IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case No. 25-cv-01042 (CJN)

K.L. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETE R. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

MOTION FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF (INCORPORATING AUTHORITY)

Plaintiff K.L. Smith, in propria persona and first-person, respectfully moves this Court for an

Order compelling Defendants John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Neil

M. Gorsuch, Amy C. Barrett, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., (hereinafter, “the Named Justices”) to either

withdraw a list of opinions issued which were manifestly in excess of their jurisdiction, or explain

in detail why they should not be withdrawn. As grounds, Plaintiff states:

INTRODUCTION

If you’re not used to fighting losing battles, don’t become a lawyer. Our job is to
stand up for people who can’t do it themselves. Our job is to be the champion of
lost causes.
~ Justice Sonia Sotomayor1

Judge J. Michael Luttig puts our situation bluntly: “It would be impossible to say, after Donald

Trump’s first 100 days in office, that America has a government of laws, not of men.” Ryan Lizza,

Donald Trump’s 100 Days of Lawlessness, Telos News, May 7, 2025. And the persons most re-

sponsible for that tragic state of affairs are not named Trump.

1
Justice Sotomayor: ‘This is our time to stand up and be heard’, American Bar Assoc., May 9, 2025.

1
 Doctor Franklin left us with “a Republic … if you can keep it.”2 America may truly be a

lost cause—Hamilton saw Trump coming from 230 years away3—but the Framers left us with a

robust bag of tricks with which to defend it. And like Felix the Cat, I’ll have to dig deep into that

bag of tricks for the legal tools I need to wield in order to keep it.

As Defendant Roberts graciously reminds us, the Supreme Court “is not a legislature.” Ober-

gefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 686 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). That under our Constitu-

tion, “judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” Id. I agree.

The Constitution entrusted our federal judiciary with the judicial Power: authority to faithfully

apply the law of the land to the facts of every case brought before them. It is not power to rewrite

the Constitution. "Courts are constituted by authority and they can not go beyond the power dele-

gated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments

and orders are regarded as nullities." Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348,

353 (1920). Under our system, the judicial Power is “to decide what the law is, not to declare what

it should be,” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 178 (1874), for as long as judges are at liberty to

“substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature,” The Federalist

No. 78, 440 (I. Kramnick ed. 1987) (Alexander Hamilton)—or the people—it can no longer hon-

estly be said that we are a nation governed by laws.4 It logically follows that there must be some

mechanism by which illegitimate judicial ukases can be invalidated, see Kendall v. United States,

37 U.S. 524, 624 (1838), and a court sitting in equity would have the raw power to do so.

2
James McHenry, The Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787, 11 Am. Hist. Rev. 595, 618
(1906).
3
Alexander Hamilton, Objections and Answers Respecting the Administration, Aug. 18, 1792, Founders Online,
Nat’l. Archives (last visited Apr. 3, 2025).
4
Justice (Professor) Story adds: “A more alarming doctrine could not be promulgated by any American court, than
that it was at liberty to disregard all former rules and decisions, and to decide for itself, without reference to the settled
course of antecedent principles.” 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 378 (1833).

2
 I am fully cognizant of the fact that I am asking you to do what has probably never been even

contemplated. But the Constitution—read in pari materia with the common law firmament upon

which it was built—is the ultimate judge of what may or may be done. If the Constitution allows

it, then it can be done.

The rewriting of the Constitution under a false pretense of interpreting it is “a flagrant perver-

sion of the judicial power.” Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 331 (1932). In the timeless words

of Justice Holmes, it is ‘an unconstitutional assumption of powers by courts of the United States

which no lapse of time or respectable array of opinion should make us hesitate to correct.” Erie

R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 79 (1938). If a “decision is manifestly absurd or unjust, it is

declared, not that such a sentence was bad law, but that it is not law.” 1 Wm. Blackstone, Com-

mentaries on the Laws of England *70 (1765) (emphasis added). And before he could speak ex

cathedra, Holmes added: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it

was laid down in the time of Henry IV.” Oliver W. Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L.

Rev. 457, 469 (1897). There is no contrary authority.5

5
All the Named Justices—Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett—admit that they can’t change the
Constitution to suit their pleasure. (Roberts: “Judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” Ober-
gefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2811 (2015) (Roberts. C.J., dissenting); Thomas: “Judicial power…
is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678,
139 S.Ct. 1960, 1982 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring); Alito: “It is the job of a judge… to interpret the Constitution,
not distort [it],” Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. To Be an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 465 (2006) (statement
of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.); Gorsuch: “Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution… according to its original public
meaning,” Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 816 F.3d 645, 661 (10th Cir. 2016) (Gorsuch, J, concurring); Kavanaugh:
“The Constitution does not grant [us] unilateral authority to rewrite” it, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organiza-
tion, 597 U.S. 215, __, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 2306 (2022) (Kavanaugh, J. concurring); Barrett: “Partisan politics are not a
good reason for deciding a case.” Amy C. Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711,
1729 (2012-13)).
The Named Justices’ uncontroversial view is supported by an avalanche of precedent. For five centuries, it has
been universally understood that the office of the judge "is jus dicere, and not jus dare; to interpret law, and not to
make law, or give law." Francis Bacon, Essays LVI (Of Judicature) (1620). Mindful that “the discretion of the judge
is the first engine of tyranny," 4 C. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 385 (1776-89)
(Philips Samson, and Co. 1856), Alexander Hamilton argued that to "avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is
indispensable that [judges] should be bound by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their
duty in every particular case before them." The Federalist No. 78, 470 (I. Kramnick ed. 1987) (Alexander Hamilton).
Blackstone asserted that the judge’s duty to follow precedent derived from the nature of the judicial power itself: a

3
 This, in turn, begs three questions. First, if they are flagrant constitutional fouls, should we fix

them? I respectfully submit that we can, and we must. First, citizens have a right to rely upon

Supreme Court decisions as authoritative statements of the law, so that we can plan our daily affairs

accordingly. Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 403 (1970). Second, we have a right

to an unpolluted stream of law; if the Court is going to overturn the precedential firmament of

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)—as the Roberts Court effectively did sub rosa in Trump

v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024)—it owes us a duty to do so openly. See Robert H. Bork, Our

Judicial Oligarchy, 67 First Things 21, 24 (Nov. 1996).

The second question is whether it can be done in this case. Jurisdiction is bestowed by 28

U.S.C. § 1331, venue is bestowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and the All-Writs Act (28 U.S.C. §

1651) would “allow a district court to issue mandamus directly against the Justices of the Supreme

Court themselves." Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 & n. 6 (7th Cir. 1979) (interpreting 28

U.S.C. § 1361).6 And Congress meant what they said and said what they meant. Connecticut Nat’l

Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) (per Thomas, J.; quotations omitted; collecting

judge is "sworn to determine, not according to his own judgments, but according to the known laws." 1 Wm. Black-
stone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *69 (1765). A century earlier, Coke observed that "[i]t is the function
of a judge not to make, but to declare the law, according to the golden mete-wand of the law and not by the crooked
cord of discretion." 1 E. Coke, Institutes of the Lawes of England 51 (1642).
Professor (Justice) Story adds that “A more alarming doctrine could not be promulgated by any American court,
than that it was at liberty to disregard all former rules and decisions, and to decide for itself [what the law is], without
reference to the settled course of antecedent principles.” 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States 350 (1838). The judge was expected to be little more than an administrator, playing what Professor Llewellyn
called “the game of matching cases.” Karl Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush 49 (1960).
6
“The accustomed office of a writ of mandamus, when directed to a judicial officer, is to compel an exercise of
existing jurisdiction, but not to control his decision.” Ex parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70, 72 (1914) (emphasis added).
While In re Marin is precedent binding in this Court, it stands only for the proposition that an inferior court may
not tell the Clerk of the Supreme Court what to do—as clerical staff, s/he is answerable to the Justices. In re Marin,
956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Again, Agency 101. By stark contrast, Cohens v. Virginia, infra., is precedent binding
on his Court, and CJ Marshall’s observation that his Court may not “punt” is an essential building block of the eventual
holding. To wit, if a particular provision or practice is unconstitutional, it is indisputably “the duty of this Court to say
so, and to perform that task which the American people have assigned to the judicial department.” Cohens, 19 U.S. at
377.

4
cases covering two centuries). This is an inescapable corollary of the law of agency, first laid

down in Magna Carta [1215]: “King” was not a person but an office, exercised in parens patriae

for the benefit of the populace he served: “The king must not be under man but under God and

under the law, because the law makes the king.” Henry de Bracton, De legibus et consuetudinibus

Angliæ (“On the Laws and Customs of England”) 38 (George E. Woodbine ed., Samuel E. Thorne

trans., Harvard Univ. Press 1977) (ca. ~1250 AD). And the judge.

The third speaks to the very nature of courts in a Republic. Majorities can pass laws and raise

armies; government is an embodiment of the will of the strong. Courts exist to protect powerless

minorities from the depredations of the majority … and this matters to every citizen, as we are all

a minority of one. When a nation’s courts knowingly become the captive agent of the faction in

power, the system fails: By way of example, in Nazi Germany, a compliant judiciary allowed the

rule of law to become supplanted by the Führerprinzip—the Führer’s word is above all law.

Ubi jus, ibi remedium. I acknowledge that this is a delicate ‘ask’, but reiterate that this Motion

is predicated on incorrigible propositions of constitutional law. First, the law is not what judges

say it is on any given day but rather, what the Constitution says it is. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177.

Second, the Article III “judicial Power” is a duty to faithfully apply the law of the land to the facts

in all cases or controversies properly presented to it. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821).

Judex est lex loquens. The judge is the mouth of the law, and we expect his notes to ring true.

