My family and I are very grateful for your in-depth analysis and encouragement in a dark and difficult time. It's a gift to hear you call out the lawless behavior of the current DOJ-- specifically how badly they've crossed the line in service of the corrupt Trump regime. And, judges holding them accountable is very good news indeed.
* ICE plans To "offload 7 warehouses" it had planned to convert to"detention centers" aka prisons.
* Per TRMS, Alligator Alcatraz shutting down.
"All detainees at a 'detention center' aka prison at an isolated airstrip in the FL Everglades known as Alligator🐊Alley have been transferred to other facilities" as hurricane season approaches.
*PER NYT, Judge orders "Federal Citizenship data [SSA] Cannot Be Used to Screen Voters.
*Per The Guardian, "Judge Blocks subpoena for Walz & others over Minnesota immigration crackdown" covered in more docket detail by Professor Vance tonight.
Again, we must find a way to take the DOJ out of the Executive Branch. Trump has smashed the wall of necessary independence and is using the DOJ to break laws instead of enforcing them.
In order to allow the country to ever trust the law enforcement power of the government it has to be clearly and totally free of political or financial influence.
It will be a very long time before I regain the great respect and trust I once had for SCOTUS. Sadly, I consider the Republican group on the court out of touch with and hostile to democracy, honesty, and critical thinking. They have embraced the mediocrity of Donald Trump.
The lawyer in me wonders whether a justice can be impeached for lying to Congress during his or her confirmation hearings. If so, all three of trump’s picks are vulnerable because they lied through their teeth.
Oldandintheway, It could also work if there were specific qualifications for people who serve in the DOJ, particularly at the highest levels: experience as a prosecutor who was fair and impartial, prosecuted cases in a non-partisan manner, not in any way related family-wise or as a personal lawyer of the president or any other member of the current administration, and possibly a few others that skilled lawyers would know to recommend. Then, the FBI would be headed by a person with a strong moral code, no "axes to grind," and some law-enforcement training and experience. Again there should be no partisan relationships with the president or anyone else in the administration. Congress could make that all happen.
I know it goes against everything the SCOTUS believes in but maybe we should consider Separately electing the AG by popular vote maybe in the Midterm election.
Another outstanding analysis and explanation. Thank you for keeping us informed, Joyce. I can only imagine the amount of time and concentrated focus you must devote to this work. Please know it's so very much appreciated.
Thank goodness for the courts! There is nothing one can call a functional government in DC right now, with a fascist running rampant on a daily basis.. issuing dictates in the wee hours and calling for arrests, when in fact the only arrest that is urgent is his.
You do know dear Joyce that the quote below is why we are here and trust your judgement completely. Thank you, and the chickens.
"My goal in posts like this one isn’t just to tell you who won or lost. It’s to explain what the courts are seeing, what judges are thinking, and how their decisions fit into the larger story unfolding around us."
We owe you a huge debt of gratitude for your explanations of legal proceedings, Professor Vance. We are so much better prepared to take action and hold conversations with less informed friends and family
As Joyce points out, federal judges almost never quash DOJ subpoenas. The legal standard is so deferential that quashing happens only when the court finds absolutely clear evidence of improper purpose, harassment, or pretext. A federal subpoena --- especially a grand jury subpoena --- is presumed valid on its face. Courts almost always apply the "minimal relevance" standard, meaning the government only has to show the subpoena "may be relevant" to an investigation. There is also the "good‑faith presumption" or the presumption of regularity, assuming prosecutors act properly unless the challenger proves otherwise --- and even a "no probable cause required" rule which allows the DOJ not to have to show suspicion, evidence, or even a theory of the case.
Because of this, courts typically enforce subpoenas unless they are: unduly burdensome, issued in bad faith, or for an improper purpose (the hardest to prove). Historically, fewer than 1–2% of federal subpoenas challenged in court are quashed, and almost none on improper purpose grounds. This is all by way of saying just how extraordinary is the recent run of cases where courts have quashed federal subpoenas for improper purpose and more to the point, how blatantly and indifferently illegal the government has acted.
The Minneapolis case is only the latest in a string. As you may remember, subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve and former Fed chairman Jerome Powell were quashed because a "mountain of evidence" showed they were intended to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates or resigning. In addition, several federal courts have quashed DOJ administrative subpoenas seeking records from hospitals and clinics providing gender‑affirming care. The rulings form a clear pattern: a growing and fortunate judicial skepticism of subpoenas used as political tools rather than genuine investigative instruments.
