Some Debbie Downer ninnies just filed an emergency injunction to block UFC 250 on the White House lawn.
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) June 7, 2026
Sitting aside that you have to be one miserable specimen to actually go to court to prevent an awesome event…
This event has been scheduled since October!
And these… pic.twitter.com/aCZuofM6dd
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73450743/douglas-v-national-park-service/
Because Plaintiffs fail to establish both a substantial likelihood of standing and irreparable
harm, and because the equities and public interest weigh against emergency relief, Plaintiffs’
Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order or, in the Alternative, an Expedited
Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, is denied.
Judge mandates woke history at National Parks
Does federal law require post-2020 woke ideology at national parks? Yes, per Judge Kelley (Biden D. Mass). She orders it \*illegal\* for National Parks not to share exhibits with her preferred views on the climate, sexuality, and race. I'm skeptical! pic.twitter.com/XnrZphhG8J
— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 14, 2026
The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it. And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course.
Accordingly, the application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A124 and by her referred to the Court is granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case No. 1:26–cv–11581 is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A139 and by her referred to the Court is denied as moot.
Sotomayor joined by Kagan dissented (4 pages) and Jackson dissented (23 pages). This sharp divide may indicate some bad blood between Jackson and the other nominal leftists. With a two dissent situation, it might normally be something like Sotomayor wrote a short one-issue dissent in which Kagan and Jackson joined and Jackson wrote a long dissent in which Kagan joined as to parts 1, 4 and 5 and Kagan joined as to parts 1 and 3…
Trump wins despite Roberts:
Barrett is the swing vote much to my chagrin
| Title: | United States Postal Service, et al., Applicants v. California, et al. |
|---|---|
| Docketed: | September 6, 2026 |
| Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit |
| Case Numbers: | (26-2029; 26-2031) |
Order entered by Justice Jackson: The Solicitor General has withdrawn the stay application filed on September 3, 2026 (26A297) and now seeks a stay of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 4, 2026. It is hereby ordered that any response to the new application (26A305) be filed by 4 p.m. (EDT) on September 9, 2026. |
|---|
🚨 A federal judge has restored Missouri’s 2025 congressional map for the November election, just minutes after Justice Kavanaugh separately denied the state’s bid to revive it. pic.twitter.com/77r3RQPep6
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) September 8, 2026
The proceedings in the district court were a botch job, to say the least. Judge Henry Wingate issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining enforcement of H.B. 1193 that contained several factual assertions nowhere to be found in the record, or indeed, in any proceeding of the case. Those included mention of plaintiffs and defendants not in the complaint, supposed “declarations” from non-existent or never-present individuals, false quotations purporting to be taken from the text of H.B. 1193, and several erroneous claims that the law had already led to the demise of apparently fictitious programs.
After this came to light, Judge Wingate replaced the TRO without explaining.
Forging forward despite the bungled TRO, Judge Wingate issued a pre-enforcement preliminary injunction. The various state defendants appeal.
At oral argument in this court, it was discovered that even the “corrected” TRO—which was incorporated by reference into the preliminary injunction order—still contained hallucinated information (namely, a citation to a purported Fourth Circuit case, “Cousins v. School Bd. of City of Norfolk,” that does not exist).
This district judge carelessly exercised his Article III power by issuing sloppy edicts based on falsehoods and fabrications. Upon discovering some of these falsehoods, Judge Wingate dug in his heels and claimed that the hallucinated claims had no bearing on its reasoning; he offered no explanation as to why he included such apparently irrelevant material in the original TRO or why the TRO nevertheless was justified in its absence.
Moreover, the district court got the law wrong. The TRO and preliminary injunction order rested on impoverished legal analysis that barely paid lip-service to the precedents of the Supreme Court or this court, seeming at times purposely to misconstrue the law by manipulating the words of statutes and cases, without regard to their texts’ meaning as a whole.1 The district court—or perhaps, being charitable, its AI agent—ignored and manipulated governing law, apparently to satisfy a policy agenda.
Because of the extraordinarily grave errors by the district court, we vacate and remand for assignment to a different district judge. Per the Supreme Court’s decision in Moody, we instruct the new judge to conduct proceedings consistent with federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this circuit.
May be worth cross posting on the Competency Crisis thread given the egregious nature of this district judge’s errors or fabrications.
There are several threads it could be cross-posted to.
Stark evidence of failure of governance (refrain).