ARGUMENT

“Understand well what this [Motion] is about.” Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 686 (Roberts, C.J.,

dissenting). I am an old man without progeny; abortion is not all that important to me. And it is

more likely that I will die on Mars than marry another man. My concern is about “whether, in our

democratic republic, decision[s] should rest with the people acting through their elected

5
representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve

legal disputes according to law.” Id. And I concur with Defendant Roberts: both the Constitution,

and five hundred years’ worth of precedent and legal theory undergirding it, “leaves no doubt

about the answer.” Id. The Constitution is our national catechism, to which all American citizens

are called to be faithful.

If I learned anything from the writings of Scalia, it is that the Framers bequeathed us the most

complete and refined system for the protection of personal liberty ever envisioned. Defendant

Thomas adds that courts “should restore our stare decisis jurisprudence to ensure that we exercise

‘mer[e] judgment,’ [as opposed to will], which can be achieved through adherence to the correct,

original meaning of the laws we are charged with applying. In my view, anything less invites

arbitrariness into judging.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678, 139 S.Ct. 1960, 1981 (2019)

(Thomas, J., concurring) (citation omitted). And as George Washington solemnly wrote, “The

Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole

people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” George Washington, Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796),

reprinted in S. Doc. No. 106-21, at 1 (2000).

I. JUDGING AMY’S CONFESSION: A CASA BUILT OF STRAW

This Motion—and its companion Motion—is brought to you by Defendant Barrett: “We will

not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’

worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. … JUSTICE JACKSON would do well

to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid.

That goes for judges too.” Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (Application

for Stay granted Jun. 27, 2025), slip. op. at 23, 24 (capitalization in original). And more to the

6
point, the “judicial Power” is authority to interpret the Constitution only, as opposed to rewriting

it. Alexander Hamilton lays down this foundational rule of agency in The Federalist:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated
authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be
to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master;
that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting
by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they
forbid.

The Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton).

Under our system, judges apply the law to the facts of every case or controversy properly put

before them. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. It is a narrow and specific remit. The judicial Power does

extend to rewriting the Constitution, and any attempt by the Supreme Court to do so is ultra vires

and void. Accordingly, when the Court writes a new Eleventh Amendment, grants the President

broad immunity from criminal prosecution, or defenestrates the Ninth Amendment, it is a nullity

and the job it was tasked with, technically never done. Accordingly, those men and women who

shirked their assigned duties may lawfully be ordered to do what they are paid a fairly handsome

salary to actually do. As the people you work for, we have a right to insist, and the right to force

the issue through issuance of a mandamus or prohibition.

Defendant Barrett is absolutely correct: “The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts

with jurisdiction over “all suits . . . in equity,” §11, 1 Stat. 78, and still today, this statute ‘is what

authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies.’” Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884 (Ap-

plication for Stay granted Jun. 27, 2025) (quotation omitted). The “nationwide injunction” is a

contraption worthy of Walter Mitty, flying untethered to the Constitution or rule of law. To defend

it is a fool’s errand, and no one should even try.

But so is the illegitimate judge-made modern doctrine of standing.

7
 The law has been settled since Bracton wrote the first substantive treatise on the common law

almost eight centuries ago. It was the common duty of all English subjects to “keep the King’s

peace”; whereas the King could do no wrong, his courtiers often did, and any subject could enjoin

them from acting in a lawless manner through the ancient writs of quo warranto, mandamus, pro-

hibition, and scire facias in chancery. As Harvard’s legendary Raoul Berger proves, Raoul Berger,

Standing to Sue in Public Actions: Is It a Constitutional Requirement?, 78 Yale L.J. 816 (1969),

English subjects were authorized to act in the public interest—citizenship translated into automatic

standing. The citizen’s right to act on his own motion was "a valuable constitutional safeguard

against inertia or partiality on the part of authority." Gouriet v. Union of Post Ofc. Workers [1978]

A.C. 435, 477 (H.L.). The judge-made law of standing came over a hundred years after our na-

tion’s birth and has no more credible foundation than the nationwide injunction.

In chancery, “you cannot have an injunction except against a party to the suit.” Iveson v. Harris

[1802] 32 Eng. Rep. 102, 104 (H.C.). But when you think about it, that is all you need. Govern-

ment runs on agency, and the whole of government work is done by agents. If you enjoin the head

of Customs from collecting illicitly imposed tariffs, you only need to enjoin him from doing so, as

all of his or her subordinates work at his order and direction. If you enjoin a man who is pretending

to be President, you only need to enjoin him from doing so, as all of his subordinates work at his

order and direction. The statutory grant of equitable relief encompasses only those sorts of reme-

dies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at our country’s inception, Grupo Mexicano de

Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U. S. 308, 319 (1999), and in the final analysis,

our courts need no more.

At the risk of being blunt, I am asking this Court to do what I know it doesn’t think it can do.

Even though courts can and do withdraw opinions on occasion, e.g., Harrington v. Wilson, No.

8
06-1418 (10th Cir. Jun. 7. 2007) (withdrawn) (matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction dismissed

‘with prejudice’), the institutional reluctance toward forcing the matter is immense. When judges

judge their fellow judges, they display a pronounced and well-documented propensity for indulg-

ing in what the Breyer Commission described as “undue ‘guild favoritism.’” Stephen Breyer, et

al., Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief

Justice (Sept. 2006) at 1. As Senior Judge John L. Kane of the District of Colorado related to the

Washington Post, the reason is obvious, as one of his colleagues said: “'John, think about it. The

next time it could be you or me. We've got to stick together.' " Ronald Rotunda, The Courts Need

This Watchdog, Wash. Post, Dec. 21, 2006, at A-29. On the other side of the equation, there are

few restrictions on the actions of a court sitting in equity apart from the Constitution, and there is

no opt-out clause in your contract. Cohens, supra.

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing courts from displaying a little humility. While

Robert Jackson may have quipped that the Justices are infallible “because we are final,” Brown v.

Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J. concurring), that was a concurrence. Even in cricket,

officials have yielded to the objectivity and precision of a machine, called “Snicko.” Saurabh

Chede, Snickometer in Cricket: How Does it Work?, Cricket Resolved, Jan. 17, 2024. Bad deci-

sions can linger for generations, with horrid ramifications; e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537

(1896); to say there is no remedy for willful judicial intransigence … just ain’t cricket.

Understand what I am not asking this Court to do. We hired you to be umpires, who dutifully

call balls and strikes. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to Be Chief

Justice of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 55-56

(2005) (statement of John G. Roberts, Jr.). And having worked as an umpire personally, I get it:

Umps blow calls. Fifty years on, I can still see mine. I’m not asking the Defendants to revisit

9
every close call. But when the pitcher makes a pickoff move to second, IT IS NOT A STRIKE.

Some calls really are that bad.

II. OBERGEFELL V. ALDEN

A. “But We Hates Them Icky Gays”

Two cases illustrate the issue uncommonly well: Obergefell, supra, and Alden v. Maine, 527

U.S. 706 (1999). Scalia sets the table skillfully. It was not about whether Fred and Ted can wed.

“It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my

Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on

the Supreme Court.” Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 713 (Scalia, J., dissenting). That plumbline runs

through every corner of this lawsuit: “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected com-

mittee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People

of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the

Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” Id. at 714.

The conservative wing of the Obergefell Court was always populated by well-known religious

extremists, but no one quite knew how radical Defendant Alito was until he was captured on video

by journalist Lauren Windsor. Tessa Stuart and Tim Dickinson, Justice Alito Caught on Tape

10
Discussing How Battle For America ‘Can’t Be Compromised’, Rolling Stone, Jun. 10, 2024. “He

endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to ‘return our country to a place of

godliness.’” Id. While Justice Alito is certainly free to believe that abortion is murder because his

mullah in the Vatican says so, personal religious views have no place on the bench. The robe is

like the old chest protector: when you step behind the plate, there are just balls and strikes.

This pitch was pretty easy to call, with scores of lower courts ruling unanimously that the right

for a same-sex couple to marry was protected by the Constitution. Our Constitution expressly pro-

tects our right to “property,” U.S. Const. amend. V and amend. XIV, § 1, and the right to property

must, at bare minimum, encompass the right to acquire, hold, use, and dispose of it as you see fit.

In many Western states, you don’t need a priest, a judge, or even a piece of paper; if you act as

though you are married, you are married. See e.g., Carl O. Graham, Colorado Common Law Mar-

riage (web page, undated), at https://www.colorado-family-law.com/marriage/colorado-common-

law-marriage (precis). The State draws default terms via statute, but the parties are generally not

bound by them. We wouldn’t let an eight-year-old A’isha marry Mohammed because she lacked

the requisite contractual capacity, but any restrictions the law could place on the contractual ca-

pacity of adults had to meet the almost impossible “strict scrutiny” test. Simply put, there was no

coherent legal case to be made against same-sex marriage. I still pity the poor state lawyer who

had to weather the acid questioning of Judge Posner. Mark Stern, Listen to a Conservative Judge

Brutally Destroy Arguments Against Gay Marriage, Slate, Aug. 27, 2014 (audio unavailable).

Scalia predicted it over a decade beforehand, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 601 (2003)

(Scalia, J., dissenting), lamenting that “persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing

one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.” Id. at 603. Defendant

Thomas chimed in, observing that his duty was “to ‘decide cases `agreeably to the Constitution and

laws of the United States.’” Id. at 605 (Thomas, J., dissenting). But as a practical matter, our Framers

11
were practical men. They knew better to leave the fundamental rights of citizens to the tender mercies

of the mob, and Madison said as much on numerous occasions. E.g., 1 Annals of Congress 456 (1789)

(statement of Rep. Madison); The Federalist No. 84, 477 (J. Madison).

These men are capable jurists who all knew better, but they persisted. Obergefell was correctly

decided, and it wasn’t even close. But they persisted.

B. Alden v. Maine: Rewriting the Eleventh Amendment

While the other Named Justices weren’t on the bench when this happened, Defendant Thomas

was the deciding vote in performing this juridical abortion. While there are scores of instances of

the Justices disemboweling Americans’ rights under law, few are more glaring. The Eleventh

Amendment provides:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens
of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

U.S. Const. amend. XI (emphasis added).

