Anyone want to guess *where* Texas filed this lawsuit seeking nationwide relief against a new federal policy?

texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/…

Yeah, you didn’t need to guess. It’s in Amarillo (where it has a 100% chance of being assigned to Judge Kacsmaryk).

“Around the world – from Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza – violence experienced by pregnant civilians, women giving birth, nursing women, and women struggling to survive in the period after childbirth remains entirely at the sidelines of global political conversations.”

J. Michael Luttig sees two potential outcomes from Thursday’s Supreme Court arguments. Both are grim for our democracy.

From Greg Sargent: trib.al/7ZhUODw

Be safe out there washingtonpost.com/health/2024/04…

Time for rebuttal. Nothing more from Trump team.

Justice Jackson just referenced my colleague Marty Lederman. Georgetown Law

Justice Jackson: most of the allegations here, there is no plausible argument that the facts here suggest that these were official acts. Followed with taking the concern as real about future presidents being in fear of reprisal. But, wouldn't they care about future reputation?

DOJ: Petitioner had put all of his eggs in the absolute immunity basket.

Justice Jackson suggesting that Trump's legal team is creeping in arguments not made in the lower courts.

Jackson: Why isn't it enough for purposes of this case to just answer the question put forth by the petitioner?

Justice Jackson: what is being avoided is the question whether a former president can be held liable for committing a crime. Can the president be held criminally liable for committing crimes? Or is a president immune from committing crimes?

Justices seem to know that the facts in this case do not hold well for Donald Trump. Conservative Justices seem to be pursuing the notion that if the immunity defense fails, future former presidents would be subjected to the possibility of criminal prosecution from opponents.

Barrett: Isn't public authority defense something that involves a look into motives as Justice Gorsuch suggested? DOJ: No, it relates to objective facts.

DOJ: The department of justice takes criminal justice seriously. No risk of punishment for Obama's activities.

Kavanaugh: President Ford's pardon--now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history. ...President Obama's drone strikes?

Kavanaugh: 'Like Scalia said, 'I'm talking about the future.''

Kavanaugh: This is not going to stop. Try to allay that concern...DOJ: We've lived through these prosecutions going forward without a runaway train. We did not see vindictive prosecutions.

Justice Kavanaugh, I'm not concerned about the here and now, but future presidencies. I'm worried about looking at the future and prosecution coming from a future former president who is subjected to investigation from a sitting president in the opposing party...

Justice Gorsuch in the Trump oral argument: shouldn't motivation of the former president be considered. DOJ lawyer: that's not what criminal law calls for...

Dreeben, DOJ lawyer, 'this court has never recognized absolute criminal liability' and would apply to murder, fraud, sedition...it has no foundation in the constitution.