Kilmar Abrego Garcia Update [He's No Out Anymore]

Here is a bit of reaction to the latest news. He's back, after about five months (imagine that), with his family. For now.

The Not So Funny Pizza Gambit: Judicial Threats

I provided a discussion of an actor defending his trans daughter and a "Say No to Cuomo" piece here.

The annual average rose from 1,180 incidents in the decade prior to Trump’s campaign to 3,810 in the seven years after he declared his candidacy and began his practice of criticizing judges. In all, the Marshals documented nearly 27,000 threatening and harassing communications targeting federal courts from the fall of 2015 through the fall of 2022, a volume they consider unprecedented in their 234-year history. There is no national data collection for threats against state and local judges. Many states do not even track the problem.

Concerns about attacks on the judiciary have been going on for years now. It is not just about Trump, though he plays a special role. We saw this during his first administration and during the interregnum involving attacks on judges overseeing his civil and criminal trials. 

A harassment called "squatting" is one egregious technique, including sending pizzas.

Federal judges say unsolicited pizza deliveries to jurists’ homes that began in February may number in the hundreds across at least seven states, prompting increased security concerns and a demand from a Senate leader for a Justice Department investigation.

Some of the pizza deliveries have gone to judges’ relatives. In recent weeks, orders have been placed in the name of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl, who was fatally shot at the family home in New Jersey in 2020 by an attorney who posed as a delivery person.

Judge J. Michelle Childs stands out since Senator Graham latched onto her as the "bipartisan" alternative to Ketanji Brown Jackson. You know, like Merrick Garland was the "bipartisan" alternative to Sotomayor and Kagan until he was actually nominated and never received a hearing.  

I did a quick media article check and did not see Lindsey Graham concerned about threats to Judge Childs. Maybe I missed something. There are so many Republicans concerned about Trump, so it is easy to lose track. I kid.

"Can it be so that Judges aren't allowing the USA to Deport Criminals, including Murderers, out of our Country and back to where they came from? If this is so, our Country, as we know it, is finished! Americans will have to get used to a very different, crime filled, LIFE. This is not what our Founders had in mind!!!"

The Trumpian rhetoric, not just "IMPEACH HIM!," is incitement. We cannot just take some tweet or whatever as a one-off. We have years of these things. We have January 6th. 

It is also not just Trump. 

Bondi-authored memo said that “an unelected district court yet again invaded the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch.”

US Citizenship and Immigration Services reworked a notice posted to its website announcing that a Trump immigration policy had been paused by a court in California, according to court filings from the policy’s legal challengers. The initial version of the notice announced the court’s ruling and its impact on the policy using straight-forward language. But a few days later the notice was redrafted to take several swipes at the judge’s ruling.

“The Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law with respect to Temporary Protected Status (TPS),” the redrafted notice said, referring to the immigration program that Trump was blocked from winding down. “Nonetheless, on March 31, 2025, Judge Edward Chen, a federal judge in San Francisco, ordered the department to continue TPS for Venezuelans.”

Trump, by a broad brush, talks about "bad people" who investigated and went after him, including public servants and law firms. He did this in remarks at the Justice Department. Multiple justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, opposing calls for impeachment, responded.

“Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence, but also professional retaliation just for doing our jobs,” Jackson said while addressing a group of judges gathered for a conference in Puerto Rico, according to The New York Times. 

“Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes,” Sotomayor said during a Thursday event for the American Bar Association, according to The Associated Press. 

Like many of those pardoned January Sixers, these people feel they are following the wishes and instructions of Donald Trump. They are not deluded in so thinking. 

White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in an emailed statement that attacks against judges and other public officials “have no place in our society.”

“President Trump knows all too well the impact of callous attacks having faced two assassination attempts,” Fields said.

Sure, Jan. The attacks on judges are selectively criticized by some conservatives when the targets are judges they like. This includes when the "attacks" are reasonable criticism of ethics violations or mere disagreements of opinions. Roberts' end-of-the-term report mixed a bit of that in, too. 

When this happens, we get references to a mentally unwell person showing up near Kavanaugh's house armed with zip ties or the like before turning himself in, or a Barrett talking about wearing a bulletproof vest. Meanwhile, violent threats on Sotomayor are ignored. Bad pool, people.

Congress in 2022 passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which restricts the disclosure or sale of personal information of federal judges and their family members.

And that is appreciated. 

Nonetheless, our abuser in chief is a symbol of the problem. There is a difference between valid criticism -- the Roberts Court surely is worthy of that -- and the Attorney General and other branches of the U.S. government making partisan attacks on judges. Toss in stonewalling or worse. 

I saw a few concerned liberal sorts oppose doing much at all when Trump attacked judges during his civil and criminal proceedings, even when he used rhetoric that would have resulted in sanctions for others. We get talk about the First Amendment and attacks on people as being too prosecution-friendly. What of the concern about the rule of law?

Thanks to all those judges, and their law clerks (the judges aren't writing those thousands of pages of opinions by themselves), who are doing their jobs. Maybe, someone should send (in their own names) thank you flowers or something. Or whatever is ethically allowed. 

Maybe something in their names, since these days they know not to receive things from strangers.  

Perhaps, a (vegan) pizza. 

SCOTUS Watch

LGBTQ+ Rights

I reexamine the same sex marriage cases and a book defending them twenty years earlier. We don't live in a gay and lesbian utopia quite yet, but the situation is better than for trans people, who Republicans (with a few Democrats wanting to help) want to erase.  

Attacks on Courts

Justice Amy "not quite conservative enough for some" Barrett's sister was the target of a bomb threat. Barrett did get some love, including from Trump, who defended her bona fides. I'm sure she was reassured.

More seriously, there has been an uptick in threats to judges in recent times. We covered that last year to add context to Trump crossing the line (with impunity most of the time) when criticizing judges presiding over his cases. Now, it's Elon Musk's turn. 

The criticisms and threats (not the same thing) do not only come from one side. The threats to Kavanaugh and now Barrett's family show this. Nonetheless, there have been some notable conservative-leaning cases in recent memory. The matter is a concern for us all. 

Death Penalty 

March might not be quite as active of a month for the death penalty with two executions stayed. 

Alito dropped an order noting a request for a stay is moot now that the case was held up in Texas courts. The stay request involved DNA evidence. State courts flagged multiple problems. He was convicted three decades ago in connection to multiple murders.  

The second blockage is by an Obama appointee in the Fifth Circuit. So, that one might occur. 