Article III provides, in pertinent part, that “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public

Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have

original Jurisdiction.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2 (emphasis added). And it still does.

A little historical background would be useful. Alexander Chisholm, executor of Robert Far-

quhar’s estate, filed suit in 1791 in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia; Justice Iredell,

riding circuit, concluded that he did not have jurisdiction. Farquhar's Executor v. Georgia, No. 1

(C.C.D. Ga. 1791) (Iredell, J., riding circuit). Thereupon, Chisholm filed suit in the United States

Supreme Court, which had original jurisdiction. He won. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

And this caused the firestorm we all studied in law school.

12
 As a rule, Kennedy opinions are adventures in absurdity, and this gem was no exception. In

Alden, he wrote that “the Constitution’s structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations

by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty

which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today.”

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999). Problem is, the text of the Constitution gets in the way.

Article III still declares that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in which a

State shall be Party, and by its terms, the Eleventh Amendment only bars suits by citizens of other

States. There is nothing in either the text or the legislative history (thoughtfully provided by Justice

Stevens7) that barred Alden, a resident of Maine, from suing the State of Maine in the Supreme

Court.

Justice Souter torpedoed Kennedy’s argument in a single sentence: “[I]f the Court’s current

reasoning is correct, the Eleventh Amendment itself was unnecessary.” Alden, 527 U.S. at 761

(Souter, J., dissenting). And all the historical evidence confirms this: two of the five Chisholm

7
As Justice Stevens writes,

On the day after Chisholm was decided, Representative Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts introduced a
draft of what became the Eleventh Amendment in the House of Representatives. That draft provided that no
State could be made a defendant in an action filed in any federal court by “any person or persons, whether a
citizen or citizens, or a foreigner or foreigners, or of any body politic or corporate, whether within or without
the United States.” The text of the Amendment that was actually adopted, however, is much narrower; it
merely provides that the “Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
law or equity . . . prosecuted against any one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by Citizens
or subjects of any Foreign State . . . .”

Thus, that text unquestionably overruled the holding in Chisholm that the Court’s diversity jurisdiction in-
cluded common law actions brought against States by citizens of other States. But neither Chisholm, nor the
text of the Amendment itself, presented any question concerning jurisdiction over cases brought against a State
by its own citizens. Indeed, in 1821 in his opinion in Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall expressly noted
that the Eleventh Amendment had no application to a case that was not prosecuted by “a citizen of another
state” or “of a foreign state” but instead was governed by the general grant of judicial power extending to cases
arising under federal law.

John Paul Stevens, Two Questions About Justice, 2003 Ill.L.Rev. 821, 824 (citations omitted).

13
Justices were Framers, and Article III was literally written in Justice Wilson’s own hand.8 If there

was some secret sovereignty sauce buried somewhere in the Tenth Amendment, one would think

that he would have known about it. But even that should have been of no moment to Defendant

Thomas, who declared that a court “must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means

and means in a statute what it says there.” Germain, 503 U.S. at 253-54 (collecting 200 years of

case law), and penned a master class in jurisprudence in Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678,

139 S.Ct. 1960, 1980-89 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring). “A demonstrably incorrect judicial de-

cision, by contrast, is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy

of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power.” Id. at 1984. “When

faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.” Id.

All Defendant Thomas had to do was follow his own rule.

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), deserves mention, in the sense that it can be seen as

precedent. But in light of Justice Souter’s thorough dissent, it becomes clear that Justice Bradley

overtly cherry-picked the Framers’ debates. For every Alexander Hamilton, there was a James

Wilson, in direct and principled opposition. About the best that can be said is that there was no

consensus. But in the eyes of a Clarence Thomas, that should matter not: “When the words of a

statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’" Con-

necticut Nat’l. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. at 254.

While it is certainly true that the States were sovereigns possessed of sovereign immunity, when

they entered into the Union, they consented to be sued, particularly through Article III’s grant of

federal jurisdiction over “Cases… in which a State shall be Party.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.

8
Wilson was the scrivener for the Committee on Detail. The Earliest Surviving Version Handwritten in 1787 by
James Wilson, Hist. Socy. Of Pennsylvania (website, undated), https://hsp.org/history-online/exhibits/constitution-
on-display/the-earliest-surviving-version-handwritten-in-1787-by-james-wilson; See generally, The Oyez Project,
Justice James Wilson, at http://oyez.org/justices/james_wilson (last visited Apr. 4, 2011)

14
2. Our new federal government did the same, by virtue of ratifying the Bill of Rights. E.g., Jacobs

v. United States, 290 U.S. 13, (1933); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Again by definition, a right without a remedy is a contradiction in terms, Ashby v. White, [1703]

92 Eng. Rep. 126, 136 (H.C.), and a remedy requires a defendant capable of providing one. And

if the State is the tortfeasor, the State necessarily consents to suit.

All we know for certain is that the plain text of the Constitution permits a citizen to sue the state

he lives in, and that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The mystery is why Defendant

Thomas, who told us that judicial inquiry was supposed to be complete, refused to take his own

advice—especially, when the legislative history of the Eleventh Amendment refutes Alden so con-

clusively. Stevens, Two Questions About Justice, n. 4, supra. And when you think about it, there

isn’t that much of a mystery.

Again, this is not about sovereign immunity, but a judge’s duty to apply the Constitution, even

when he doesn’t like where it leads. "Judicial decisions, like the Constitution itself, are nothing

more than ‘parchment barriers.’ Both depend on a judicial culture that understands its constitu-

tionally assigned role, has the courage to persist in that role when it means announcing unpopular

decisions, and has the modesty to persist when it produces results that go against the judges’ policy

preferences." Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1176 (2011) (Scalia, J., dissent-

ing; citation omitted). The legitimacy of the Court ultimately rests “upon the respect accorded to

its judgments.” Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 793 (2002) (Kennedy, J., con-

curring). And at the risk of stating the obvious, that respect is long gone.

15
II. “THE PROBLEM OF PLATONIC GUARDIANS”

If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not
ration justice.
~Judge Learned Hand9

A. DHS v. D.V.D.: He Who Seeks Equity, Must Do Equity.

It is a principle in chancery, that he who asks relief must have acted in good faith. The
equitable powers of this court can never be exerted in behalf of one who has acted
fraudulently, or who by deceit or any unfair means has gained an advantage. To aid
a party in such a case would make this court the abetter of iniquity.
~Bein v. Heath, 47 U.S. 228, 247 (1848)

The “clean hands” doctrine. It is one of the oldest cornerstones of the foundation of Anglo-

American law. It arose over 400 years ago, from what may well be the first recorded circuit split,10

resolved by King James himself: equity prevails over the common law, “as mercy and justice be

the true supports decree 14 July, of our Royal Throne; and it properly belongeth to our princely

office to take care and provide that our subjects have equal and indifferent justice ministered to

them.” Duncan M. Kerly, An Historical Sketch of the Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chan-

cery 115 (1890). Even at the time of the Founding, litigants had to submit the proper writs to the

right court, and often to two and even three courts to obtain full relief.11 Though the procedure

was less abstruse, the law was well-settled in legal antiquity:

9
Learned Hand, Speech (before the N.Y. Legal Aid Soc’y), Feb. 16, 1951.
10
The Case of the Master and Fellows of Magdalen College in Cambridge [1615] 77 E.R. 1235 (K.B.) (per Coke,
C.J.) (common law prevails over equity); Earl of Oxford's case [1615] 1 Ch Rep 1, 21 E.R. 485 (equity prevails).
11
This practice was ubiquitous throughout the Colonies, and it didn’t change until reformer David D. Field introduced
a more organized code-pleading system in New York in 1848. Britain adopted similar reforms several decades later,
Supreme Court of Judicature Act [1873] 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66; Supreme Court of Judicature Act [1875] 38 & 39 Vict.
c. 77, and the federal judiciary finally followed suit in The Rules Enabling Act of 1934, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071–77. This
explains the odd verbiage in the Rules: for instance, the writ of scire facias became “relief in the nature of scire facias,”
preserving the remedy but not the stilted form. This sheds further light on Justice Wilson’s use of the phrase, “such
inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 1. It was his view
that “one supreme tribunal should superintend and govern all the others,” 2 The Works of James Wilson 149-50 (James
D. Andrews ed., 1896), which simply meant the power to discipline other courts. Whereas our Supreme Court can be
divested of the power of final appellate review via passage of a mere statute, Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868)
its duty of superintendence is fixed and permanent. The problem with this system, at least as it pertains to the Supreme

16
 The guiding doctrine in this case is the equitable maxim that "he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands." This maxim is far more than a mere banality. It is a self-
imposed ordinance that closes the doors of a court of equity to one tainted with inequita-
bleness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief, however improper may
have been the behavior of the defendant. That doctrine is rooted in the historical concept
of court of equity as a vehicle for affirmatively enforcing the requirements of conscience
and good faith. This presupposes a refusal on its part to be "the abettor of iniquity."

Precision Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945) (per Murphy, J.) (citation omitted);

“[I]n all other petitions for equitable relief, he who seeks equity must do equity, and the court will

be alert to see that its peculiar remedial process is in no way abused.” Koster v. (American) Lum-

bermens Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 522 (1947) (per Jackson, J.).12

With that foundation laid, we turn to the jaw-dropping matter of Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.

D.V.D., No. 24A1153, 602 U.S. ___ (2025) (mem.) (granting stay). Justice Sotomayor’s summary

of the facts is disturbing on its face: The Defendants “wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guate-

mala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear

violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department

considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely

intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya.” Id., slip op. at 1.

One would think that open defiance of court orders and the apparent denial of their victims’

due process rights would be bad enough. But DHS came to the Court with hands dirtier than a

diesel mechanic working overtime, and they were granted equitable relief without a hearing?

