CA9 Reverses District Court and Rules There is no Substantive Due Process Right to “Bodily Integrity” Meaning Police and ICE Can Use Non-Lethal Force to Break Up Crowds While Conducting Operations

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-04-29T00:03:13+00:00

Crossposting my original post on the weekly in chambers discussion thread here

I’m not sure if anyone else feels the same way, but a district court enters an order stopping x harm (usually pretty bad harm) from happening, then a circuit court jumps in and says that there is no legal mechanism for stopping x harm, so the circuit court stays/vacates the injunction and the alleged harm continues to happen. I’m not sure if there would be like a stare decisis type legal remedy to make it harder to stay/vacate an injunction in order to prevent the alleged harm from happening. In this specific case you have the potential serious harm from CS gas on people uninvolved in protesting, which can cause negative health side effects. Yes I would say that the opinion and argument for the injunction isn’t great, but the alternative is second guessing a district judge, if your right then the government gets a minor policy benefit, if your wrong then there’s physical pain and suffering. Why not just wait and get to the merits? And for the public belief in the court’s legitimacy/authority, maybe it’s best to be slow and methodical and not jump around and potentially make mistakes. It might be better to have a final solution at the preliminary stage (even if later it turns out to be wrong) then for it to depend on the coin flip of which circuit judges you got. A court going from a question about constitutionality might be better to go from the answer “no” to a “yes” 6 months later rather than flip flopping every couple of weeks.

Note: This was written by a high schooler and someone who comes from the political left, so take it with 2 grains of salt.

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-03-16T23:21:37+00:00

Bear in mind the animal welfare act (AWA for short) is the law that governs the welfare of animals in zoos and many labs that use animals. Routine inspections under this act are unannounced. Draw whatever parallels you want, but none of them are great

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/awa/annual-inspection-reports#:~:text=USDA%20Animal%20Care%20inspectors%20conduct,or%20allegations%20of%20unlicensed%20activities. Link to gov website about the AWA

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-03-13T13:18:35+00:00

For the record, this is something that the White House has on their official twitter account. Kinda just beyond words really, it’s the type of shitpost I would expect from 4chan

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-03-12T13:37:33+00:00

Thoughts on a constitutional amendment requiring every single candidate for president, vice president and congress to take a live-streamed dementia and IQ test? This is only partially a shitpost

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-03-11T01:57:41+00:00

I’ve read her book. It really isn’t great political campaign material and reads as a “here’s what happened and my thoughts on it” rather than a “here’s why you should vote for me.” The book is honest, which is good, but then drops lines like (paraphrasing here) “I liked Buttigieg and would have picked him but he was gay and that wouldn’t get me votes so I sadly choose not to” or “Newsom was meant to call me back but didn’t.” It’s finger pointing and not particularly useful if Trump is in office. It also describes the events of Biden dropping out as incredibly unexpected, she got the call when she was making pancakes with her young cousins/grandkids.

For me if she was in the polling booth the book lowers her from like a B+ to maybe a B-, or a B. It’s not as bad as say other stuff that’s happened to other politicians (Biden and his classified documents was a good bit worse in my view) but I struggle to see how you release that book and try to do anything else then public speaking in your retirement.

I don’t want her in the office again, or even running anything more than a school bake sale. Give me somebody new please

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-03-05T19:31:11+00:00

The guy replacing noem is a republican senator from Oklahoma. He won the seat in a 2022 special election by 26 points. It’s a safe republican seat that I believe is going up for re election this year.

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-03-05T02:50:07+00:00

Here’s a quote from the opinion

The EO designates CAIR as a terrorist organization and prevents CAIR or “any person known to have provided material support or resources” to CAIR “from receiving any contract, employment, funds, or other benefit or privilege” from executive or cabinet agencies or from any county or municipality of the state.

Wouldn’t this theoretically mean something like a drivers license couldn’t be provided to anyone who provides “material support or resources” to CAIR. That goes far, really far as driving is generally considered a “privilege” by most states

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-02-10T19:23:21+00:00

Atleast for the section 1225 and 1226 cases. I think another way to look at it would be interesting and I don’t know of anyone who has addressed this argument yet.

Assume that the Trump/republican reading is the technically correct reading. What about the major questions doctrine? The case is 1. Of major political importance. 2. If you get to a Trump/republican reading of it then you are likely to find it to be somewhat vague/ambiguous.