Idaho has made the firing squad its primary execution method. Is the firing squad and nitrogen gas going to replace lethal injection in that respect?  

Coming Up

The Supreme Court will return to work next Friday with a non-public sitting (swearing in lawyers) and a conference. There are three executions scheduled. 

Meanwhile, since Congress wants to do nothing except to help enable him, the battle against Trump's illegality continues in the lower courts.  

Four (Five) Replies to Trump

Daily updates of the Trump Administration display a collection of horrible policy decisions mixed with lies and bullshit. 

An example is the confirmation of Project 2025 architect Russell Vought in a party-line vote. John Fetterman has generally voted for Trump nominees, even being the sole Democrat who voted for Pam Bondi for Attorney General; he did not do so here—like Pete Hegseth for Defense, this was a bridge too far. Senate Democrats had an all-nighter beforehand. 

Russell Vought now leads the influential Office of Management and Budget. As you might recall, Project 2025 is the over 900-page blueprint for a Trump Administration that the campaign assured us was not something they supported. How dare people suggest that! 

Vought founded two pro-Trump groups whose work has focused on discrediting structural racism and curtailing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The chapter that Vought wrote for Project 2025 detailed how the budget agency could be used to withhold money appropriated by Congress and eliminate dissent within agencies by purging them of employees.

A comment on Volokh Conspiracy, a "sometimes libertarian blog," provides a good summary of who Trump truly is. The comment is from one of the people not slavishly supporting Trump, including a few people who you might think should know better. This last crowd at times grants Trump is wrong while still being more anti-Democrat than anti-Trump. 

If the President can fire anyone he wants, can block Congressionally allocated funding at will, issue regulations without following the process that Congress set out, push politics into non-political areas, then he is treating the government as his personal serfdom. Trump is doing all of that.

The blog's contributors are a mixture. The person who gave his name to the blog voted libertarian but cited anti-election commentary that is more conservative anti-Democratic than anti-Trump. He mostly provides a discussion of random court rulings as compared to addressing First Amendment connotations of the Trump administration. He covered one such incident relatively briefly with a bland statement he opposed it on policy grounds but its legality was more of a mixed bag, perhaps.

One person does provide a strong opposition, especially involving immigration issues, consistently being libertarian. The other main contributor has had a slew of pro-Trump analyses. The remaining material is mixed, sometimes providing anti-Trump material.  

Senator Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA agent who is the new senator from Michigan, provided a good speech during the Democrats' all-nighter. Her speech begins at the twenty-two-minute mark. She ends with four means of reply:

• Legislation
• Litigation
• Communication (Talk About Issues)
• Elections 

The only legislation that has taken place so far is the far-from-ideal Laken Riley Act, which exploited someone's death to target immigrants. 

Nonetheless, long-term, legislation provides an answer, including a slew of illegal Trump moves. We might not like some of them but even if they legitimize illegal executive acts, they are at least more above-board about handling things.   

Litigation is already slowing down things like moves against birthright citizenship and attacks on trans prisoners. Litigation is a long game, influenced by a YOLO Administration aiming for the stars. 

One thing not to do is to needlessly give in. Trump purported to fire FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. She responded that he did not have the power to do so. Meanwhile, the fifteen anniversary of Citizens United brought some conversation. 

Communication is a range of things, including trying to get the media to properly respond to the events. Some articles in mainstream media outlets underline what is happening. 

For instance, the Washington Post had an article about how the National Science Foundation is now combing its science research projects to make sure they don't violate current taboo terms such as “inculcate or promote gender ideology."

Communication includes people calling their representatives to make their views heard. It is congressional Democrats showing up at US AID offices. Senator Slotkin is from a swing state that Trump won. She will sometimes play nice. She communicated in her speech, however, she has limits. 

The final response are elections. There are special elections even now. 2025 locally is about whether or not to retain Eric Adams, the latest dubious New York City mayor, who at times plays nice with Trump (surely not to convince him to drop the pending proseution against Adams!).  The long term goal is to regain control of the House in 2026.

My ambit is in a tiny way to communicate. I'm somewhat evangelistic that way. Don't claim to be anything special. Probably should do more. But, I do think the various means to communicate the issues, including engaging with people online, provides some help in the long run.

Meanwhile, though we are moving along 2025-wise [it's already February -- not too long ago, it wasn't even Election Day], Trump has not been in power for three weeks. It has been a lot in a short amount of time. But, it's just beginning. 

The four replies will continue to be important. The final reply is personal. You have to be good in your everyday life. Retain your integrity. Don't be a lying asshole. Treat others with respect. Do the best you can. It's a long haul. 

Trumpism Threatens the Courts

Reuters had a powerful article entitled "Judges in Trump-related cases face unprecedented wave of threats."

Since Trump launched his first presidential campaign in June 2015, the average number of threats and hostile communications directed at judges, federal prosecutors, judicial staff, and court buildings has more than tripled, according to the Reuters review of data from the Marshals Service, which is responsible for protecting federal court personnel.

Judges have been subject to threats and violence. The shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords included the murder of a judge. Members of families of judges have been murdered. 

Someone showed up at Kavanaugh's house with a gun, a knife, and tactical gear. He was captured before doing anything, but that is no reason to handwave the threat. Congress in 2022 passed a law to help protect federal judges, including keeping certain personal information private. 

Like that old PSA, there is an "I learned it from you" feel here:

Many of the threats against judges examined by Reuters echo Trump’s statements in social media posts and speeches, where he has attacked judges as “totally biased,” “crooked,” “partisan” and “hostile,” dismissed courts as “rigged” and called prosecutors “corrupt.” Threatening messages on pro-Trump online forums often repeat those terms or cast the former president as a heroic figure besieged by corrupt judges in secret “Democrat” plots.

The problems apply to both federal and state courts:

Arizona’s Maricopa County, an epicenter of unfounded election conspiracy theories, logged more than 400 cases of threats and harassment targeting judges, their staff and the courts between 2020 and 2023, according to previously unpublished county data reviewed by Reuters. Maricopa officials didn’t track threats until noticing a spike in 2020, a county official said.

This so-called (to cite Trump's side) "political speech" has encouraged multiple types of threats. "Doxxing" is the release of private information. "Swatting" is when someone makes a false call to the police regarding the need for emergency services.  There are also threatening phone calls. The threats are to judges and members of their families.  

