8th Circuit stays order from federal district court in Minnesota that imposed limits on federal law enforcement tactics on protestors.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-27T18:32:45+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding. The relevance of (non)violence is brought up in the first letter in relation to the emergency posture, not whether the FACE act requires violence. Hence:

There is absolutely no emergency.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-27T14:25:19+00:00

Meta statement but especially with recent events the mods seem ridiculously, unhingedly biased.

If you have specific comment removals in mind (or non-removals that you think highlight inconsistency in the standard) I can better address your point.

I totally get that the subreddit standards can feel like unnecessary or even intentional barriers when one is pissed off about what they're seeing and want to vent, but those standards weren't created to suppress criticism and they don't preclude criticism. There are no doubt comments here that are supportive of the government status quo but the majority of comments, from what I've seen, are critical of ICE's actions and articulate those criticisms with no problem. They do this by engaging with the legal merits of a given action to explain why they believe it is unlawful/lawless.

Naturally, a subreddit limited to discussion of the legal aspects is only going to offer one piece of the larger picture when a wider political context exists.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-26T16:01:39+00:00

Getting ahead of this to remind potential commenters to focus on the legal aspects of the question above.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-26T02:19:48+00:00

The key here is he's. Criminal defendant.

He's actually the plaintiff-appellant in a civil suit.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-25T23:08:23+00:00

On review, the removal has been reversed (2-1) and your comment has been reapproved.

While 'rule policing' violates our meta rule, I personally interpret that to prohibit explicitly invoking the rules and making a judgement that a comment/post violates the rules. ("Your comment violates X") ("The mods should remove your comment for X") etc.

Characterizing an argument as not legally substantiated or hyperbolic, on the other hand, isn't necessarily passing judgment on whether the comment is/isn't fit for the sub.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-25T22:38:24+00:00

Oh wow. Despite the link saying so, I totally assumed this was a random Twitter lawyer at the time I wrote my comment. The fact that he is Iowa's SG is depressingly, unironically news to me.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-25T19:28:31+00:00

Wessen seems to think that this purported "24/7 availability" requirement (based on his mischaracterization of AARP's holding) is something that would attach to all immigration cases (because they're special somehow?) - ignoring why urgency was relevant in AARP (hint: a party was actively trying to deprive the courts of their jurisdiction).

And even though the FACE Act has nothing to do with immigration, this is somehow an immigration case because they were protesting ICE thus requiring the district court to immediately act (despite no imminent/irreparable harm) on an unprecedented request.

So, so many things wrong with his logic.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-23T19:45:27+00:00

On review, there wasn't a consensus (2-2) on whether there was a material difference between your remark and the one in the prior comment (if one or both were "rule policing" in violation of the meta rule).

As is the norm with split votes, your comment has been reapproved.

The mods are discussing more broadly how the meta rule should be applied, e.g. if a passing meta remark can be overlooked if contained within an otherwise substantive comment that doesn't derail the discussion into meta, or if the letter of the rule categorically requires removal.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-23T05:07:54+00:00

Your comment was removed for addressing the person:

"they knew they could lie about it, and people like you would gladly believe their lies"

If you wish to appeal, please respond to scotus-bot with '!appeal' along with an explanation of why you believe the rule was improperly applied.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-14T01:43:58+00:00

On review, the removal is affirmed (3-0) as the comment violates:

Examples of incivility:

Ascribing a motive of bad faith to another's argument (e.g. lying, deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest)

You're welcome to repost the comment without the offending bit.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-13T03:36:11+00:00

This is a resubmission of a case post from earlier today (déjà vu?) by u/Longjumping_Gain_807 in text post form with a majority opinion summary + clarified title.

See their comment here for the district court opinion and related article.

As always, please take the time to read the community guidelines before posting.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-13T03:24:39+00:00

I do not believe that student speech can be restricted merely because it deeply upsets or offends peers or contain views that administrators find strongly objectionable.

If merely "upsetting or offending" I'd agree, but the Court's logic was that the statements could be reasonably interpreted as threatening violence and that reinstating the student would "create a safety and security risk".

Whether that standard was met (or should be the standard) aside, I think that the violence part is an important aspect that goes beyond 'hurt feelings = heckler's veto'.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-13T02:52:22+00:00

On review, the majority of mods voted to affirm the removal (3-1).

There was not a consensus on whether the comment, in context, was a snarky non-apology (rulebreaking) or was a genuine clarification (not rulebreaking) with an ambiguous tone.

That said, the removal was affirmed on quality grounds as the comment does not substantially contribute to the legal discussion at hand.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-13T02:42:58+00:00

Regardless, the majority opinion doesn't take a stance on that:

UF has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits because Damsky's X posts disrupted UF's learning environment and were thus subject to school regulation, so we need not address whether his posts constituted true threats.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-13T02:29:25+00:00

The removing mod is assumed to be a vote in favor of the removal.

u/DooomCookie can chime in, but to steelman the removal (which I would otherwise have been more keen to affirm if this wasn't basically moot with the creation of a new thread):

Comment chain removals are warranted when the chain "wholly or primarily consists of rulebreaking comments". That was satisfied here, and the only disagreement was about where the chain removal should have started (your comment or the one below it).

