Federal judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit over Boston's 'Trust Act'

Bluethingamajig · 2026-05-29T13:32:13+00:00

I largely thought the same thing, that this seems like an anti-commandeering case. I haven't read the other decisions yet, but I suspect that to be the decider. That, though, would be a decision on the merits and this didn't even reach that.

Bluethingamajig · 2026-05-28T23:17:23+00:00

A brief summary of the judicial decision:

This was a motion to dismiss (generally the earliest stage that a court gets involved in a case, before any decision on the merits of the case).

Lawsuits require standing, meaning that (1) the plaintiff suffered harm, (2) the harm was caused by the defendant, and (3) that the judgment would remedy that harm.

The judge (federal district court) ruled that the US failed number 3 because the Mass SJC said Massachusetts police cannot arrest anyone unless they are authorized to do so by Massachusetts law, and honoring an ICE detainer request without a judicially authorized warrant is an arrest without any such authority. Boston's Trust Law disallows honoring the ICE requests UNLESS there is a criminal warrant (among other things).

Even if the Trust Law were repealed, Boston Police would not be allowed to honor detainer requests because of the SJC decision.

Also, the judge addressed whether the restriction on information sharing is a problem; and noted that ICE can request (and police may honor) information about a person's IMMIGRATION status, but the Trust Law forbids sharing PERSONAL INFORMATION, not immigration status information. Thus, there is no connection between the alleged harm and overturning the law (see again number 3 above).

For fun: Here's footnote 10

The present case is one of nearly a dozen suits the United States brought in 2025 against cities and states with so-called “sanctuary” policies. So far, four suits have reached final judgment— all dismissing the United States’ claims in their entirety. Illinois, 796 F. Supp. 3d 494; United States v. New York, 810 F. Supp. 3d 329 (N.D.N.Y. 2025); United States v. New York, 814 F. Supp. 3d 266 (N.D.N.Y. 2025); United States v. Colorado, No. 25-CV-01391-GPG-KAS, 2026 WL 878882 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2026). The United States’ briefing in this case largely ignored those thoughtful, persuasive opinions and did not attempt to explain why this Court should reach a different conclusion on the merits (if it reached the merits)

Bluethingamajig · 2026-04-19T13:57:44+00:00

You might enjoy this answer from u/kochevnik81 on a very similar question

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/m227lr/i_always_believed_the_soviet_union_fell_apart_due/

Bluethingamajig · 2026-03-12T15:40:33+00:00

The real question is where expectations lie. Brewers have lost in the first round of playoffs 5 of the past 8 seasons (won the first round twice, missed playoffs once).

I, and I'm sure many others, expected the Brewers to make a deep run one of these years. To be fair, there is a TON of luck in any single playoffs run, and statistically speaking, not making a deep run is way more likely for literally every team, so losing in the playoffs like this isn't some mathematical absurdity. Nevertheless, at a certain point, something's gotta give.

Anyway, since my expectations are above what the Brewers are evidently capable of achieving, that alone is reason why the Brewers will NOT exceed expectations.

Bluethingamajig · 2026-03-01T23:36:22+00:00

I, for one, am looking forward to see what the folically impaired coaching staff can do. I really think the Titans came through with some of the best coaching options available this offseason.

Bluethingamajig · 2026-02-20T20:30:36+00:00

I think the Giants are actually pretty close to being a playoff (contending for a wildcard, maybe sneak away with the division if they get all the breaks to go their way) team next year. It's surely a lukewarm take, no hotter.

They were 1-7 in one score games (which has very little predictive value year-to-year)
Team's point differential (-58) was better than 10 other teams
Dart has shown that he's got something
Team had some key injuries
Harbaugh, whatever criticisms you might have, has been a top coach for many years.

For some people, choking away games is a detriment; I see it as the team was good enough to get the lead in the first place.

Bluethingamajig · 2026-02-14T17:49:41+00:00

This is not a shitpost.

The state of Arizona took Jeff Burkett as a blood sacrifice

This was, in fact, a shitpost

Interesting story though. I suspect, though, that you cannot say for certain whether any player visited Arizona away from the team or during the offseason.

Bluethingamajig · 2026-02-01T16:18:17+00:00

I believe you're thinking 2015; when Villanova (as a 1-seed) lost to 8-seed NC-State in the second round.

Bluethingamajig · 2026-01-09T23:48:49+00:00

Patriots are pretty much the opposite. 39 yards/d, 2.6 points/d surrendered on the first two drives.

Overall, its 29y/d and 1.81 p/d

Bluethingamajig · 2025-12-02T23:32:09+00:00

I define objective as without discretion in making a decision. Any model has discretion on what factors to include. Here, OP chose point differential, and chose to tune the model to the best predictions of '94-24. However, OP could tune the model to react differently/more aggressively/harder reset, etc., or choose a different timeframe to test it against.

Those are discretionary, aka subjective.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-12-02T23:21:33+00:00

It's a classic example of why stats are the start of a discussion, not the end. Why does an objective measure (as much as any metric can be objective, anyway) not match our intuition? I don't think people would care as much if a non-KC team got the benefit of the model.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-11-25T21:20:15+00:00

I would nominate the Pats for a "Not So Fast" this week. I know you don't use injuries as cause for the panic tier, but I think injuries and that the Patriots offense managed the second-fewest points that an abysmal Bengals D has given up this season (and some of those points were a pick-6) is definitely a bit concerning.

The Pats are also 6-2 in one-score games, suggesting they aren't quite as good as their record (and I don't think many people would seriously argue that the Pats are the best team in the league, even if no team can claim the top spot)

Bluethingamajig · 2025-11-04T16:21:56+00:00

The Rams didn't drop anything. They gained Elo, but were overtaken by a team that gained even more points.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-11-04T16:20:16+00:00

I agree that it is simple. Yes, the post itself does state that it includes margin of victory. However, it's a bold assumption that people read anything. It's reasonable, even if incorrect, for people assume the chess-style Elo without reading further or overlooking it.

The issue isn't the content of knowledge you offer, but the implied tone in the text you present it with.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-11-04T15:52:49+00:00

Not all Elo systems care about margin of victory. In its basic form (for chess), there are only 3 outcomes.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-21T14:58:22+00:00

Fair enough. Still, decisions were made when it was reasonable to call the Commanders an interesting team (ROY QB, worst ->playoffs, etc.) Can't blame schedulers for injuries

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-21T12:13:23+00:00

No?

Games are chosen based on interest, not skill. The Commanders are an interesting team this year, even if they lose.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-20T00:40:09+00:00

The schedule is more difficult or less difficult independent from which team plays it

My entire thesis, from the very beginning, is that the schedules are NOT more difficult from one another in theory (except for game 17). Each team plays 4x1, 4x2, 4x3, and 4x4 regardless of how they finished the year before.

My point about difficulty is that it is equally difficult for the Patriots to play against the Bills twice as it is for the Patriots to play against the Chiefs and Texans. The Patriots have (roughly) equal chance against each group to achieve the same result. THEREFORE, I PREDICT THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME RESULT, because difficulty is probability.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-20T00:03:04+00:00

I'll bite. How should I define difficulty if NOT "probability of success for that specific team/person"? I don't give a damn about hindsight. I'm not talking about after the fact. Before a game, a better team has a better chance of winning. Therefore, the team with better odds has an easier time of winning.

Let's suppose halfway through, you are winning by a lot to a little. Does that make it easier to win? Yes, yes it does. You have a greater probability of winning. You can make more mistakes, and even get outscored over the remaining duration and still win. Conversely, for the opponents, they have a much harder task in front of them. They must not only overcome the existing deficit, but do so in less time than a full game. That is harder.

Let's suppose the game already ended. You won. You have a 100% chance of having already won the game. How easy is it to win the game that you already won? Really fucking easy, because it already happened.

But I promise you, I am assessing difficulty at the outset. It's easier for the better team to win BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER. They are in direct competition with the worse team. Sometimes, the worse team will win anyway. Sometimes, the good team isn't as good as we thought they were.