Dale, I worry that we're seeing criminal behavior disguised as law enforcement.
Remembering that next to no-one was prosecuted for participating in the widespread misrepresentation of the quality of mortgage packages which led to the financial crisis of 2008, I worry that once again, the miscreants will either carry on as if nothing happened, or disappear into the shrubbery.
I worry further that if the next adminstration which I'm hoping will not be corrupt will realize that our country will fail as an enterprise when our fellow citizens realize that some are above the law, and it may be many.
The pattern of courts finding improper purpose in federal subpoenas is unfortunately only one example of far too many that the old model — "the system works because people follow norms" --- is no longer reliable. When norms fail, the only remaining stabilizer is positive law: explicit statutes, enforceable constraints, and judicially reviewable standards. For decades, the U.S. system relied on: prosecutorial self‑restraint; respect for institutional boundaries; informal understandings about how tools like subpoenas, pardons, and agency power should be used and --- mutual expectations across party lines that political actors would not weaponize legal processes. These were never laws. They were habits. That world is gone.
Heh, heh. Actually, not complicated enough. Just lots of unnecessary wordiness to say not much, a bunch of which is not even related to the point. AI always pads everything — lots! — because it wants you to feel like you’re getting your money’s worth. You now, … blah, blah, blah. AI does not make people smart, it just makes them feel like they are smart. Not to mention that it obfuscates with tangents and outright lies, so there is that.
I have a question I have been meaning to ask. Why haven't Malactors like Todd Blanche & the Chigago ASUAs who are violating the Grand Jury rules been refered to their Home Bar Associations for possible Disbarment?
That is a question I’ve been wrestling with. My knowledge of how the legal profession operates is limited, but the behavior of the lawyers in Trumps orbit seems not only consistently legally dodgy but beyond unethical. Are the state bar associations brain dead, or are they controlled by corporate shills? Anyone?
They actually appear to break the law on a regular basis and yes, bar associations are taking notice. But it’s a huge undertaking to disbar a lawyer. I’m presuming the miscreants expect pardons from trump but who knows? He’s already so addled I doubt he recognizes anyone.
If I may... Bar associations generally avoid disciplining sitting federal officials, especially DOJ officials and lawyers, unless there is a criminal conviction or a judicial finding of intentional misconduct. The unfortunate structural reality is federal prosecutors are regulated primarily by DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), not state bars. Furthermore, state bars defer heavily to OPR unless a court makes a formal finding of misconduct. Why you rightly may ask? Largely because disciplining them would require the bar to second‑guess: prosecutorial discretion; investigative strategy; internal DOJ policy and executive‑branch decision‑making. The sad fact is, even under obvious circumstances, many bars are reluctant to even investigate, let alone sanction, and they tend to be especially reluctant to wade into constitutionally sensitive territory. However, bars may act when alleged misconduct is blatantly legal‑ethical, not executive‑policy‑based --- although whether something is unethical, as you can appreciate, is certainly too often in the eyes of the beholder.
The federal courts can only do so much--there has been no meaningful judicial action against Trump's corruption as he grifts his way through his second term. In fact, his insane, dictatorial exercise of executive power in foreign and domestic affairs is at the behest and direction of the Heritage Foundation fascists/lunatics and their tech bros brethren, who in turn grease his grifting, as have the zombie Republicans in Congress, who have all decided wrong is right and right is wrong-- as has Robert's KKKangaroo Court. Trump cares only about distracting from the grift.
That last sentence is exactly why I read you, Joyce. The rest (chickens, humor, a sense of community) is not just gravy, it also binds it all together. Thank you. And I have one more judge to add to my list of respected heroes.
My family and I are very grateful for your in-depth analysis and encouragement in a dark and difficult time. It's a gift to hear you call out the lawless behavior of the current DOJ-- specifically how badly they've crossed the line in service of the corrupt Trump regime. And, judges holding them accountable is very good news indeed.
Thank you for this clear explanation of why the judge denied the administration’s prosecution. Although persecution may be a more correct term.
There are number Big Losers today 6/22/26:
* ICE plans To "offload 7 warehouses" it had planned to convert to"detention centers" aka prisons.
* Per TRMS, Alligator Alcatraz shutting down.
"All detainees at a 'detention center' aka prison at an isolated airstrip in the FL Everglades known as Alligator🐊Alley have been transferred to other facilities" as hurricane season approaches.
