Sarah Isgur

Pre-order my book! "A myth-busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court." Fun for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, including John Jay's head injury, why the end of the filibuster is bad for the judiciary, and who is watching Slow Horses. penguinrandomhouse.com/books/776620/l…

He’s back, baby!!!

I feel like I’ve let you all down by not covering this cat, I mean case, on the pod.

@LawfulPessimist Nope. They can impeach or legislate.

@whignewtons Can congressional legislators sue to stop it for usurping appropriations powers?

Why the J6 officers don’t have standing to stop Trump’s unlawful slush fund: Bob assaults Dan. Dan receives threats from Bob supporters. Bob is later injured by Tom. Tom agrees to pay Bob. Dan cannot sue bc Dan is not injured by Tom giving Bob money.

@mimodow93 @JakeJowita Not a stupid question at all but we’ve decided members of Congress do not have an individual LEGAL injury when one branch is ignoring them. It’s a POLITICAL injury, which they have tools for—impeach or cut off funding.

@JakeJowita @whignewtons Does that imply that, if Dems were to win both the House and the Senate in november, they may have standing to sue? Genuinely asking, because this seems to say individual members or one house cannot assert it, no?

The cleanest lawsuit is someone who applies to the fund and is rejected. They can seek injunctive/prospective relief and then nuke it with the APA.

The injury is caused by the people making the threats. Their reason for making the threats may be the fund. But the fund isn’t causing the threats.

Yup.

Me at the start of every fantasy football season

@jbarro Well, yes, this is a problem. If the commission rejects a claim, you'd have standing to sue for prospective relief to prevent any money from being handed out. But if they sit on your claim, how long do you have to wait for it to be ripe?

@whignewtons If this is illegal, who has standing to sue to stop it?

The $1.776 billion taken out of the general fund raises A LOT of legal questions. Listen to tomorrow's Advisory Opinions podcast for a full rundown but here's a thread to get us started...

END: What Obama did was BAD. It's why third party settlements and sue and settle should be barred by law. But this is WORSE. It functionally ends any check from Congress on the president through the appropriations process. God help us handing this power to the next POTUS...

This started the precedent that Presidents could withdraw money from the general fund before they knew how much they needed for the settlement and leftover money created a second slush fund to be used for ANYTHING. This is a direct violation of the power of the purse.