Over the last four years, the Marshals investigated more than 1,200 threats against federal judges that they considered serious, according to the data provided to Reuters. Among the 57 federal prosecutions Reuters identified during that period, 47 involved threats against federal judges, six involved threats against state judges, and four involved threats against both. There is no national data on state-level prosecutions for threats against judges.

Nonetheless, in a vast number of cases, no charges are brought. Warnings are also given by judges in the Trump civil and criminal cases. He once had sanctions applied. It hasn't changed his basic behavior. 

When Harrison Floyd, one of the Georgia defendants, tagged people he was directly told not to contact, he just received a warning. His bond was not revoked. The rules were "clarified" so he (like Trump has) can know just how he can skirt the line. 

Judge Reggie Walton, whose daughter was also targeted, is named in the article. He went on CNN -- it is a novel thing for a sitting judge to do this -- to speak out:

We do these jobs because we’re committed to the rule of law & we believe in the rule of law & the rule of law can only function effectively when we have judges who are prepared to carry out their duties without the threat of potential physical harm.

A partial gag order has been applied to the New York criminal case. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg argued the judge “should make abundantly clear that the [gag order] protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.”

Trump has already gone after the judge's daughter, including with his usual disrespect of the actual facts:

Trump on Wednesday also went after Loren Merchan, pointing to an account on X, which was formerly known as Twitter, that he said belonged to her, which showed an image of Trump behind bars. However, the court later released a statement saying that the account did not belong to Merchan, but rather someone else.

As the Talking Points Memo summary linked above notes:

This is, of course, only the latest in a months’ long series of Trump attacks on judges, court workers, prosecutors, witnesses, and others, with full awareness of the risk of inciting further threats and potential violence.

I have seen multiple concerned liberal types lecture people upset at how so little is done to address Trump's (and in some cases, other people's) comments of this nature. They are hysterical on social media. They disrespect freedom of speech. They do not respect the rights of defendants. They do not understand how the criminal justice system works. 

As a former federal judge noted last night on MSNBC (Melissa Murray and Andrew Weismann had a special regarding the Trump trials), this basic sentiment is bogus. Trump is again and again getting special treatment. People in regular trials who have said and done things he has done would have their bond revoked. At the very least, concerned liberal types should grant that Trump and company are playing a dangerous game.  

Judge Luttig, who strongly argued that the Supreme Court "dangerously betrayed" democracy in the 14th Amendment case, reacted to Judge Walton's [a Bush41 appointee] appearance on Twitter:

It is a regrettable commentary on our times that a lone federal judge, The Honorable Judge Reggie B. Walton -- because no one whose responsibility it is to do so has had the courage and the will -- would finally be left no choice but, himself, to express on national television.

That is a bit harsh. Others have spoken out. Nonetheless, the sentiment has bite. I think my recent comments about the Magni nomination are part of this. The bullshit* and lies aid and abet Trumpian hatreds and threats. Do you not think that the campaign against the Muslim-nominated judge succeeding will not benefit the same overall poison involved here?

This is the Republican nominee for president. Republicans control the House. We still have to worry about a "trifecta" of these people, who simply do not care about how their candidate is threatening the integrity of the courts. If they truly cared, would they support Donald Trump? 

The "Trump Trials" link provides details about celebrities who read from the Trump indictments. Shades of celebrities who read from the Mueller Report. The report included a list of possible criminal allegations against Trump. I will end with the upcoming trial since this is what -- as Judge Walton noted -- we need to focus on (equal justice):

"On the hush money payments, the defendant, Donald J. Trump, repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election," Close reads from the indictment.

Keep your eye on the ball.

==

* As Laura Penny wrote in her useful book on the subject:

"Bullshit distracts with exaggeration, omission, obfuscation, stock phrases, pretentious jargon, faux-folksiness, feigned ignorance, and sloganeering homilies."

Bullshit involves people who do not care about the truth. They might not directly lie. Nonetheless, the result is largely the same. 

Couple Books

Hani and Ishu’s Guide to Fake Dating by Adiba Jaigirdar is a "fake dating" book, which those who are knowledgeable about the lingo is a category of romance novels.*  

The book actually takes place in Ireland, which doesn't really change things much though there is some lingo (like "head girl") that is specific to the setting.  More importantly, "Hani" is Muslim, and the characters are Bengali.  So, we have a lot of cultural references, which could have been more easily understood with a glossary.  There are also a few foreign language bits. Again, not translated for the rest of us.  This sort of thing is annoying.  The book is surely not just for a narrow audience who is familiar with these things.  

Okay. What about the book?  I liked the book as a whole.  From the book jacket and such, I got the idea Hani (the two names are nicknames; names are one good subject referenced; the book also has a lot of family stuff) alone was hiding that she actually liked Ishu (to be clear, both are girls).  

But it turns out -- earlier than I thought it would be -- both really like each other. And, after a while, it was like -- okay. Come on.  You like each other.  It's damn obvious!  So, I think that dragged out too long.  Other than that, I think the book balanced a lot of stuff pretty well.  I speak of family, culture, religion, same-sex relationships, and more.  

The two leads are good characters, and their relationship is very cute.  It's an example of how young adult books can be appreciated by adults.  Again, I think it was drawn out too long, so that bothered me somewhat.  Still, I read the whole thing, which is harder for me these days in general.  So, that's a plus on that side.  I do wish she included a glossary.

==

Like the menstruation book, but more so, Wildlife as Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights by Karen Bradshaw is worthwhile without being something great for reading straight thru unless you are a bit of a specialist about such things.  It is not long -- around one hundred and fifty pages -- so it isn't that hard to actually basically read the whole thing. 

The book argues that we should give wildlife, and long term probably nature as a whole, property rights. She quite convincingly argues that wildlife always had a form of property rights, both as a matter of natural law, custom, and in various ways written law.  

(She cites a law article about giving trees standing, but for some reason doesn't reference Sierra Club v. Morton, where Justice Douglas famously talked about it too.)

Property ownership, she notes, involves various things: acquisition, exclusion, boundary marking, dispute resolution, and property transfers are all done in various ways by non-human animals.  Two things not done by non-human animals would be third-party enforcement and alienation (giving up control).  A key part of the book is the first: trustees for wildlife.

The nature of animals here shows a "natural right" to animal property can be cited. This right is also recognized by custom, including Native Americans, which also is reflected in some of their own constitutions.  

Law over the centuries also recognized some rights for animals, including being able to travel over private lands and protecting their rights in various cases.  Environmental protection laws exist. Finally, protection of federal land (one reference is that the feds control about a 1/3 of the land) in practice includes protecting property rights for animals.  