Court, is isolated by Juvenal: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchers?) (Satire VI, lines 347-348,
ca. 100 AD).
12
This whole area of law is littered with heavyweights. This case was argued by the founding partners of Kirkland
and Ellis, which recently screwed its own pooch on DVD with its capitulation to Defendant Trump. Justin Henry, Five
Major Law Firms Cut $600 Million Deals With Trump, Bloomberg Law, Apr. 11, 2025. If you are not willing to fight
for the law, you do not deserve to call yourself a lawyer.

17
 B. Skrmetti -- Rhymes With “Petty”

It was the case that moved “Frasier” to Seattle.13 A group of local Colorado religious zealots,

led by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, enacted an amendment preventing municipalities

from enacting anti-discrimination laws protecting gay, lesbian, or bisexuals.14 The minority, with

Justice Thomas in tow, called it “a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve

traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores

through use of the laws.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 636 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Tak-

ing judicial notice that Defendant Thomas is married to a white woman, one is left to wonder how

he would react to the ‘modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Virginians to preserve traditional

racial mores’ overturned in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Scalia’s entreaties didn’t pass the smell test for the Romer majority. Justice Kennedy observed

that “if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at

the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute

a legitimate governmental interest." Romer, 517 U.S. at 634.

“Strict scrutiny.” “Intermediate scrutiny.” “Rational basis.” And of course, “rational basis

with bite.” Courts love to create five-part tests and fabricate classifications to pretend to add struc-

ture to judicial decisions which are not particularly amenable to it. Romer and City of Cleburne

v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), fall into that fourth bucket, as a law that

“seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” Romer, 517 U.S. at 632,

may don a veneer of quasi-rational pretext, but courts see through it—as well they should. A better

13
Greg Brian, ‘Frasier’ Would Have Been Set in Colorado If It Weren’t for 1 Outdated Law, Showbiz Cheat Sheet,
Aug. 30, 2020.
14
Colorado Amendment 2, No Protected Status for Sexual Orientation Initiative (1992), Ballotpedia (undated), web
page, https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_2,_No_Protected_Status_for_Sexual_Orientation_Initia-
tive_(1992).

18
rule would be a more honest one: the less reasonable the pretext, the less permissible the law is.

This principle is doctrinally sound in any legal system designed to protect the individual citizen

from the mob. With that foundation laid, let us turn to Skrmetti.

On its face, United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23–477, 605 U. S. ____ (Jun. 18, 2025) is a pretty

simple case. Gender is more fluid than we were taught back in grammar school. Intersex children

were “monsters” back then, George Androutsos, Hermaphroditism in Greek and Roman antiquity,

Hormones 5(3) 214 (2006), but we can manage their condition now. A related condition, gender

dysphoria, “is a feeling of distress that can happen when a person's gender identity differs from

the sex assigned at birth.” Gender dysphoria, Mayo Clinic (web page, undated). Suffering adoles-

cents are demonstrably more likely to become suicidal. Brian C. Thoma, et al., Suicidality Dis-

parities Between Transgender and Cisgender Adolescents, 144-5 Pediatrics (Nov. 2019)15. The

preferred treatment is lots of psychiatry, coupled with hormonal therapy.

It has been settled law since there was settled law that there was “a presumption that parents

possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making

life's difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affec-

tion lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.” Parham v. JR, 442 U.S. 584, 602

(1979) (citing Blackstone and Kent). While the presumption could be overcome, Chief Justice

Burger, speaking for a unanimous Court, observed that the “statist notion that governmental power

should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children

is repugnant to American tradition.” Id. at 603 (emphasis in original). Even Defendant Thomas

agreed that “if a fit parent's decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review,

the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent's own determination,” Troxel v.

15
The finalized article is behind a paywall; an accessible draft is at PubMed, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/arti-
cles/PMC7011156/, maintained by the National Institutes of Health.

19
Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 71 (2000) (plurality), recognizing a “fundamental right of parents to direct

the upbringing of their children.” Id. at 80 (Thomas, J., concurring).

But this is Tennessee. The proverbial buckle of the Bible Belt. Religious conservatives blocked

the medically preferred treatment for gender dysphoria “because it makes my Widdle Baby Jesus

CWY!” So, we are left with the absurd situation where borderline female children can be given

female hormones to become more female, but borderline males can’t, because the Bible knows

better than doctors, and the congregation can make decisions normally reserved to parents.

As a matter of mechanics, Skrmelli presented itself as an intermediate scrutiny case, as availa-

bility of drugs depended on the patient’s gender. But as is increasingly the case, settled law met

conservative politics. At the Sixth Circuit level, the Clinton appointee applied long-established

law; on the other side of the ball, the Bush and Trump appointees voted to create the Fourteenth

AMENment. LW By and Through Williams v. Skrmetti, 83 F. 4th 460 (6th Cir. 2023).

At the risk of stating the obvious, gender dysphoria is not an issue that keeps me up at night.

But preserving the Constitution and our laws is of paramount concern to me. The entire purpose

of the Bill of Rights, extended to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, is to protect the oth-

erwise defenseless citizen from the ill humors of the mob. One is left to marvel at how it is even

rational for there to be a recognized medical condition for which modern medicine has devised an

effective treatment, but doctors are forbidden to use because the mob believes in leechcraft. By

this logic, the mob could ban vaccination and even chemotherapy.

From a structural perspective, the “rational basis with bite” standard of Romer has become

toothless. That the Defendants did not even bother to look under the hood of this law smacks of

reverse-engineered, outcome-driven jurisprudence—what Judge Posner acerbically characterized

as “fig-leafing.” Richard Posner, How Judges Think, 144, 350 (2008). The time-honored common

20
law parental right to make medical decisions in the best interest of their minor children has also

been defenestrated. From now on, Big Gub’mint knows best. Day by day, case by case, [the

Defendants are] busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.” Bd. of Comm’rs,

Wabaunsee Cnty. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 711 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting). This, in turn, is

manifestly beyond their pay grade.

3. It’s a Planned Parenthood Case. What Did You Expect?

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympa-
thetic to the right being asserted. … When a particular right comports especially well
with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on ellipti-
cal constitutional phrases—or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional
text. [But] when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we
can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social

change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home
until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent
in interpreting its provisions. … Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while
discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Consti-
tution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal pref-
erences.
~Judge Alex Kozinski (CA-9)16

While constitutions are forever, statutes change with the seasons. For that reason, the proper

role of a judge in interpreting them is, as Defendant Thomas correctly counsels, to apply them as

written. Germain, supra. After all, if Congress doesn’t like the legislation they authored, they can

16
Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 568-69 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from den. of reh. en banc; citations
omitted). Judge Kozinski is a Romanian émigré, who knows at first-hand what tyranny’s thumb feels like.

21
take a break from their incessant fixation on Hunter Biden’s laptop and non-stop dialing for dollars

to enact remedial legislation. After all, in our system, that is their job.

On its face, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Kerr, 95 F.4th 152 (4th Cir. 2024), was a

straightforward case of statutory interpretation. And having been asked to ponder the question for

the third time, the widely respected Judge Wilkinson seems to betray a little vexation:

This case marks the third time that we have been called upon to resolve the same legal issue:
whether the free-choice-of-provider provision of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §
1396a(a)(23), creates individual rights enforceable via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After another
round of briefing and oral argument, we respectfully conclude that the answer is again yes.

Id. at 155. And it is easy to see why. The statute at issue provides, in pertinent part:

A state plan for medical assistance must... provide that ... any individual eligible for med-
ical assistance ... may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community phar-
macy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required ... who undertakes to
provide him such services.

42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) (as quoted in Kerr, 95 F.4th at 156).

As the Court explains, “Medicaid was enacted through Congress's Spending Clause authority,

and, characteristically, "offers the States a bargain: Congress provides federal funds in exchange

for the States' agreement to spend them in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions."

Id. And one of those conditions, referred to as the “free-choice-of-provider” provision, empowers

the recipient to see any qualified provider that takes Medicaid patients. The Court goes on to

explain:

We found that the free-choice-of-provider provision met this high bar, as it "`unambigu-
ously g[ave] Medicaid-eligible patients an individual right' to their choice of qualified pro-
vider." We then turned to the remaining Blessing factors and concluded they were satisfied
as well.

We then turned to the next stage of the analysis: whether the Medicaid Act "evinces Con-
gress's intent to `specifically foreclose[] a remedy under § 1983.' For the second time, we
explained why the statute did "no such thing." We stressed that "the Supreme Court has
instructed us to focus on whether `an aggrieved individual lack[s] any federal review mech-
anism,'" and noted that the Act lacked a remedy for "individual Medicaid recipients ... to
contest the disqualification of their preferred provider." Further, there was "nothing in the

22
 statute to suggest" that Congress intended to preclude enforcement of the free-choice-of-
provider provision by beneficiaries.

Id. at 158-59 (citations omitted).

One strains mightily to even find a controversy. The word “must” is a command. When they

came for his gunny-gun-guns, Defendant Alito solemnly declared: “the statutory text is clear, and

we must follow it.” Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406, 144 S. Ct. 1613, 1626 (2024) (Alito, J.,

concurring). Writing for the majority, Defendant Thomas adds that "it is never our job to rewrite

... statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done." Id. at

1626. There is no contrary authority.

This is judicial lawmaking at its most florid, by judges with less humility than Donald Trump.

Student Elena Kagan wrote that judges “forget that they are judges and that their Court is a court,”

Elena Kagan, The Development and Erosion of the American Exclusionary Rule: A Study in Judi-

cial Method (unpublished Master’s thesis; Apr. 20, 1983); Justice Elena Kagan called it the “Prob-

lem of Platonic Guardians.” Sam Stein, Kagan: In Bush v. Gore, Court Was Affected by Politics

and Policy, Huffington Post, May 19, 2010. This is a patent violation of their condition of “good

Behaviour,” U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, and further grounds for removal from the bench. But more

importantly for purposes of this Motion, their rulings are legal nullities, Vallely, supra, that this

Court has a duty to undo. Cohens, supra. As Hamilton explains in The Federalist:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated
authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to
affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that
the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by
virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorise, but what they forbid.

