Lawyers - does Tanzin v. Tanvir set precedent for suing federal health officials for violating our rights?
SCOTUS has unanimously ruled that federal agents can be sued when they violate your rights. Now do qualified immunity. https://t.co/Gec47ZMEg0 via @reason
More from Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal PhD
IF Biden gets in, nothing will happen to Hunter or Joe. Barr will do nothing, and the new group of partisan killers coming in will quickly kill it all. Same thing with Durham. We caught them cold, spying, treason & more (the hard part), but \u201cJustice\u201d took too long. Will be DOA!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020
To be clear, I would distinguish between regular employees of the Justice Department and the decisions made officially. It's important to do this.
It is also worth noting that "federal agents can be sued for putting Muslim men on the no-fly list in alleged retaliation for their refusal to cooperate with counterterrorism
"The decision, a rare expansion of personal liability for law-enforcement misconduct, was one of four unanimous rulings the court issued Thursday"
"The court also found that there is no statute of limitations on when rape charges can be filed in the armed services"
The #TexasCase has them terrified.
— Major Patriot (@MajorPatriot) December 10, 2020
They are losing it.#CNN pic.twitter.com/FtdWKIXBlB
VA curfew
#BREAKING: Virginia will implement a statewide curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. starting on Dec. 14. Here's what else is changing for Virginians.https://t.co/cH4jdCOZgt
— WUSA9 (@wusa9) December 10, 2020
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
— Dan Scavino\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f985 (@DanScavino) December 11, 2020
March
More from Law
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."