The book goes into the details here and the weeds started to make my eyes glaze over a bit.  Still, skimming through the material, it was good stuff.  I can see the basics being able to summarize in a relatively short law review-type article.  

(The natural property rights of animals chapter was the most interesting to me.)

Finally, the book does not focus on animal rights vs. welfare on an individual level like someone like Peter Singer.  She argues that property rights can be a useful approach since the law already is in place and can be adapted.  This makes it more likely that it can be put in place.  

The concept of the book turns out not to be that revolutionary at all.  It requires some new policies, including setting up trusteeships.  It would require tweaking standing rules, which would be within the parameters allowed. We need to determine how to best address the needs of animals (and nature), which can conflict. Okay. So, we take a complete "ecosystem" approach.  Still requires some subjective policy decisions. 

The end conclusion I have is that her approach still is quite possible. It is again working off what is taking place in various ways already.  That is usually a common way to bring forth change.  

---

* I arbitrarily, though my editor removed referencing that, picked the top ten romantic comedy novels and somewhat arbitrarily included this one, since I saw it at a local library. It also allowed me to toss in a young adult book.

Opinion Day

The Supreme Court cleaned some pending matters today with a busy opinion day. Five opinions, one each for the five with the least seniority (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, and Sotomayor).

That is one unlikely majority, especially with Breyer more senior along with the Chief Justice, Thomas, and Alito. Sotomayor has it a bit easier with Breyer replaced with a junior liberal. Still unlikely as would be the in theory possible Kagan-Jackson majority. The best bet is to find something the high Federalists would dissent for and Roberts is recused. Kagan is harder. 

(The release -- again automatically since they don't show up for opinion announcements these days, denying us a chance for opinion announcement audio at Oyez.com -- came least seniority to most.  I won't do it in that order.) 

There were two unanimous opinions.  Barrett had a procedural opinion that gave a limited win (allowing the person a chance to fight on) regarding a tax case. Happy Tax Week.  Maybe, the IRS will finally clear up my issue.  (I asked AOC's office for help.  I thought they forgot about me but then got a call that they need a privacy waiver.  That day I receive another letter from the IRS saying they found another reason to delay things.)  

==

Kagan also had a procedural opinion that helped the person who brought the appeal, but only so much.  Providing some of her skillful prose ["The path of our decision has been as short as the hunt for Rue Saint-Honoré was long; our ruling is as simple as the conflict over its rightful owner has been vexed."], and attaching a couple pictures of the art, she explained why California law should be applied in an attempt to get back some Nazi seized art that wound up in Spain.  To be continued. 

(SCOTUSBlog has analysis to explain the nuances a bit more and  it sounds like the family of the original owners still have a stiff hill to climb.)

==

Kagan's pen, quite sharp, was in dissent in a Gorsuch case involving habeas.  I do not claim to have the expertise to parse such things, but Steve Vladeck and Leah Litman are usually reliable. So, if Mr. Shadow Docket thinks Kagan (for the liberals) is right for sneer at Gorsuch's "law office history" etc., her passion not for this case particularly, but the likelihood of what it will bode for the future, I'm inclined to agree. 

[Prof. Litman also panned Breyer's latest "book" (if noting her liking the man) in a well received article.]

===

Sotomayor had the opinion (Alito thought the the majority went somewhat too far; Thomas for Gorsuch & Barrett dissented) in case involving regulating signs.  The ordinance was upheld and as Breyer noted in a fairly convincing (to me) concurrence, part of the problem here is that the Roberts Court has become too one note regarding free speech cases, even when regulating commercial matters of this type.  

==

The most notable opinion involved Puerto Rico.  

Kavanaugh had the opinion upholding a federal policy where someone might be denied SSI benefits if they live in Puerto Rico. Ian Millhiser wrote last year (this case was argued fairly early, making one wonder about the drafting) that this was a tragic case.  His write-up today does as well.  

The tragedy is that justice is on the side of the litigant, but the result might be open season to second guess financial policy that can lead to unfortunate results.  For instance, my governor was upset the Supreme Court didn't take a case where blue states alleged a certain tax policy was discriminatory to blue states.  But, what constitutional rule protects states like that?

This suggests why this opinion was 8-1 though the opinion itself was a thin six pages.  It is basically a case of wanting to get rid of the thing.  Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence finding a new constitutional toy -- he argues that federal equal protection should not be a 5A due process matter, but rest of the 14A Citizenship Clause.  Thomas does, unlike in his same sex marriage dissent (where he had a long passage sneering at it), recognize equal citizenship has a "dignity" component.

At least, he "tentatively" talks about this. Now, on some level, a broad reading of the Citizenship Clause is not a bad idea (various liberals suggest it), but using (as noted in Legal Twitter) his usual selective history, abhorrence at applying equal protection to benefits, and so forth, the whole result is something of a mess when he does it.  Plus, history and precedent does back an equality aspect to due process of law too.

Gorsuch, in one of his "when the asshole is right, he's right" opinions, concurs to argue the Insular Cases should go.  These were a series of cases from the turn of the 20th Century until around 1920 that held the territories obtained after the Spanish American War can be treated differently than others.  He notes (as does Sotomayor) that it was not requested, so he would not dissent on that ground.  

(A few noted that since Gorsuch's concurrence summarized our racist history, that it might not be able to be taught some places who have problems with critical race theory.  Perhaps, such laws are vague enough to have loopholes for this sort of thing.)  

Anyway, it isn't clear (thought the majority avoided the point), if that alone would do the trick. During oral argument, the federal government argued that it was reasonable to treat states differently for purposes of tax policy if it was rational to do so. And, that is fair, but Sotomayor argues in her dissent (agreeing on the Insular Cases) that it is not shown here.  

The advocate for the claimant here (and it seems if he was granted a waiver, the whole matter could have been avoided) made some open-ended arguments during the oral argument.  He suggested the Guarantee Clause and so forth warranted treating the Territory Clause as not a fully open-ended congressional power.  The assumption was that at some point a territory would become a state or be treated on some sort of equal footing.  

It was a rather broad argument though could be a method of constitutional avoidance mixed in with an argument that Puerto Rico is special too in that it is more powerless (no representation in Congress except for a non-voting delegate).  But, Sotomayor argued even rational basis failed.  

I think the case was hard (see Ian Millhiser again), but would look at the regulation with a questioning eye all things considered. Thus, to use the jargon, at least apply rational basis with teeth.  And, policy-wise, change the rule.  Administratively, give the guy a waiver.  Avoid hard cases when possible.  