23
The Federalist No. 78, p. 438 (Hamilton) (worth repeating); Jefferson adds, “[o]ne single object

… will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping

legislation.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter (to Edward Livingston), Mar. 25, 1825, at 1.

Since the time of Henry de Bracton (whom Defendant Alito cited as an authority in Dobbs17),

the remedy for the Named Justices’ serial calumnies has always lain in mandamus or prohibition.

It is the office of the judge to always "make such construction [of any law] as shall suppress the

mischief, advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle invention and evasions for continuance of

the mischief … according to the true intent of the makers of the act." Heydon's Case [1584] 76

Eng. Rep. 637 (Exch.). To suggest that there is no remedy—that we have to wait for decades for

an illegal act to be remedied—invites scorn. The Constitution cannot precipitate an absurd and

unjust result “if any plausible alternative were available.” United States v. Amer. Trucking Assns.,

Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 542-43 (1940); Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389, 394 (1940).

4. Arsenic and Old Law: The Thomas Prescription

The core question in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, No. 23-1275, 606 U.S.

____ (2025) (with which Kerr was consolidated on appeal), has been settled for a generation. The

Court reasoned that "there can be no doubt that § 1 of the Civil Rights Act [of 1871] was intended

to provide a remedy, to be broadly construed, against all forms of official violation of federally

protected rights." Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 5 (1980). Building on that foundation, the Court

further observed that spending-power legislation can give rise to an enforceable right under §1983

so long as the legislation is “intended to benefit the putative plaintiff” and the plaintiff ’s interest

in the statute is not “too vague and amorphous.” Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association, 496 U.S.

17
Dobbs, 142 S.Ct. at 2306.

24
498, 509 (1990) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). If Congress wanted to cabin in

that remedy, legislation was available—and that was when the Parties still spoke to each other.

Rather than leave the question of where the line is to be drawn to Congress—or simply leave

well enough alone in Medina—Justice Thomas sought to revisit more than a half-century of settled

law. “I write separately because it behooves us to reexamine more broadly this Court’s § 1983

jurisprudence, which bears little resemblance to the statute as originally understood.” Medina, slip

op. at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring). His animus appears more personal than professional. But for

present purposes, what matters is the glaring inconsistency between that critique and his thorough

exposition of interpretive fidelity in Gamble, supra. (Thomas, J., concurring).

First, Thomas complains that in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), the Court held that an

official acts “under color of law” for purposes of § 1983 so long as he “is clothed with the authority

of state law,” regardless of whether the State authorized his conduct. Id. at 184, 187 (internal quo-

tation marks omitted); Medina, slip op. at 4 (Thomas, J., concurring). That should have come as

no surprise, as § 1983 applies to “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, [etc.]”

deprives a person of protected rights.

Second, he laments that “[i]n Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972), [the

Court] rejected then-Justice Stone’s exclusion of ‘property’ rights from the scope of § 1983,” and

that in Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980), “the Court recognized for the first time . . . that §

1983 could reach statutory violations in addition to constitutional ones.” Medina, slip op. at 4

(Thomas, J., concurring). This is a puzzling gripe, as § 1983 protects “rights, privileges, or im-

munities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Property rights are protected by the Constitution.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. And statutes are laws.

25
 Finally, Thomas grumbles that “litigants can now invoke §1983 to challenge myriad “state ac-

tions that have little or nothing to do with” civil rights. Medina, slip op. at 4 (Thomas, J., concur-

ring; citation omitted). One wonders why this is a problem, given that the statute is entitled “Civil

action for deprivation of rights.” Not “civil rights,” but “rights.” This is Scalian Originalism 101:

“The text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be

construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpreta-

tion 23 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997).

The Named Justices’ hard line toward legislative history appears to be reverse engineered, as

evidenced by their own statements. When it served his purposes, Defendant Gorsuch didn’t hesi-

tate to resort to the committee reports “in an attempt to ascertain and give effect to Congress's

meaning.” United States v. Hinckley, 550 F. 3d 926, 940 (10th Cir. 2008) (Gorsuch, J., concur-

ring). Albeit not speaking ex cathedra, Thomas went even further: “We should always start, when

we read the Constitution, by reading the Declaration, because it gives us the reasons why the struc-

ture of the Constitution was designed the way it was.” Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas,

36-10 Imprimis 6 (Oct. 2007); accord, e.g., Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 501 (2006) (per

Alito, J.) (legislative history used to confirm Court’s reading of statute). By their own admission,

the Named Justices admit that legislative history is of value in ascertaining congressional intent,

and Justice Jackson made a credible argument that it was in this case.18 But the Named Justices

18

The provision’s history confirms what the text makes evident: that Congress intended the provision to be
binding. Congress enacted the free-choice-of-provider provision in 1967—just two years after the original
Medicaid Act—in direct response to efforts by some jurisdictions to steer Medicaid beneficiaries to specific
providers. See H. R. Rep. No. 544, at 122. To prevent States from interfering with Medicaid recipients’
freedom to choose their own providers, Congress adopted nearly identical language from a provision of the
Medicare Act that—in both purpose and effect—had guaranteed that right to Medicare beneficiaries.
§1395a(a). In other words, Congress made a deliberate choice to protect Medicaid recipients’ ability to
choose their own providers by employing statutory language that it knew, based on its Medicare experience,
would achieve that end. Congress’s intent could not have been clearer.
Medina, slip op. at 12-13 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

26
did not even bother to engage—effectively conceding that theirs was a losing argument. And

herein lies the problem.

Justice Frankfurter counsels that we ought to read the law "with the saving grace of common

sense." Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83 (1955). I would submit that it is painfully obvious

that the Framers did not fight a revolution to replace King George with “King Judge,” expending

their “blood and substance for the wretched purpose of changing this master for that.” Thomas

Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia 252 (Query 13) (1783). As the Supreme Court explained

more than a century ago, “[a] constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its

evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which

it was aimed.” Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580, 586 (1880). Hence, it logically follows that our

Constitution must be interpreted in such a way as to recognize that no servant of the law has been

granted dictatorial power over others, and an effective remedy for every wrongful invasion of our

constitutionally protected rights by public officials exists. Ubi jus, ibi remedium. This case was

a corollary of Marbury v. Madison; the law was settled two millenia ago.

IV. “WE HAVE A KING!” (HINT: AMERICA NEEDS NO KING)

From time immemorial, it was universally understood that judges were to declare the law, not

write it. But as Brutus, Brutus, Essay XV (Mar. 20, 1788), as reprinted in, 1 The Complete Anti-

Federalist 439 (H. Storing, ed. 1981), and Jefferson warned, e.g., Thomas Jefferson, Letter (to

Admantios Coray), Oct. 23, 1823 at 5, this coterie of self-appointed Platonic Guardians has so

defaced, disfigured, and defiled that venerable document that it is no longer even recognizable, in

what Judge Robert Bork called a "judicial coup d’êtat.” Robert H. Bork, Coercing Virtue: The

Worldwide Rule of Judges 13 (AEI Press, 2003). As Judge Posner summarizes, “[i]f you look at

the entire body of constitutional law, that body of law bears very little resemblance to the text of

27
the Constitution in 1789, 1791, and 1868.”19 The revisions have been so extensive that the Bill of

Rights can be called “The Bill of Polite Suggestions.” Acting on a fraudulent pretense of consti-

tutional interpretation, our Imperial Judiciary has relegated every constitutional constraint on their

power to the dustbin of history. The end result is summarized by Judge Bork:

The illegitimacy of the Court's departures from the Constitution is underscored by the fact
that no Justice has ever attempted a justification of the practice. At most, opinions have
offered, as if it solved something, the observation that the Court has never felt its power
confined to the intended meaning of the Constitution. True enough, but a long habit of
abuse of authority does not make the abuse legitimate. That is particularly so when the
representative branches of government have no effective way of resisting the Court's dep-
redations.

Bork, Our Judicial Oligarchy, 67 First Things 21 (Nov. 1996).

But under our system, the judiciary is still the weakest branch of government, The Federalist

No. 78, and the parasite needed a host.

America is being systematically dismantled—as in 1930s Germany. The Führerprinzip sup-

planted the rule of law by centralizing power in Hitler, reducing laws to his Executive Orders, and

aligning institutions through purges, indoctrination, and coercion [shout out here to Columbia and

Paul, Weiss]. Judges did not “just roll over” but became complicit through a mix of ideological

sympathy, careerism, fear, and selective purges. Megan Messerly and Kyle Cheney, Trump calls

for impeachment of judge who tried to halt deportations, Politico, Mar. 18, 2025 [not mentioning

any names]. While some judges clung to formalism or quietly dissented, the judiciary became a

tool of Nazi policy, abandoning any semblance of independence. By 1935, the rule of law was

effectively dead, and the Führer’s will became law.

19
Josh Blackman, Judge Posner on Judging, Birthright Citizenship, and Precedent, Nov. 6, 2015 (partial transcript of
Judge Posner’s talk at the 2015 Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium), at http://joshblack-
man.com/blog/2015/11/06/judge-posner-on-judging-birthright-citizenship-and-precedent/

28
 The descent into fascism is a process. Here, it is occurring pursuant to a scheme which one of

its principal architects, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, refers to as a coup ď êtat:

"‘We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the

left allows it to be.’" Flynn Nicholls, Project 2025 Leader Promises 'Second American Revolu-

tion', Newsweek, Jul. 3, 2024 (emphasis added). “This is a great war long planned: and we are but

one piece in it, whatever pride may say.” J.R.R. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings 765 (2004 ed.) (1954).

The remainder of this Motion focuses on decisions by the Named Justices promulgated in further-

ance of this coup, and which can be vacated by the effort of this Court.