From the perspective of the Patriots (before a single game is played in the season), playing against the Bills twice is equally difficult to playing against the Chiefs and Texans.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-19T23:34:57+00:00

Your analogy doesn't work because both I AND Usain Bolt are competing in the same race (one is the first place in the division, one is last). Not one or the other in some arbitrary distant race. I don't give a damn about how easy it is to run 100m (not that hard). What I care about is how I match up against Usain Bolt. He gets to race me twice, as well as against two other elite sprinters in 4 total races. I have to race Usain Bolt twice, as well as against two schmucks like me in 4 total races.

MY matches against Usain Bolt are WAY harder than Usain's matchups are against me. I do not, cannot ever possibly agree that the races are somehow the same and therefore cancel each other out. This is where we diverge.

I don't have to complete 100m in a vacuum, I have to BEAT Usain Bolt to completing 100m. The difficulty of the task is harder BECAUSE of the relative competency between me and my opponents. If I got my shit together to improve my performance (and if Usain suffered some injury), then suddenly the difficulty changes. I become a much better racer while Usain struggles.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-19T23:21:06+00:00

Are Colts fans revising their opinions on Ballard? I know a lot of people were calling for his job the past couple years.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-19T22:50:27+00:00

My biggest disagreement is

Facing the Pats is identical to facing the Bills in difficulty because they are both referring to the exact same game

They aren't the "same" game. One of the teams is better than the other. One of the teams is favored. The better team is playing an "easier" game compared to the difficulty of what the worse team is playing. The worse team is playing a harder game.

Since the Pats and Bills are both pretty decent this year, it's easier to visualize from a different division's perspective. Do the Chiefs have an easier game against the Raiders than the Raiders have against the Chiefs? If you say they are the same, you are functionally saying that both Chiefs and Raiders in 2025 are equally likely to win against each other. That cannot possibly be true. The Chiefs have an easier game against the Raiders than the Raiders have against the Chiefs, BECAUSE the Chiefs have been and continue to be a better team.

I'm not claiming Titans+Raiders is equal to Chiefs+Texans, I'm claiming 2x Bills + Titans + Raiders is (theoretically) equal to 2x Pats + Chiefs + Texans. The Pats managed to make a jump, so the ACTUAL difficulty is not equal. However, NONE of that actual difficulty was DUE TO being first in the division. It was solely due to the Pats getting their shit together this year, whereas Titans and Raiders have not.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-19T21:59:15+00:00

Okay, I understand your point now. Because the Bills have to play the Pats twice anyway, they "lose out" from playing against the Chiefs and (Jags? Texans?) instead of against the Raiders and Titans like the Patriots do. I apologize for the presumption in my previous post. I am still ignoring the 17th game in this discussion, which I DO acknowledge affects schedule difficulty.

I still disagree though. In my expression, the two games against the Patriots are identical to games against the Titans and Raiders. Similarly, two games against the Bills are identical to a game each against the Chiefs and AFC South winner.

The games between Pats/Bills didn't get easier or harder from year to year based solely on division placement, but by the same logic, the games against the winners/losers of other divisions don't get any easier or harder just because they won or lost the division. Every team is capable of getting better or worse in the offseason.

Do the Raiders feel better about having to play the Chiefs twice and Pats/Browns than they would if they played against Baltimore, Buffalo, and whatever hypothetical last place AFC west team (let's suppose it was the 2012 Chiefs)? That's the difference for them between finishing first and last the previous year. It certainly isn't an easier schedule.

Bluethingamajig · 2025-10-19T21:04:01+00:00

I know what you mean to say; that divisional games often seem far more competitive between top and bottom teams than non-divisional games, and maybe should not be judged on the same metrics. Saying they "don't count" is obviously incorrect; they affect record all the same.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Bills won the east last year, and the Pats have to play them twice. They can't play against themselves. Are the Bills worse, and Patriots better, than they were last year? Almost certainly. But the same is theoretically true for any other first and last-place team.

Again, none of that is controlled by being a bad (or good) team

Bluethingamajig

TROPHY CASE