It seems like it was possible here.  

===

There was also a separate press release announcing an upcoming celebration of Justice John Paul Stevens (who would have been 102 on 4/20) on May 2nd.  Stevens regularly posted speeches on the Supreme Court speech page.  Perhaps, in honor of his open government approach, the release notes the event (which will involve Garland, Stevens' granddaughter, and other notables) will be streamed via the website.  

ETA: I also see a few more online links have been added.

TV Watch

I checked out the first episode of the new Chucky series (I liked the movies as a whole; did not watch the third and thought the last a bit garbled). It starts off on an impressive footing, with good performances, writing, music, and atmosphere. It also appears that you are allowed to say "fuck" on USA Network. The series has received some kudos as well for being GBLTQ friendly. Jennifer Tilly will be back. Maybe, they can get Catherine Hicks!

All Rise, the diverse crime drama led by a black woman judge appeared to have been cancelled after a two season run on CBS. The show had some behind the scenes drama with the showrunner, but ended fairly well. It in fact will return on OWN Network, which I hopefully have. We will see how this goes, but sounds good. The range of possible networks and platforms allows salvaging such worthwhile material.

A Taste of Honey (along with another film with the young British actress in the lead) was on TCM. It is a B&W film from 1961, which has some Mike Leigh in it. In that, I mean a realistic look at the working class without bells and whistles. It's well acted with people who seem like real figures (including a sympathetic gay character), not performers. This includes flawed characters and a somewhat downbeat ending [see link] though that part is not really totally necessary for things to be realistic. The actress still is acting today.

Abortion Ruling is Clearly A Religion Clause Issue

Reference is made recently at Religion Clause of a district court issued a preliminary injunction to the severe anti-abortion law in Arkansas.

This is the sort of thing Texas is trying to avoid via their "hey, it's just private parties" enforcement approach. Think antebellum states trying to get out of the fugitive slave retrieval business while also passing laws that support the slave states. How well this will work remains to be seen. The validity of the move as noted in the comments is dubious, but will it be hard to attack pre-enforcement in the courts? The comments are closed here but other law professors appear more open to the suit.

The district court opinion is really a holding action until the packed Barrett Court decide abortion cases. But, the citation on a blog focused on religious issues, without discussion of why exactly (as if it's obvious), is fitting. Abortion disputes are in a basic way about religious matters. Planned Parenthood v. Casey correctly spoke of it being a matter of conscience.

SCOTUS Watch: 3/3

These three [of eight left] (SCOTUSBlog summaries) were covered on Friday with Thomas joining the liberals in the standing cases and the liberals splitting in the other two:

[1] In TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, the justices held 5-4 that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court.  

Comment: Kavanaugh wrote this one and it has potential to restrain access to the federal courts. Like the administrative law type appointment/removal etc. questions, if somewhat more "judicial," it is troublesome Congress' power to set discretionary policy as they deem the needs require is being interfered with here. And, in a way that is likely to set up various confusions.  Like in the Takings Clause case, things like "concretely" is rather subjective.  Standing law is infamously arbitrary.

Thomas has a strong and blunt dissent that is straightforward and joined by the liberals except in a minor way.  Kagan basically finds yet again something precedent requires, but notes that the point of disagreement shouldn't matter much.  Thomas notes that the majority opinion in the long run might not be too helpful for the credit agency since it leaves open state lawsuits though the judges are concerned with their own power here.  

This is one of these cases where people who are intuitive notice that even if abortion rights still exist and such, the Barrett Court (to use Stevens' approach of labeling it with the latest confirmation) has moved things significantly.  It is a "limited" movement if you assume the Court was really going to move really far.  But, that's spinning things.

[2] In HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, the justices held 6-3 that under the Renewable Fuel Program’s fuel blending requirements for domestic refineries, a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an “extension” even if the refinery did not seek a hardship exemption every year after initially doing so. 

Comment:  The notable thing on some level here is that it is not only Barrett's first written dissent, but the guys are going against the girls. Both are somewhat trivial, of course, but also Breyer can at times be more "conservative" or otherwise stand out from Sotomayor and Kagan.  How that applies here is unclear, but you can see divisions there. I won't pretend to know who is right here; it is basic use of judicial power to provide clear answers among reasonable options.  But, both Trump appointees (Gorsuch wrote the majority) was sure textual analysis was clear one way or the other.  As usual, as noted in Strict Scrutiny Podcast, not really.

[3] In Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, the justices held 6-3 that Alaska Native Corporations are “Indian tribe[s]” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and thus eligible for funding available to “Tribal governments” under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. 

Comment:  Sotomayor, Happy Birthday, wrote the majority here, tossing in a fish related example (SSP really hated it) that both the majority and dissent went with. Gorsuch dissented, which might have miffed him given his role as the "tribal judge," but the issue here was how to allot funds between various tribes.  So, even though Native American issues is one area where Gorsuch stands out some -- putting aside certain cases without much ideological heat -- it is not a straightforward issue. 

===

Five cases left, including a major voting rights case (or two; there is a disclosure case too). On that front, there is also action outside the courts as seen by the filibustering of debate on a major voting rights bill. Also, the Garland Justice Department Friday morning announced they will sue Georgia, alleging their new voting restriction law is discriminatory.  

Thursday was the last scheduled conference until the "long" conference in September preps for the new term in October.  

We then (people who keep an eye on these things) waited for the Supreme Court to schedule the next opinion day. And, waited.  Day ended with nothing.

Filibusters

There was a good summary of the history behind the filibuster and the point we are at the moment that reminds that the NYT does have value among various instances of it not. The matter is of particular importance at the moment, when there is a push (and apparent openness) to think big on what the federal government should do, without letting Republicans in the Senate block it. How far will this go?

The look at the text and history of the constitutional history here is informative. I think the text should (anyway does) have some important role here while history (including original history) should (but does anyway) have a more mixed role. History, surely someone with a BA in it and who now helps by writing little historical summaries for a site geared to high school students, is valuable. Decisions are made with it in mind. It just is a changing thing with various moving parts that we can use in various ways.

The text, to be clear, tends to leave a lot of space in most hard questions when resting on that alone. This is especially the case here. It is quite true that only a few things require a supermajority by constitutional rule (the op-ed cites some of the history here) but it also provides the Senate broad power to set rules of proceedings. The fact that only something like treaties requires a supermajority doesn't mean no respect should be allowed to the minority, blunt majority rule always winning. That isn't a good way to do things generally. But, that leaves open a lot of ground.