*PER NYT, Judge orders "Federal Citizenship data [SSA] Cannot Be Used to Screen Voters.
*Per The Guardian, "Judge Blocks subpoena for Walz & others over Minnesota immigration crackdown" covered in more docket detail by Professor Vance tonight.
Good start to Summer.
Again, we must find a way to take the DOJ out of the Executive Branch. Trump has smashed the wall of necessary independence and is using the DOJ to break laws instead of enforcing them.
In order to allow the country to ever trust the law enforcement power of the government it has to be clearly and totally free of political or financial influence.
It will be a very long time before I regain the great respect and trust I once had for SCOTUS. Sadly, I consider the Republican group on the court out of touch with and hostile to democracy, honesty, and critical thinking. They have embraced the mediocrity of Donald Trump.
The lawyer in me wonders whether a justice can be impeached for lying to Congress during his or her confirmation hearings. If so, all three of trump’s picks are vulnerable because they lied through their teeth.
Oldandintheway, It could also work if there were specific qualifications for people who serve in the DOJ, particularly at the highest levels: experience as a prosecutor who was fair and impartial, prosecuted cases in a non-partisan manner, not in any way related family-wise or as a personal lawyer of the president or any other member of the current administration, and possibly a few others that skilled lawyers would know to recommend. Then, the FBI would be headed by a person with a strong moral code, no "axes to grind," and some law-enforcement training and experience. Again there should be no partisan relationships with the president or anyone else in the administration. Congress could make that all happen.
Absolutely !!
I know it goes against everything the SCOTUS believes in but maybe we should consider Separately electing the AG by popular vote maybe in the Midterm election.
Another outstanding analysis and explanation. Thank you for keeping us informed, Joyce. I can only imagine the amount of time and concentrated focus you must devote to this work. Please know it's so very much appreciated.
Thank goodness for the courts! There is nothing one can call a functional government in DC right now, with a fascist running rampant on a daily basis.. issuing dictates in the wee hours and calling for arrests, when in fact the only arrest that is urgent is his.
You do know dear Joyce that the quote below is why we are here and trust your judgement completely. Thank you, and the chickens.
"My goal in posts like this one isn’t just to tell you who won or lost. It’s to explain what the courts are seeing, what judges are thinking, and how their decisions fit into the larger story unfolding around us."
As a lay person, I appreciate Joyce’s well-reasoned and clear communication.
And she does it so well.
We owe you a huge debt of gratitude for your explanations of legal proceedings, Professor Vance. We are so much better prepared to take action and hold conversations with less informed friends and family
Well done! Excellent piece.
If Minneapolis is a “hellhole” … then the Reflecting Pool is the mouth of Lethe.
Yes and trump and his crazed Cabinet need to take a boat ride on the River Styx--Now!
I can get you a deal on one way tickets!
I think a submarine with a screened door would work nicely!
As Joyce points out, federal judges almost never quash DOJ subpoenas. The legal standard is so deferential that quashing happens only when the court finds absolutely clear evidence of improper purpose, harassment, or pretext. A federal subpoena --- especially a grand jury subpoena --- is presumed valid on its face. Courts almost always apply the "minimal relevance" standard, meaning the government only has to show the subpoena "may be relevant" to an investigation. There is also the "good‑faith presumption" or the presumption of regularity, assuming prosecutors act properly unless the challenger proves otherwise --- and even a "no probable cause required" rule which allows the DOJ not to have to show suspicion, evidence, or even a theory of the case.
Because of this, courts typically enforce subpoenas unless they are: unduly burdensome, issued in bad faith, or for an improper purpose (the hardest to prove). Historically, fewer than 1–2% of federal subpoenas challenged in court are quashed, and almost none on improper purpose grounds. This is all by way of saying just how extraordinary is the recent run of cases where courts have quashed federal subpoenas for improper purpose and more to the point, how blatantly and indifferently illegal the government has acted.
The Minneapolis case is only the latest in a string. As you may remember, subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve and former Fed chairman Jerome Powell were quashed because a "mountain of evidence" showed they were intended to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates or resigning. In addition, several federal courts have quashed DOJ administrative subpoenas seeking records from hospitals and clinics providing gender‑affirming care. The rulings form a clear pattern: a growing and fortunate judicial skepticism of subpoenas used as political tools rather than genuine investigative instruments.
Dale, I worry that we're seeing criminal behavior disguised as law enforcement.