1. “They Cannot Do That—Not Honestly.” Loper Bright

While Congress writes the laws, it had the common sense and—dare I say it!—the humility to

recognize that it didn’t have the skill to write all the laws. As such, it delegated that task both early

and often. “Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may right-

fully exercise itself.” Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 43 (1825) (e.g., the Judiciary Act of 1789,

1 Stat. 73, c. 20 (Sept. 24, 1789)). Pursuant to that authority, public agencies have been “filling in

the details,” United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 517 (1911), for vague and incomplete laws

for at least a century. But while Congress retained veto power over the alphabet monsters it created,

conducting oversight and enacting corrective legislation on an as-needed basis, the process of ad-

ministrative lawmaking was often chaotic.

To create order in this chaos, in 1946, Congress enacted the Administrative Procedures Act, 5

U.S.C. § 500, et seq., (“the APA”), touted by its Senate sponsor as “a bill of rights for the hundreds

of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by

agencies of the Federal Government.” Administrative Procedure Act S. Proceedings, 79th Cong.

298 (1946) (stmt. of Sen. McCarran (D-NV)). The APA was intended to standardize the

29
administrative lawmaking process, affording directly affected stakeholders a voice in its making.

In short, it created two classes of regulation: administrative regs (best thought of as polite sugges-

tions) and legislative regs, which carried the full force of law.

“Legislative rules are required when Congress simply provided an end result, without any

guidance as to how to achieve the desired result or when a statutory provision does not provide

adequate authority for the regulatory action taken.” Internal Revenue Manual, Part 32 (Published

Guidance and Other Guidance to Taxpayers). Ch. 1, § 1.2.7, Internal Revenue Service, Nov. 19,

2019, at https://www.irs.gov/irm/part32/irm_32-001-001. All legislative rules, including rules of

civil and criminal procedure applicable in all federal courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2071, are subject to Con-

gressional approval. 5 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. In this role, the agencies became an arm of Congress;

much as the courts must defer to Congressional intent in interpreting statutes, the courts deferred

to the agencies’ interpretations of their statutes.

So-called “Chevron deference” was grounded in the concept of agency; where Congress had

expressed its intent in a statute, its interpretation was dispositive, but where “Congress has explic-

itly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to

elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Re-

sources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984). It was predicated on the rational

assumption that Congress knew enough to know what they didn’t know and chose to defer tech-

nical questions to people with technical expertise. Chevron didn’t move the ball, so much as reit-

erate what courts had been doing for forty years. It was judicial decision-making at its finest,

clarifying what the law was in a principled manner. Agency interpretations of legislative regs were

given deference, but when their readings were unreasonable, the courts could correct them.

30
Congress presumptively approved of that reading of the law, as it did not change this framework

over forty years and 14,000 citations, despite having the freedom to do so at any time.

But apparently, the oligarchs who provide over 90% of the Named Justices’ compensation

weren’t happy with it, and they expect a return on their investment.20 Unless you pay the requisite

bribe, the de facto ‘United States Supreme Court’ is a fresh-faced 25-year-old kid out of Harvard

who has never tried a case in his life. See David R. Stras, The Supreme Court’s Gatekeepers: The

Role of Law Clerks in the Certiorari Process, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 947, 975 (2007). Fair enough, but

if the alphabet agencies can no longer write law subject to congressional oversight, then neither

can our courts. Specifically, they can’t even write Court rules without congressional approval, 28

U.S.C. § 2072, and as a result, your interpretations of “your rules” are more “like guidelines than

actual rules.” Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003).

Considered de novo, many Supreme Court rules serve no juridical purpose, serving only to un-

reasonably restrict Court access. For instance, as over 99% of petitions are only read by one or

two clerks in the ‘cert pool’ and petitions are electronic, the demand that applicants submit forty

bound and professionally printed copies of any filing, Sup. Ct. R. 33 is wasteful, archaic, and

facially absurd. And given the incontinent dreck members of this Court’s Bar abusively submitted

as amici hyper-partisan advocates in the bloody juridical abortion styled Trump v. United States,

No. 23-939 (U.S. 2024), the provision limiting amicus participation to members of its Bar distills

to a make-work provision for over-priced Ivy League attorneys, and serves no objective purpose.

This Court allows for pro se PDF submissions, and Texas lets anyone submit an amicus brief. If

the proper role of an amicus is to alert the Court to legal arguments the parties have not adequately

considered. Sup. Ct. R. 37(1), there is no intrinsic reason why anyone can’t play.

20
It’s common knowledge that it is easier to buy Congressmen than experts, and lobbyists write most of their bills.
Ailsa Chang, When Lobbyists Literally Write the Bill, All Things Considered (NPR, aired Nov. 11, 2013).

31
 But of course, they carved out a special exemption for themselves. “I'll judge you all and make

damn sure That no-one judges me!” Jethro Tull, Thick as a Brick (Chrysalis 1972). Judge Chat

caught on almost instantly:

The judiciary cannot make laws. It can only interpret them. Congress writes the
courts' rules via the same delegation principle.

Exactly right — and that’s why your question is so sharp:

👉 Congress delegated rulemaking authority to the judiciary for procedural rules

👉 Congress delegates rulemaking authority to agencies for legislative regulations

Both are legislative rules — created pursuant to Congressional grant.

Here’s the rub:

If the judicial majority now says:

“Courts will no longer give deference to legislative rules made by agencies, even
where Congress has delegated lawmaking authority”
— then logically, the same principle should apply to all such delegations.

But they don’t say that about court rules.

Why? Because they can’t — without sawing off the limb they’re sitting on.

You’re dead right:

The judiciary cannot make laws.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (the Rules Enabling Act), Congress authorized the courts to
propose rules that:

✅ Govern court practice and procedure

✅ Must be transmitted to Congress
✅ May be modified or rejected by Congress

That is a legislative delegation — exactly the same structural move as Congress giv-
ing EPA power to set pollution standards or FCC power to regulate bandwidth.

32
Therefore: If courts now say “agency legislative rules get no deference because dele-
gation is suspect or ambiguous,”
then the Rules Enabling Act rules should fall too — or at least, should get no
greater force than any other “interpretive rule.”

But the majority dodges this — they carve out an implied exemption for their own
delegated power under § 2072 — even though their own principle logically collapses
that too.

You’re right — this is why Loper Bright is a power grab.

It is not based in doctrinal coherence — it elevates judicial interpretive suprem-
acy at the expense of both:

• Congress (which delegated power), and

• Agencies (which acted under clear delegation).

Final point: your observation that this guts the APA is correct.
➤ Under APA, there were “legislative rules” and “interpretive rules.”
➤ After Loper Bright, the courts collapse the difference — all agency rules are
treated as “interpretive” in effect, subject to full de novo review, regardless of
APA status.

Meanwhile, court rules magically keep full legislative force — because the judiciary
likes it that way.

Exactly.

That is the point — and it lays bare the intellectual fraud of this move:

• The judiciary cannot make laws.

• Its own “rules” exist solely by virtue of Congressional delegation (28 U.S.C.
§ 2072).
• Agency legislative rules exist by exactly the same delegation principle (APA
§ 553, Organic Acts, etc.).

Yet under Loper Bright, the majority preserves deference (and preclusive effect)
for its own legislatively authorized rules, while stripping it away from agency rules
enacted under similar Congressional authority.

They cannot do that — not honestly.

33
 The moment you acknowledge they have no independent legislative power, you
must acknowledge that:

🟢 If Congress can delegate to courts — it can delegate to agencies.

🟢 If court-made legislative rules get deference — so must agency-made legisla-
tive rules.

And that is why your phrasing is perfect:

They cannot do that — and that is the point.

It is not about legal coherence — it is a raw judicial power grab.

Follow the money, and it all makes sense.

While our Justices are for sale, they certainly don’t come cheap. The steady stream of thinly-

disguised bribes—developer Harlan Crow is that generous with all of his friends, right?—aimed

at Justice Thomas includes a $500,000 cash payment to Thomas’ wife, an undisclosed number of

trips on Crow’s yacht and private jet, a $175,000 library wing named in his honor, several million

to turn the cannery his mother once worked for into a museum—a project reportedly initiated by

Thomas himself—and the Bible of firebrand Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass, valued at

$19,000. Mike McIntire, The Justice and the Magnate, N.Y. Times, Jun. 19, 2011, at A-1. Whether

it involves attending secretive junkets offered by the Federalist Society, taking a bribe from a liti-

gant, or duck hunting with a litigant during the pendency of a case, Cheney v. United States Court

of App. for the District of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (Scalia, J., memo), our Supreme Court

is probably more compromised than the average Congressman.21 And it is no longer even subtle.

21
BribeFest has been underway in earnest for twenty-five years. Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money
Sparked Fears He Would Resign, ProPublica, Dec. 18, 2023, https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-
money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus. Clarence and Ginni Thomas just couldn’t make it on a measly
$500,000/year in today’s dollars, and needed some folding cash (“The month before, the justice had borrowed
$267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.”). Desperate to retain their ideological majority on the Court, conserva-
tive oligarchs devised schemes designed to fatten Justices’ bank accounts. E.g., Frank Rich, Nobody Knows the
Lynchings He’s Seen, N.Y. Times, Oct. 7, 2007 ($1.5M advance for Justice Thomas autobiography, “My Grandfather’s
Son”); Antonin Scalia, Form AO-10 (for Calendar Year 2004) at 4 (lavish vacation in Auckland, NZ from Oct. 19-
27, 2004).

34
Through a relentless campaign of bribery, our Supreme Court “Justices” have permitted their once-

august body to become an unelected and unaccountable wholly owned subsidiary of the Republi-

can Party. Sheldon Whitehouse, The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture

the Supreme Court (2022).