I will honestly note that during the Bush Administration, I argued that filibustering judicial nominations (at least) could be legitimate. It to me was a way to deal with certain wrongs involving the election of Bush, the two senator rule resulting in a majority of people represented by a minority of senators and the to me overreaching of the Bush side. OTOH, in hindsight, it is unclear how helpful the whole thing was. Most of the judges got through anyway and the precedent hurt President Obama. It is even unclear how much it helped to block controversial legislation. Also, should it?

We saw eventually that the back/forth led Democrats in the Senate to end filibusters for executive nominations (a rule that they never had a chance to apply to the Supreme Court, but Republicans did for Gorsuch). In effect, after years of both sides actually doing it, the whole thing was being used too much for the Democrats. This included Republicans refusing to confirm any judges for D.C. vacancies or to fill an agency that they didn't like. Other basic filibusters like blue slips (which Republicans didn't respect when control changed) also factored into the situation.

The result helped the Republicans fill in a lot of court slots, though there are ways to compensate (there are a lot of senior status slots, already starting to be taken, alone open, but the big solution is both quick confirmations and expanding lower courts). A few abuses of note here -- especially at the Supreme Court level -- very well can be cited. But, long term, this is good policy. Why should those who don't win elections have the power to fill the courts? Leaving slots open for years is abusive.

Then, we have policy. As some have noted, as a whole, even during the Great Society (involving controversial policy), filibusters have not historically been used much to block legislation. Surely, not to the extent used in recent years. The big story there was civil rights, but even there, there was often as much of a majority settlement against them. I think -- without analyzing the data in detail -- one can exaggerate. For instance, national education policy was blocked in part by filibuster as I recall in the post-Civil War period. But, it seems to be the sort of thing that might be used in a limited fashion, but not like more recent assumptions that it takes sixty to pass things.

So, we come to the present. Mitch McConnell at first blocked the rules for a new Senate because he wanted Democrats to agree to the filibuster for the next two years. The Democrats said "no way," but there is constant references to Manchin and Sinema in particular not wanting to let go of the filibuster. Some even fear -- though he consistently has voted for Democratic policies when it matters -- Manchin would switch as if he was some sort of DINO. Sinema, a newer member from the new Democratic state of Arizona, is a more interesting character there. How far will she go?

It's unclear. The first test was the rules. Next, comes financial matters which can appear to be something you can settle via the reconciliation workaround. That seems to be a key approach here -- avoid as much as possible any way to push the point. Change comes over a span of time, people appropriately pushing, but not all at once.

There already is talk that Biden saying he is for "unity" doesn't mean he will just agree to anything to get bipartisan votes. Basic core things will be demanded, details can be negotiated. How far this will go is unclear. We now have a probably not first ten Republican caucus proposal (thus 60 votes with the Democrats) on COVID.  The big test might be voting rights.

There is also an argument, one I noted above, about how each half of the Senate are not really equal. The Democrats represent many more people. I think that's valid though obviously that pushes against a constitutional rule. But, hey, the filibuster itself is not found in the Constitution. It supposedly is there to advance the overall principle of debate (ha ha) and the cooling saucer of the greatest debating society and all that. Such open-ended principles can factor in a lot of things, especially when the Senate equal vote rule is so locked in. 

When things are so locked in, you usually have workarounds too. A final thing there is that we are realistically stuck with a party in both houses (if somewhat less blatant in the Senate as seen on 1/6) that refuses to do the bare minimum. As an impeachment trial (people keep on saying "impeach" as if it means removal) already starting, the House Minority Leader goes to meet Trump. Can't wait a little bit, huh?  Republicans cannot simply even agree (though voting against tabling the question is not technically the same as supporting the merits) the impeachment trial is acceptable.  Bare minimum republican values, far from policy disputes, cannot be granted by even some significant limited number of them. 

Some would deem 2021 as the true beginning of the twenties. Should be interesting.

When Should the Law Forgive?

After reading Eric Foner's new book on the Reconstruction Amendments (good summary; get those high school students a copy) that had a Martha Minow blurb, read this small volume. She covered the same ground in short form some years back. It specifically covers child soldiers (giving them some agency can help; forgiveness requires admitting guilt), financial debts and pardons in general. Helpfully, she doesn't try to get firm answers, raising various questions and suggesting possible approaches. It did feel a bit rambling though.

Also: Brewers had a great September and then simply stopped winning last Friday. Hader blew a save to prevent the NL Central to possibly be decided in Game 163 (they lost Game 162 in the 10th anyhow) and then (with help) blew it in the eighth in the Wild Card game.

SCOTUS Watch

After another boring order list with a single 4A grant of limited reach, the Supreme Court handed down two opinions. The first was both disappointing (oral argument suggested some hope it would go the other way given the extreme nature of the facts) and concerning. The majority went all "we are sick of these things" regarding method of execution appeals with Breyer/Sotomayor providing the reasonable judge response. More here. The other is a less emotional case about expert testimony with Sotomayor and Gorsuch (and RBG, who joined up a few times so far now) dissenting. Meanwhile, Veep, S7, started off eh.

ETA: This summary clarifies the second case. The majority ruled narrowly and Gorsuch's second-guessing the government here isn't too surprising, nor is two liberals going along. Also, finished the new bio on Chief Justice John Roberts. Interesting and shows (umpire talk aside) his conservative history influences his judging. And, it has a bit of bite on him too. The in-house stuff isn't really surprising though we get some on the Affordable Care Act (not Heller though); the discussion of his early thought process on using the tax to save the mandate is confusing. He is said to have changed his mind but without deciding on the tax point, it wasn't clear the mandate was dead. Anyway, November, 2016 really changed things.

Baseball and Books

Couple late nite finishes in the playoffs and neither ended well in my eyes. Brewers still need to just win two straight.The Endings is a good idea, well done: photographs that tell a tale of loss for various women, a few portrayed by well known actresses. I'm not sure how far I'd take it but Why Honor Matters is at least an intriguing read up to a point. For instance, the Republicans during court battles to me in part are dishonorable -- in your face -- and Democrats need to factor that in when responding. Pragmatics need to take that into consideration as seen by the negative reply to a recent "compromise" that I'm not alone confused about the value of. But, not sure how far that is a matter of "honor" exactly.

ETA: Another team I preferred was eliminated, the Astros only winning one, in part thanks to a bad call and great catch at the end. Well that was Game 4, but it sealed their fate.

