Bolton Legal Review

I keep coming back to this. It’s one thing as a gov lawyer to put your name to a brief seeking to do something lawless and un-American. It’s quite another for the brief also to be an enormous piece of shit.

That’s what’s wrong with America. Nobody take pride in evil any more.

— FinlandOrMaybeRussiaHat (@Popehat) June 18, 2020

I would resign my job and give up my law license before signing this brief. https://t.co/GDKfiHVdcM

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) June 18, 2020

Legal writing tip. When you seek a nationwide TRO on behalf of the U.S. govt to stop a publisher & bookstores from selling a book that's critical of the President, the first words of your argument shouldn't be: "The basis for preliminary relief in this matter is straightforward."

— Deepak Gupta (@deepakguptalaw) June 18, 2020

It's always a sign of a well-written filing when you misspell the name of your own Director of National Intelligence...repeatedly.

"John L. Ratcliff, the Director of National Intelligence"

It's "Ratcliffe" https://t.co/U9jmOePXFG

— Joshua A. Geltzer (@jgeltzer) June 18, 2020

As @happygolawky points out, this is the same Justice Department that has spent three years arguing *against* “nationwide” injunctions largely on the ground that federal courts lack the power to issue injunctions that affect non-parties.

Now that they’re the plaintiff, though... https://t.co/fQF6QwisZy

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 18, 2020

Put another way: they would lose if they sued S&S directly. See Pentagon Papers. The only way the case law supports them is under contract law/Snepp, which only binds Bolton and anyone else that can be swept in under R65(d)(2)

— Renée Burbank (@ReneeABurbank) June 18, 2020

They also are saying booksellers should be bound. They might as well also argue that Rule 65 binds all people who have heard about the book excerpt on TV tonight. Pretty crazy.

— HarrySandick (@HarrySandick) June 18, 2020