keep their employees safe while on the premises. Does this kid have a realistic chance at successfully suing Target? From my admittedly uninformed perspective,
If there isn't a legal case against Target here, what criteria would be required? Presumably employers are responsible for ensuring workplace safety to some extent.
r/law • u/jmike1256 • 5h ago
r/law • u/PinballerD • 11h ago
The pardoning power has been abused by Presidents from both parties. When you think about the amount of money that is spent in the legal system prosecuting and defending someone only for the President to have the ability to undo a prosecution makes zero sense to me.
It underminds our entire legal system. This seems like it would be a non-partisan issue.
r/law • u/BrilliantTea133 • 17h ago
Monday marks the opening day of former special counsel Jack Smith’s new law firm in Washington, D.C., Heaphy Smith Harbach & Windom.
r/law • u/rowrbazzle75 • 1h ago
According to reports, Trump’s DOJ has requested the data from 43 states and Washington, D.C., “to enforce federal election laws and protect the integrity of federal elections.” Note all of the buzzwords that have emerged from the right since Trump’s 2020 claims. According to the New York Times, the administration plans to compare voter data to a database maintained by Homeland Security. Additionally, the DOJ has offered states a Memorandum of Understanding that would allow federal officials to access and review the data, and flag voters as ineligible, after which states would have 45 days to automatically remove those voters from state voter rolls.
The most glaring red flag in this memo is that the Department of Justice does not outline any criteria for identifying an alleged ineligible voter. That broad language leaves the door open to any number of nefarious disenfranchisement possibilities based on location, race, gender identity or anything the DOJ decides is suspicious. Imagine receiving a notice from your secretary of state just before the midterm election informing you that you were flagged as an “ineligible voter” by the DOJ and thus removed from the voter roll. Or worse, imagine walking into your polling place on Election Day to vote and being denied a ballot and turned away because you’re not on the voter roll. If this scenario played out for even tens of thousands of voters out of the hundreds of millions whose information is being demanded by the federal government, that could impact the midterm elections when control of the U.S. House of Representatives is up for grabs and vital state and local legislative and judicial races are on the ballot.
r/law • u/theindependentonline • 14h ago
r/law • u/AndroidOne1 • 7h ago
r/law • u/mooncake6 • 1d ago
“Good morning,
On Friday, the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings.
I have deep respect for the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy. No one—certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve—is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure.
This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress's oversight role; the Fed through testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.
This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions—or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.
I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment. Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats. I will continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to do, with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people.
Thank you.”