Ninth Circuit: Monkey satisfies Article III, but lacks statutory standing under Copyright Act

Talking about a monkey owning selfies as a claim sounds silly, but the basic constitutional standing argument the panel finds questionable isn't. Following links, the case cited left open the idea of Congress granting statutory standing to animals (e.g., to protect their rights under law) via their advocates. The subject criteria of Art. III (such as statutory claims) leaves that open. Douglas was right back in the day there. More widely, I think, if a corporation can be a legal "person," a monkey can be. A cat is more of a natural person than Hobby Lobby. Likewise, if ships, property etc. can be "sued" and sue, why not (legally) animals? ETA: Michael Dorf has more here.

Trump Pardons Arpaio

ETA: A few people argue the pardon is unconstitutional given the nature of the charges, in place to enforce a court judgment regarding violation of constitutional rights.  One thing that eventually came to mind was that he is out of office.  This alone makes it questionable to me that a criminal punishment is of fundamental importance to this extent.  Still, though the phrasing of "unconstitutional" doesn't convince me, I understand the overall message that is being sent.  There is a certain constitutional duty that is being violated here; it isn't just a horrible pardon. 

Racial profiling, ignoring sex crimes, and birtherism: Arpaio’s legacy 

The sheriff Trump just pardoned has done severe damage to Arizona, and to the country.

Arpaio is a Trump role model. The idea Trump would pardon him -- months before he even was sentenced -- still seemed outrageious. Yes, he tossed around the idea at a rally in Arizona, but he often is hot air.  The top punishment would be six months, but the guy is out of office and in his mid-80s.  Would he even get any prison time? At least wait .... plus, there was Hurricane Harvey in Texas. 

Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for breaking a court order regarding a finding of racial profiling.  In a tweet, Arpaio blamed Obama holdovers.  The court order was handed down by a Bush43 judge while a Clinton appointee later handed down the contempt conviction.  A 1920s Supreme Court opinion said a pardon there was allowed.  But, the question itself underlines the court, not Obama, was ultimately the party behind the contempt.* In fact, a rather dubious argument (cited here) is made that in this special case involving enforcement of a court order to protect constitutional rights, a pardon isn't even allowed.

[The argument that due process, the Fifth Amendment, is an amendment to the pardon power seems off to me -- I think due process was generally accepted to exist anyhow. Plus, the importance of court process to enforce rights goes to the inherent power to contempt arising from Art. III alone.  Plus, various crimes are in place to protect constitutional rights. Why is court process here uniquely important?  Finally, it is unclear to me that other means -- such as civil contempt -- cannot be used. Plus, yes, there already is an exception for impeachment. Why assume more?]

He pardoned the guy though. Republicans need to do more than talk when he does things like this.  They have to do actions to underline that a certain level of dick-ness will have real consequences.  A Lawfare blog analysis noted: "Notably missing from the White House statement was the reason Mr. Trump gave at his political rally in Phoenix. He indicated then that Arpaio was “convicted for doing his job.” You basically got this in the press release released as well, if you did a minimal amount of reading between the lines regarding the praise of how he "continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration." Yup. Extra level of pissed off.

I shall repeat: I don't think the guy was going to be put in jail for six months, particularly now that he's out of office. So, the pardon was a full-fledged "I approve this message."  F rule of law. The pardon as a raw matter of power is allowed -- the argument above that it is not allowed is you know not likely to be made (e.g., the judge can just sentence him anyway, arguing that the pardon is illegitimate).  He will retain the pardon.  And, though I don't necessary think it's a statement of guilt [even here Trump in effect is saying he was a victim of injustice; in another case, that might actually be true], the contempt isn't taken off the books. It can be raised in a civil suit.

The fact that the pardon is not unconstitutional is not in itself conclusive. Government officials repeatedly have the power to do something without it being the right thing to do. A horrible war comes to mind. And, the reason why this is horrible has constitutional implications: it disrespects court judgments, furthers racism and even the slipshod way it was given (without going through normal processes, even waiting for the sentence) is problematic. Courts have every right now to not give him the benefit of the doubt regarding respecting court orders. Plus, it can still be an abuse of office. A pardon that arises from a bribe can be grounds for impeachment for the bribery. Like speech being used for criminal acts, this is sort of "pardon plus."

Trump is the poison that keeps on giving. This was after he finally got around to putting in place the trans ban in the military.  The courts will now get involved, but like DADT, Congress has every right to step in. After all, even conservatives like Sen. Hatch opposed the move, right?

---

*  As noted in the last link related to this story, the prosecution was carried out by the Justice Department.  But, the court asked the U.S. attorney office to file criminal charges.  The court has civil powers of contempt, but has to rely on the executive for criminal charges. So, that what was meant.

The article, which I saw while writing this, discusses how Trump wanted to stop the prosecution in mid-stream, but Sessions said it would be in bad form.  But, Trump was going to pardon if he was convicted -- so heads you win, tails justice loses.  Trump's individual involvement in an ongoing prosecution to help a pal underlines his disrespect of the rule of law. 

And More: One thing that comes up is the assumption a pardon is an admission of guilt.   I don't think so -- the current law is that a pardon is a choice that it is necessary for the public good, not merely an act of grace. Still, his conviction for now was not tossed. This often happens, but a hearing has been scheduled to determine if it should be here. 

Gorsuch Hearings

I myself can't stomach watching [thanks Twitter] Judge Gorsuch, who sounds full of shit and is here thanks to to the Republicans' unprecedented (and wrong) blocking of Garland. You are tainted too, Gorsuch! No, the "Biden Rule" application is b.s. But, do agree hearings in general have an educational function plus serve an overall legitimizing role by putting him out in the open interacting with senators. Finally, do think a bit of the person and views do come out, helped by reporting/commentary. Very well the questioning is stupid and it is right to expect more substantive answers. But, that doesn't change the rest. Fix that!

And Also: Sen. Schumer uses Russia investigation of Trump Administration as reason for delay. Sure. I see this as all connected though some things are more so in certain ways.

Judge Gorsuch's Originalism Contrasts With Mentor's Pragmatism

I'm annoyed that Senator Gillibrand's statement against Judge Gorsuch did not mention Garland, but opposition on the merits is fine. A NPR piece on his originalist views shows this, with a reminder "text" is not the same thing "artificial selective citation of what it meant back in the day." Pragmatism like anything else can be selective as seen by White who in various ways applied it well but was one note on abortion. But still is more credible.