Remembering that next to no-one was prosecuted for participating in the widespread misrepresentation of the quality of mortgage packages which led to the financial crisis of 2008, I worry that once again, the miscreants will either carry on as if nothing happened, or disappear into the shrubbery.
I worry further that if the next adminstration which I'm hoping will not be corrupt will realize that our country will fail as an enterprise when our fellow citizens realize that some are above the law, and it may be many.
The pattern of courts finding improper purpose in federal subpoenas is unfortunately only one example of far too many that the old model — "the system works because people follow norms" --- is no longer reliable. When norms fail, the only remaining stabilizer is positive law: explicit statutes, enforceable constraints, and judicially reviewable standards. For decades, the U.S. system relied on: prosecutorial self‑restraint; respect for institutional boundaries; informal understandings about how tools like subpoenas, pardons, and agency power should be used and --- mutual expectations across party lines that political actors would not weaponize legal processes. These were never laws. They were habits. That world is gone.
More AI?
That's your contribution? Might want to work on your obvious self-esteem issues.
Thanks, trump.
AI, I presume?
And why would you presume that? Too complicated for you?
Heh, heh. Actually, not complicated enough. Just lots of unnecessary wordiness to say not much, a bunch of which is not even related to the point. AI always pads everything — lots! — because it wants you to feel like you’re getting your money’s worth. You now, … blah, blah, blah. AI does not make people smart, it just makes them feel like they are smart. Not to mention that it obfuscates with tangents and outright lies, so there is that.
So you are a fool after all. And what are the lies jackwagon ? Suggest you seek professional help.
FYI: The telltale sign that someone has lost an argument is when they start personal attacks. And here you are.
Know what an "argument" is? Didn't think so. And btw, the telltale sign is you need professional help. No argument there.
Still waiting for those "lies." Oh and add a tangent or two --- assuming you know the definition.
I have a question I have been meaning to ask. Why haven't Malactors like Todd Blanche & the Chigago ASUAs who are violating the Grand Jury rules been refered to their Home Bar Associations for possible Disbarment?
That is a question I’ve been wrestling with. My knowledge of how the legal profession operates is limited, but the behavior of the lawyers in Trumps orbit seems not only consistently legally dodgy but beyond unethical. Are the state bar associations brain dead, or are they controlled by corporate shills? Anyone?
They actually appear to break the law on a regular basis and yes, bar associations are taking notice. But it’s a huge undertaking to disbar a lawyer. I’m presuming the miscreants expect pardons from trump but who knows? He’s already so addled I doubt he recognizes anyone.
If I may... Bar associations generally avoid disciplining sitting federal officials, especially DOJ officials and lawyers, unless there is a criminal conviction or a judicial finding of intentional misconduct. The unfortunate structural reality is federal prosecutors are regulated primarily by DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), not state bars. Furthermore, state bars defer heavily to OPR unless a court makes a formal finding of misconduct. Why you rightly may ask? Largely because disciplining them would require the bar to second‑guess: prosecutorial discretion; investigative strategy; internal DOJ policy and executive‑branch decision‑making. The sad fact is, even under obvious circumstances, many bars are reluctant to even investigate, let alone sanction, and they tend to be especially reluctant to wade into constitutionally sensitive territory. However, bars may act when alleged misconduct is blatantly legal‑ethical, not executive‑policy‑based --- although whether something is unethical, as you can appreciate, is certainly too often in the eyes of the beholder.
One could hope the bars would take their duty to rein in misconduct more seriously.
Yikes — even more AI.
How can I put this politely -- do you work hard at being a fool or does it comes naturally?
O B One, the courts seem to be our only hope 😊 today’s ruling shows that there is still hope for our democracy in the rule of law.
BRAVO!! Honorable judge and a great report
I always love hearing your nuanced and insightful perspective. Helps keep me feeling I have some inkling of important events that
don’t hit the headlines
The federal courts can only do so much--there has been no meaningful judicial action against Trump's corruption as he grifts his way through his second term. In fact, his insane, dictatorial exercise of executive power in foreign and domestic affairs is at the behest and direction of the Heritage Foundation fascists/lunatics and their tech bros brethren, who in turn grease his grifting, as have the zombie Republicans in Congress, who have all decided wrong is right and right is wrong-- as has Robert's KKKangaroo Court. Trump cares only about distracting from the grift.
That last sentence is exactly why I read you, Joyce. The rest (chickens, humor, a sense of community) is not just gravy, it also binds it all together. Thank you. And I have one more judge to add to my list of respected heroes.