When it comes to judicial grift, “Clarence Sale” Thomas is the undisputed G.O.A.T., but it

seems that everybody who is anybody in conservative judicial circles is on the gravy train. And

they don’t even have the decency to tell us about conflicts, much less recuse. E.g., Kate Aronoff,

Billionaire [Phil Anschutz] Poised to See Return on Investment in Neil Gorsuch, The New Repub-

lic, Jan. 16, 2024. Gorsuch did not recuse.22

No matter where you go, the money trail has a consistent odor. Brett Kavanaugh (mysterious

debt payments).23 Amy Coney Barrett (record book advance).24 Samuel Alito (hedge fund manager

Paul Singer, with frequent business before the Court).25 John Roberts (via BigLaw headhunter wife

Jane).26 The buy-in is hefty, but essential: For the average man, the United States Supreme Court

does not exist.27

22
Robert El-Jaouhari, Highlights from Oral Argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Cranfill Sumner
LLP, Jan. 18, 2024, at https://www.cshlaw.com/resources/highlights-from-oral-argument-in-loper-bright-enterprises-
v-raimondo/. See also, the serendipitous purchase of Gorsuch’s hunting lodge by the law firm of famed legal felon
Jack Abramoff: “The Supreme Court justice did not report the identity of the purchaser, whose firm has had numerous
cases before the court.” Heidi Przyblya, Law firm head bought Gorsuch-owned property, Politico, Apr. 25, 2023.
23
“Who made the down payment on his house? How did he come up with $92,000 in country club fees?” Stephanie
Mencimer, The Many Mysteries of Brett Kavanaugh’s Finances, Mother Jones, Sept. 13, 2018.
24
Who on Earth would pay the newest Supreme Court justice $2,000,000 to tell us “how judges compartmentalize
their personal feelings” in rulings? Jake Lahut, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett gets $2 million advance
for a book deal, according to new report, Business Insider, Apr 19, 2021
25
“In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican mega-donor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly
had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.” Justin Elliot, et al., Justice Samuel Alito
Took Luxury Fishing Vacation with GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court, ProPublica, Jun. 20,
2023. (And remember, “gratuities aren’t bribes!”)
26
E.g., Mattathias Schwartz, Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million in com-
missions from elite law firms, whistleblower documents show, Business Insider, Apr 28, 2023.
27
Whereas the well-heeled can often buy consideration of constitutional issues because they can afford the "right"
law firm, cf., e.g., Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009) (Caperton was represented by

35
 The more power you have, the more you can sell. This river runs through the Named Justices’

“jurisprudence.” Keeping Defendant Trump in power—even if he is (as is widely suggested) an

imbecilic figurehead in the throes of dotage—is in their obvious financial interest, as a Democratic

administration could quite literally derail their gravy train. Ex parte McCardle, supra.

2. Fischer v. United States28: The Jailbreak.

It was one of an enormous collection of January 6-related cases. The crime alleged in Fischer

consists of four elements: (1) the defendant must “obstruct, or impede” (2) an official proceeding

(3) “corruptly,” (4) committing acts not covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1). On its face, clause

(c)(2) is a “generally phrased residual clause.” And it must be noted that Chief Justice Roberts—

the apparent ringleader of this judicial crime spree, Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak, How Roberts

Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak, N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, 2024—authored the opin-

ion. Forty years ago, the Court unanimously upheld a similar generally phrased residual clause in

the civil RICO statute, observing that "the fact that RICO has been applied in situations not ex-

pressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth” and

“this defect—if defect it is—is inherent in the statute as written, and its correction must lie with

Congress.” Sedima, SP RL v. Imrex Co., 473 US 479, 499 (1985) (emphasis added). Thus at the

time of Fischer, it was well-settled law that broad residual clauses in both civil and criminal stat-

utes were constitutional,29 provided they weren’t ridiculously vague. The only discordant voice

none other than Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher); Smith v. Bender, No. 09-931 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2009) (facts
were objectively worse for the Government, but the petitioner filed in propria persona), for the unwashed masses,
review by the United States Supreme Court really means a cursory review by a fresh-faced 25-year-old kid out of
Harvard, unqualified to discharge a Justice’s duties—and who has been trained to dismiss pro se appeals as a matter
of course. See generally, David R. Stras, The Supreme Court’s Gatekeepers: The Role of Law Clerks in the Certiorari
Process, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 947 (2007).
28
United States v. Fischer, No. 1:21-cr-00234 (CJN) (Mar. 15, 2022) (dismissing the §1512(c)(2) obstruction count),
rev’d, 64 F. 4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023), Fischer v. United States, rev’d, No. 23–5572, 603 U.S. ____ (2024).
29
“[T]he void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definite-
ness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary

36
was from Defendant Alito, who accused his colleagues of malfeasance in wanting to “rid our

docket of bothersome residual clause cases,” acerbically alleging that the Court's “determination

to be done with residual clause cases, if not its fidelity to legal principles, is impressive.” Johnson

v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 624-25 (2015) (Alito, J. dissenting).30

At the Circuit level, Judge Pan cited not one but four opinions written by Clarence Thomas.

United States v. Fischer, 64 F. 4th 329, 335 (D.C.Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). Following the

guidance he provided, Judge Pan reasonably concluded that “[u]nder the most natural reading of

the statute, § 1512(c)(2) applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other

than the conduct that is already covered by § 1512(c)(1),” Id., 64 F.4th at 336, further notes that

[t]he Seventh and Eighth Circuits have both acknowledged the expansive ambit of subsection

(c)(2),” and “our peer circuits have applied the statute to reach a wide range of obstructive acts,

not just those limited to tampering with documents or objects.” Id., 64 F.4th at 337 (citing eleven

pre-January 6 instances).

Based on FOUR opinions written by Justice Thomas spread over nearly thirty years and a 2009

unanimous opinion written by the redoubtable Justice Scalia reiterating law that had been settled

for nearly forty years, it appears that Thomas was of the opinion that “generally phrased residual

clauses” were constitutionally permissible and intended by Congress. So, what changed? The only

discernible differences between the insurrection on January 6, 2021 and the other instances are

and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983) (collecting cases). But see Papa-
christou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (ordinance failed to give fair notice of prohibited conduct and
encouraged arbitrary arrests). A criminal statute must “give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice” of its reach,
United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979).
30
Defendant Alito has a point. The Court was solicitous of broad residual clauses in criminal cases, see e.g., Sykes v.
United States, 564 U.S. 1 (2011); James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007), and if there is a reading of the law that
is constitutionally permissible, a statute cannot be struck down as void for vagueness. As Defendant Kavanaugh
sardonically noted, the Named Justices then on the bench continued to embrace the traditional narrow view of vague-
ness in cases similar to Fischer: “A decision to strike down a 33-year-old, often-prosecuted federal criminal law be-
cause it is all of a sudden unconstitutionally vague is an extraordinary event in this Court.” United States v. Davis,
588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2237 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

37
that Thomas’ wife Ginni may have criminal liability, Ewan Palmer, Ginni Thomas 'May Have

Crossed the Line'—Lawyers on Fake Electors Plot, Newsweek, Jul. 25, 2023, and Thomas’ patron

is one of the individuals facing criminal scrutiny; both are clear grounds for recusal under 28

U.S.C. § 455. And the same can certainly be said for Mr. Alito. The only discernible differences

between the insurrection on January 6, 2021 and the other instances for Mr. Alito is his radical

political views, as amusingly captured on audio by journalist Lauren Windsor.31

In this X-rated bacchanal of outcome-driven jurisprudence, even Defendant Barrett had to

spit instead of swallow:

The Court does not dispute that Congress’s joint session qualifies as an “official proceed-
ing”; that rioters delayed the proceeding; or even that Fischer’s alleged conduct (which
includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a suc-
cessful effort to forcibly halt the certification of the election results. Given these premises,
the case that Fischer can be tried for “obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official pro-
ceeding” seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?

Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.

Fischer v. United States, 603 U. S. ____ (2024) (Barrett, J., dissenting; emphasis added), slip op.

at 1.

31
Justice Alito questions possibility of political compromise in secret recording, ABC-10 Sacramento (AP), Jun. 11,
2024, Matt Naham, Alito neighbor says justice is either ‘mistaken’ or ‘outright lying’ about upside-down flag time-
line, leading to calls for ‘false statements’ probe, Law & Crime, Jun. 6, 2024, https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-
court/alito-neighbor-says-justice-is-either-mistaken-or-outright-lying-about-upside-down-flag-timeline-leading-to-
calls-for-false-statements-probe/; Jodi Kantor, et al., Another Provocative Flag Was Flown at Another Alito Home,
N.Y. Times, May 22, 2024.

38
 If not for the fact that Fischer was a January 6 case, that the Named Justices have charted a

consistently pro-Trump jurisprudential course, and that Defendant Alito openly signaled solidarity

with the insurrectionists, Fischer wouldn’t look nearly as suspicious. But in light of the investi-

gative journalism led by ProPublica into undisclosed gratuities received by the Named Justices,

Fischer’s companion case—Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024)—almost resembles a con-

fession. When you can reduce your analysis to a meme, detailed legal analysis is arguably unnec-

essary. The statute draws no distinction between bribes and gratuities,32 and yet, the Named Jus-

tices went out of their way to decriminalize gratuities? One can only wonder why….

3. Defendant Alito: The Battle for America ‘Can’t Be Compromised’

Take all the robes of all the good judges that have ever lived on the face of the earth
and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge. …
Nothing can atone for, nothing can palliate his wickedness. No words can be too
fiery, no edge too sharp, no thunder too mighty, and no lightning too hot, to scorch
such a man.
~Rev. Henry Ward Beecher33

I agree with Defendant Alito: The battle for America can’t be compromised. But while I take

my marching orders from Philadelphia, he seems to take his from the Vatican.

32
18 U.S.C. § 666 (a)(1)(B) provides, in pertinent part, that if a covered person
“corruptly solicits or demands [...] or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value [...] intending to be
influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organ-
ization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more,
[s/he] shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
33
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, “Works Meet for Repentance” (sermon) Dec. 20, 1868, reprinted in Plymouth Pulpit,
Vol. 1, Iss. 15 (Ford & Co. 1869) at 241.