And Also: His views on Chevron leave something to be desired long term.

SCOTUS Watch

Special opinion day (which SCOTUS didn't announce on their website) to hand down a criminal justice opinion yesterday. There were time restraints but couldn't wait a day? U.S. v. Texas was heard -- talk is a 4-4 split or punting on standing. Two technical rulings today, one partially 4-4 with a discussion on the rules for full faith and credit of "acts." The context was narrow (and written by Breyer) but can see the "equally dignified" states rhetoric used in a Shelby v. Holder (problem there was a reasonable ground for different treatment) context.

Rev. Joe: ULC Church Reprise

The ULC has no traditional doctrine. We, the organization, only believe in that which is RIGHT. Each individual has the privilege and the responsibility to determine what is RIGHT for him as long as it does not infringe on the RIGHTS of others.

A federal appellate ruling out of the 7CA a couple years ago referenced the ULC Church is an opinion holding that if you allow a minister to solemnize a marriage, you constitutionally must also allow a humanist officiant to do so.  As I have noted in the past, reading NYT wedding announcements will lead one to consistently notice the usage of ULC officiants. And, contra the comment in the opinion, the church does not "sell" ordinations though it has various products for a fee. You can get ordained for free.

A clergyman or minister of any religion, or by the senior leader, or any of the other leaders, of The Society for Ethical Culture in the city of New York, having its principal office in the borough of Manhattan, or by the leader of The Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, having its principal office in the borough of Brooklyn of the city of New York, or of the Westchester Ethical Society, having its principal office in Westchester county, or of the Ethical Culture Society of Long Island, having its principal office in Nassau county, or of the Riverdale-Yonkers Ethical Society having its principal office in Bronx county, or by the leader of any other Ethical Culture Society affiliated with the American Ethical Union.

This is from the NYC city's clerk office and NYC does accept ULC Church credentials to register as a wedding officiant. I myself obtained this a few years back.  As covered in the past, a handful of lower court rulings in NY read "clergyman or minister" more narrowly.  I would note that singling out certain ethical culture societies like this does appear problematic.  Looking at the state domestic legislation in more detail provides this caveat:

provided that no clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader shall be required to solemnize any marriage when acting in his or her capacity under this subdivision.

So, don't worry, you won't be forced to solemnize same sex weddings or those that involve someone divorced.  Anyway, the original provision sounds open-ended, but moving down on the state page, you see this:

The term “clergyman” or “minister” when used in this article, shall include those defined in section two of the religious corporations.

Such is the wrinkle and a court covering 3/5 of NYC held that it did not apply to ULC Church.  Years later, a different mid-level appeals court held differently.  I am not aware of any judgment in the other two, including the one that covers the other 2/5 (Bronx and Manhattan) of NYC. As noted in this recent article, having a non-traditional officiant, including a friend and loved one, is quite popular these days. And, I think it is a basic liberty with general First Amendment overtones to have a broad right to choose here. The ULC Church has been subject to various litigation over the years,including competing decisions nation-wide on if they are "churchy" enough to count for this purpose.  Only a handful of cases arose in NY, but it would be useful to settle this thing.

The ULC Church or some analogue at times seems like something of a joke. The first link discusses how I would argue that it is a specific religion with certain basic doctrines. Basically, it rests on individual conscience though is not an "anything goes" sort of thing. Hurting others would not seem to be appropriate. You don't necessarily have to join a specific religion to be guided by such principles and many for instance believe in God or Jesus Christ without belonging to a specific denomination. Does this make them any less a believer?  Joining a specific group has value to people though, including a sort of messaging function.

The ULC Church started years ago and the presidency passed to the wife and then son of the founder.  Looking at one link, "what's new" referenced 2005 though found a NPR piece five years later. Amy Long, ULC Seminary President used to have periodic YouTube videos where she talked about various topics.  But, the last one I see is from a year ago.  There is a "ULC" website with up to date content (see, e.g., an April 2016 blog) but is it the "official" one connected to the founder's church?  Well, bluntly, who cares really?  It seems to violate the spirit of universalism to worry too much about the "right" church here.  The whole point here is individual conscience, not worrying about the credentials of some specific minister or branch.  The whole thing is a bit convoluted.

Who is who here seems important largely to see who would get the profits for various wedding materials and other stuff you can buy.  The purity of whomever is running "ULC" when ministers become so by submitting their names is of limited importance. There is of course some basic concern about who is involved and if they are miscreants, they shouldn't be supported.  But, when someone wants to get married by a "ULC" minister, all of that doesn't really matter.  They are basically saying that they want to solemnize the occasion by means of an ordinary person who expresses individual moral beliefs.  "ULC" is a sort of shorthand means to do this, familiar since so many did so in the past.  That's fine.

The main concern, I guess, is like when being a member of the "press" gives someone certain special privileges.  So, New York and certain other states allowed "ministers" to solemnize weddings, but wanted that to have a bit of cachet, so to speak.  But, as I noted in the past, trying to draw a line there among certain religions has 1A problems, including establishment concerns about choosing those with a certain type of clergy.  If you want officiants to have a bit of knowledge about marriage law or take some sort of oath or affirmation, fine. If a small group of people think such and such a person is blessed by God is not exactly saying much about their bona fides though.  Some sort of minimum membership seems off too.  Is truth a matter of numbers?  Best to allow marriages to be "exercised" broadly.

The same basic thing would be true regarding other acts of "ministers" here including let's say have a ULC minister serve as counselor in prison or at a hospital.  Money used merely for such duties should also be tax exempt.  OTOH, some open-ended thing like saying your bakery business is in honor of God or something should not be enough.  Any exemption that is appropriate can be done via some sort of "conscience" rule and ULC Church ministers should count as much as anything else.  So, that shouldn't be an issue. Again, I think "ULC" just amounts to a shorthand that can be present without going through some online exercise and getting paperwork from some third party.  But, whatever works for you.

I don't go around telling people I'm "Rev. Joe" of the Universal Life Church or anything. I was raised as a Roman Catholic though my mom eventually was turned off by them and chose another Christian church. I respect Catholicism on certain matters but find their beliefs on a range of things not only absurd but at times simply harmful.  Many Catholics go their own way on such issues (including abortion), relying on their own conscience. They can still call themselves "Catholic" though such cafeteria personal choice decision-making sounds pretty Protestant to me.

Seems kinda ULC-like. Oh well. Choose the path the works for you, just try to be good and make the world a little better for you being there. That's not always that easy, believe me.