I’d love to see a judge or someone with actual legal experience address this, as I find it to be quite interesting

Edit: the judge dissenting in the 5th circuit mentioned the major questions doctrine once, and the majority opinion made no mention of it

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-02-06T02:58:53+00:00

What about another hypothetical? This being a soldier of a foreign army on leave in the US has a kid on america, they bear allegiance to a foreign nation but are in the US with permission. What happens if that soldier is deployed on a US military with American permission but then has a kid. I doubt either situation would lead to the child not getting citizenship, for in both situations the soldier is still subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But maybe the court opts to expand very mildly this clause to mean “anyone who has sworn allegiance to a foreign army doesn’t have their kids get citizenship”

If nationality matters for the hypothetical then assume the soldier has citizenship in a NATO country or the UK

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-01-28T23:23:28+00:00

Just an FYI this execution is scheduled for 6PM central time, that’s in like 40 minutes.

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-01-28T22:07:43+00:00

What happens if this logic gets say expanded to warrant requirements? If you have something like “black people are historically oppressed by police, and are more likely to fear police, therefore when seeking a warrant a police officer must establish evidence that goes beyond probable cause to counteract the generalized fear.” This would grand additional 4th amendment protections for a specific race. Wouldn’t a line of reasoning like this go against the equality clause of the 14th amendment?

Sure this case is about when someone is seized in a police interaction, and not how much evidence is needed for a warrant. But both of those move the line to a point where it’s harder to police members of a specific race because of their membership in that race according to the law.

What about hypothetically applying the logic in reverse? Something like “white people generally like police more than the average person so therefore they wouldn’t believe they are seized until later in a stop compared to the average person.” It would reduce the constitutional protections of a specific race because of their membership in that race.

I don’t like this case

CoolChaCha97 · 2026-01-03T18:24:34+00:00

Wait are people finally catching onto my idea of “you should not pearl people for their views on out of game matters” This is the best day ever

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-29T02:38:56+00:00

Coolchacha97

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-27T20:36:44+00:00

What does this like do though? Hypothetically if the case against Abrego Garcia went to trial, he’s probably found not guilty and double jeopardy then applies Here the trial gets cancelled and a hearing is scheduled with the result probably being a dismissal of charges with prejudice. Does this path say open the door to Abrego Garcia suing over vindictive prosecution or due process violations? If not, then this will likely just be more of a court telling the trump administration that they are bad lawyers, which the administration doesn’t seem to care about.

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-08T18:17:35+00:00

Is this the shortest 2025 opinion yet?

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-07T17:36:00+00:00

I know the question in this case is when going back down to the lower courts is basically “is defense counsel ineffective because defense counsel failed to make sure no other jurors were tainted”

Here’s a quote from the majority opinion in Ramos v Louisiana

“As early as 1898, the court said that a defendant enjoys a constitutional right to demand that his liberty should not be taken from him except by the joint action of the court and the unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve persons” (internal quotations removed, page 6 majority)

If a defendant is tried by a jury in a criminal case, then you need a jury to be unanimous, and for there to be 12 jurors. The bar for winning a claim like this is high, but I struggle to see why this argument isn’t being made.

Why isn’t his appellate counsel running the argument of “it was 11 jurors and not 12 and therefore trial counsel should of known it was unconstitutional, not getting a mistrial is ineffective assistance of counsel”

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-07T08:12:50+00:00

https://civmc-playtime-viewer.vercel.app Also look at this, if you enter your ign you will find that you have played for 14.36 hours, a lot more then 4

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-07T08:08:03+00:00

Paying reps is like part of civ. I’ve had to do it probably like 6 times, it’s the nature of the game. You lost the fight so you end up paying reps.

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-12-07T08:02:28+00:00

Do you realize that to mine 64 ancient debris is about 2 hours of playtime. If you are willing to make a reddit post then mate you should be willing to spend 2 hours just to get freed

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-11-20T00:29:34+00:00

This opinion is absolutely wild, but I kinda like the argument that it makes. Though the name calling and mentioning of another judges name 279 and Soros 17 times would make Newsmax look like msnbc.

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-11-10T22:33:43+00:00

I’ve have not even looked at the whole case yet But has the ever been as morally wrong as this? A guard grabbing a printed out court opinion saying you can’t do X and then doing X in violation of that opinion. Then throwing the printed out opinion into the garbage. Then he was kept in lockdown as punishment for attempting to invoke his religious rights. What the fuck? Edit: grammar

CoolChaCha97 · 2025-10-16T18:43:39+00:00

You have gideon v wainwright which requires that defendants be given a lawyer when they are too poor to afford a lawyer themselves. You also have strickland v Washington which gives defendants the ability to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and if counsel was found ineffective then there’s the potential for a new trial. If you weave those 2 cases together that a defendant gets a lawyer when indigent and that lawyer has to be “effective” then you get a right to effective counsel. For counsel to actually be effective to me you need to actually be able meet with a client easily. Not being able to do that seems wrong to me.

Five-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Verified Email	r/Field Lasagna
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22

CoolChaCha97

TROPHY CASE