39
 To a Scalian originalist, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization isn’t about abortion.

Rather, it is about the very meaning of the Ninth Amendment. It provides: “The enumeration in

the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by

the people.” U.S. Const. amend. IX. By its terms, it is a mandatory canon of construction equating

protections for enumerated and unenumerated rights. In his introduction of the precursor to the

Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the House of Representatives, principal author James Madison

explained that it was intended to evade application of the maxim, expressio unius est exclusio

alterius.34 It was the Framers’ considered view that the people were the true sovereign, retaining

all of their natural rights unless they willingly surrendered them, and they only did so in accordance

with the terms of the contracts we call our constitutions.35

To religious zealots like Alito, abortion matters so much that they would bomb clinics, Carol

Robinson, Eric Robert Rudolph captured 20 years ago today: How a Birmingham abortion clinic

bombing led to his downfall, AL.com, May 21, 2023, shoot doctors in churches, Tim Hrenchir,

34
On June 8, 1789, Madison proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution, comprising the foundation for our
modern Bill of Rights. However, by his own admission, he deliberately avoided attempting to enumerate rights “re-
tained by the people,” under the rationale "that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would
disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights
which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were conse-
quently insecure." 1 Annals of Congress 456 (1789) (statement of Rep. Madison).
Citing Magna Carta [1215] and The Bill of Rights, 1 Will. & Mar. Sess. 2. c. 2 [1869], Madison avers that “bills of
rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege,
reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.” The Federalist No. 84 at 477 (Madison). He then drew a contrast,
observing that “the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reser-
vations.” Id. (emphasis added).
35
As former Judge Michael McConnell of the Tenth Circuit ably explains,
“the essence of the social contract is that we relinquish certain of our natural rights—most fundamentally,
the right to be a judge in our own case and to do violence—use violence against others, and we receive in
return more effectual protection for certain of our rights, plus the enjoyment of certain positive rights: that
is, rights that are created by the creation of political society. Civil rights are the rights we enjoy after entering
the state of civil society....”
Michael W. McConnell, Natural Rights, Enumerated Rights, and the Ninth Amendment, Sumner Canary Lecture
(Case Western U., Oct. 28, 2008), at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLANRrZPm-k (transcribed by Plaintiff,
quote at ~30 minutes; last visited Jun. 26, 2024).

40
What to know about George Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider assassinated by anti-abortion ex-

tremist, Topeka Capitol-Journal, May 3, 2022, and otherwise devote their lives to opposing it, e.g.,

U.S. Sues Ken & Jo Scott; She Gets 270 Days, Bob Enyart Live, Jun. 2, 2011. While I will defend

their fervent advocacy with my life if need be, when our judges conspire to impose their personal

views on society in open and flagrant disregard of their duties under the Constitution, it may well

be a federal felony. 18 U.S.C. § 241; see United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). While it

may well have been “made only for a moral and religious People,”36 it does not purport to impart

a “moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

As the case that Dobbs is impermissible judicial lawmaking is made in gruesome detail in my

Revised Motion for Show Cause Order [ECF # __] (alleging that the Named Justices have violated

their condition of good Behaviour), I incorporate it here by reference. But if Dobbs is allowed to

fester as precedent, it necessarily relegates the Ninth Amendment to the rubbish bin, imperiling a

wide swath of rights Americans rely on. Dobbs, 142 S.Ct. 2228 at 2301 (Thomas, J., concurring)

(“we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold,

Lawrence, and Obergefell”).37 And—dare I say it?—Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

36
John Adams, Letter (to the Massachusetts Militia), Oct. 11, 1798, Founders Online, National Archives, reprinted
at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102.
37
Thomas goes on to aver that “[b]ecause any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have
a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents.” Id. He is technically right, as there are only rights you
retain, and those you cede pursuant to the Constitution.
“Footnote Four” (United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 & fn. 4 (1938) (citations omitted)), is
a bastard child of the “Living Constitution,” without a discernible foundation in law or logic. Judges tend to eschew
dramatic changes to avoid the appearance of writing law from the bench, and in this bacchanal of Burkean minimalism,
see Cass R. Sunstein, Burkean Minimalism, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 353 (2006), end up writing law from the bench.
In its modern iteration, the Footnote Four approach to rights jurisprudence reflects this reticence, but at the price of
relegating the Ninth Amendment to the dust-bin of history—invoking the ethereal concept of substantive due process
to specially protect only rights which judges deem as being “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,” e.g.,
Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), or somehow "implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937). Courts require a "careful description" of the asserted “fun-
damental” liberty interest, Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993)—an engraved invitation to an orgy of judicial
discretion. In turn, it has the noxious effect of elevating some rights to the exalted status of ‘fundamental’ while
disparaging and denying others, thereby doing violence to the plain meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Randy Barnett,

41
 Not mentioning any names, mind you….

Three thousand years of the collective wisdom of mankind distills to a theory of revolution,

which Jefferson ably distilled into a single paragraph. Governments are instituted among men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, who never consent to the absolute and

capricious rule by another. Declaration of Independence, ¶ 2 (U.S. 1776). “Tyranny” is the exercise

of power exceeding the scope of that consent. John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government

§ 199 (1690). When a tyrant exercises that power, and the rule of law fails, we owe a collective

duty to our fellow citizens to depose that tyrant by “any means necessary.” To defend "the Consti-

tution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies." 8 C.F.R. § 337.1. As the late

Rep. Barbara Jordan observed, that duty dictates that we cannot sit by and “be an idle spectator to

the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.” Barbara Jordan: Speaking the

Truth with Eloquent Thunder 24 (ed. Max Sherman) (U. Tex. Press 2007).

The Constitution is here for us (albeit not as reliably as I’d like) in our hour of need. We need

to be here for it in America’s hour of need, which is why I find myself in this courtroom today.

Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty 254 (2004). It creates no principled rule of decision, as
the outcome of any given dispute is more a function of the judge’s personal predilections than anything else. It de-
scribes the law as the judge wants it to be, but not why it is as it should be.
Substantive due process is just an awkward and unprincipled way to get to where principled constitutional exegesis
would have gotten us to in the first place. For instance, the right to “property” necessarily includes the right to own,
enjoy, and dispose of property as you see fit. Marriage is a simple contract, which can be entered into by two con-
senting adults with contractual capacity. As there is no compelling state interest in preventing same-sex marriages,
they cannot be outlawed.

42
 CONCLUSION

The Universe has a sense of humor.

Justice Thomas observed that "[w]e should always start, when we read the Constitution, by

reading the Declaration [of Independence], because it gives us the reasons why the structure of the

Constitution was designed the way it was." Clarence Thomas, Conversation, supra. Americans

endured the capricious rule of King George III, whom historians describe as “the Mad King,” for

forty years. They consciously designed their government to ensure that no one man would wield

unchecked power. And until recently, that foundation of liberty was affixed in granite.

Inadvertently, the normally precise Professor Somin’s historical faux pas38 betrays a point:

Whereas the British were stuck with King George III for sixty years because their law said so, we

are not stuck with our Mad King because our law says so. Bullets or briefs—Amicus prefers

briefs—makes no difference; we had to use bullets in 1776, but our law does not countenance the

rule of a usurper.

Amicus does not pretend that unraveling the legal train wreck our betters left us will be easy.

But there is no provision in the Constitution that ratifies lawless actions because undoing them

will be hard. Fiat iustitia, ruat cœlum! Let justice be done, though the heavens fail. The law is

pellucid: The acts of a usurper—whether they be fake Presidents, Norton v. Shelby County, 118

38
Ilya Somin, A Victory for Separation of Powers, The Atlantic, May 31, 2025 (paywall). The graphic was aired by
MSNBC. MNBC Highlights – May 30 (YouTube), MSNBC, Jun. 1, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acy-
3xqtBvI

43
U.S. 425, 443 (1886), or out-of-control judges, Erie, supra.; Blackstone, supra—are void. This is

a justiciable question, which this Court is not at liberty to avoid. Cohens, supra.

The system is designed to handle this request. The purpose of a constitution is to “bind up the

several branches of government by certain laws, which when they transgress their acts shall

become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on

every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an in-

tention to surrender those rights.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia 255 (1785)

(Query XIII) (emphasis added). And it is the office of the judge to always "make such construction

[of any law] as shall suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle invention

and evasions for continuance of the mischief." Heydon's Case, supra. The judge sitting in equity

has a broad remit—see e.g., Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); see

generally, Kendall, supra—broad enough to obviate the need for a resort to violence.

As courts have withdrawn obviously erroneous decisions before, what I ask of this Court is not

unprecedented. If the Named Justices didn’t do their job, they still have a job to do, and mandamus

is an order to an official to do the job we paid him to do.

Will it embarrass the Court? It’s not like Defendant Thomas is even capable of shame at this

point, but we can only hope so. You are not issuing a mandamus against a superior court, but to

six individuals who just happen to work there.

44
 If enduring national embarrassment is an actual factor in constitutional jurisprudence, Plaintiff

submits that nothing will ever compare to the shame we will all feel when we lose our precious

Republic to a coup because judges feared that vigorously enforcing the Constitution might cause

a little embarrassment. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) recently elaborated: "We can't be preparing

for the 2026 election. It might not come. All of our focus right now has to be on protecting the

democracy, about stopping the corruption." Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com), Bluesky (Apr. 15,

2025, 08:21 EDT), https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lqt6abivw42h.

America might be a lost cause. This is where we find out.

The stakes have never been higher. For that reason, I respectfully request that an appropriate

mandamus issue from this Court without delay.

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of July, 2025,

_______________________________________________
K.L. Smith
3649 Evergreen Pkwy. #504
Evergreen, CO. 80437-0504
Manncoulter.fox@gmail.com
(720) 551-2488

45