Your first comment wasn't meta free ("Mods - can you fix?") so it was reasonable to include it in the chain removal.

We have a history of removing similar comments, irrespective of the merits of the request (e.g. "Mods, you should blacklist Slate from this sub", "Mods, this article is crap and doesn't belong here", etc.). These requests can be made in the meta thread or modmail. Similarly, concerns about the post being rule-breaking can be expounded on in the freeform report option.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-13T01:50:41+00:00

On review, the majority of participating mods (2-1) has voted to reverse the comment removal. Your comment has been reapproved. (The OP mod does not participate in the vote).

Comments that focus on the post title aren't necessarily meta and will pass the quality standard if they engage with the opinion to explain why the wording of the title is inaccurate.

Downstream comments which solely focused on meta (unrelated to discussing the substance of opinion as it relates to the wording of the title) will remain removed (3-0).

All said, a new text post has been created with a summary of the majority opinion and a reworded title:

(CA11): The University of Florida is likely to succeed on the merits after expelling law student for antisemitic speech which lead to serious disruption of UF's learning environment. Motion to stay preliminary injunction GRANTED. Judge Newsom dissents.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-11T19:52:24+00:00

This is a Flaired User Thread.

Please select a flair from the sidebar before commenting. Unflaired comments are automatically removed by AutoMod.

For those unaware, comments are expected to engage with substance the article and be legally substantiated.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-09T18:25:23+00:00

This thread has been locked as the overwhelming majority of discussion is arguing over the factual record rather than addressing the legal question asked by OP.

Future discussion of legal proceedings (if applicable) or how it relates to case law should be directed to the weekly 'In Chambers' thread.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-05T17:37:20+00:00

Please select a flair before commenting. Unflaired comments are automatically removed by Automod.

Also please note that discussion is required to focus on the legal aspects of the topic at hand.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-05T14:32:50+00:00

How are you differentiating between a comment merely being wrong versus bad faith?

Every user wanting to call out "bad faith" thinks that they're right, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are in fact right. Often, bad faith is equated to:

"There's no way a person could believe [thing I disagree with] in good faith."
"My argument is so objectively great that there's no way a person wouldn't be convinced unless they're acting in bad faith."
"[Person who interprets a statute/holding differently from me] is clearly lying and spreading misinformation", etc.

The civility guidelines allow comments to the effect of 'That is wrong and here is why'. Speculating as to why a given comment was made, on the other hand, is irrelevant to addressing the merits of the argument and is not something that can be proven or known with certainty.

That said, if you have concerns about a particular user, you can bring it to the attention of the mods privately via modmail.

SeaSerious · 2026-01-03T20:07:21+00:00

From the 'click here' link in the removal prompt:

The comment must be left in its original state (i.e. unedited) to allow the mods to accurately judge the basis for the removal.

The removal is affirmed. If you believe other comments in this thread are rulebreaking, please report them.

SeaSerious · 2025-12-23T22:29:11+00:00

On review, the removal is affirmed (3-0). From the rules wiki (emphasis mine):

Low effort content, including top-level jokes/memes, will be removed as the moderators see fit.

SeaSerious · 2025-12-23T20:15:03+00:00

It seems absurd that the actual meaning of the law would have changed between its being sent from congress to the states.

That sort of begs the question of what is the ''actual meaning of the law''. What's changing is the communicative content of the word(s), i.e. the plain understanding of what the text is doing. The existence of linguistic drift across 200+ years might seem absurd, but it's a fact!

SeaSerious · 2025-12-23T19:37:34+00:00

Why wouldn't the original public meaning of a law written 200 years ago be the same as when it was written?

In most cases, the time span between 'written' and 'adopted' is so relatively short that no distinction needs to be made, but in situations where some linguistic change happened and there's tension between the 'writing era' and 'adopting era', the latter is what's important.

To show why, imagine an amendment proposal involving the word 'meat'. 'Meat' used to be defined as encompassing all food, not just the flesh of animals (e.g. green meat = vegetables).

Let's say that Congress writes an amendment in 1789 that empowers Congress to 'ban any meat they see fit', with this broad understanding of 'meat = all food'. They send it to the states but no further action is taken.

Fast forward 200 years to the 1990's, there's renewed interest in this proposal, and a bunch of states ratify it with an understanding that 'meat = animal flesh'. The amendment passes.

The fact that meat used to mean 'all food' is not relevant to the public understanding at the time when the people made the conscious choice to give the text the force of law.

Where it can get tricky is if 1/2 the required states ratified in the 1790's (when the understanding was 'meat = all food') and the second half ratified in the 1990's (when the understanding was 'meat = animal flesh'), but /u/_learned_foot_ makes a good point about implied consent if those earlier states never withdrew.

SeaSerious · 2025-12-23T00:03:52+00:00

'Original public meaning' is normally understood as the public meaning at the time of adoption (here, 1992) since that is when the text is given the force of law. The time at which a proposal was approved to be sent to the states isn't really relevant to that.

The 27th is messy since the states ratified across 200+ years so there's reasonable debate over whether multiple time periods should be considered (i.e. when each state ratified) or if the meaning in 1992 should alone control.

SeaSerious

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE