An Excellent, Data-Driven Analysis Of Tangerine 2.0 “De-Funding” Lawlessness…

In the “Quick Hits Dept.”…

Thanks go out to the ScotusBlog.com, for this:

Emily Badger and Alicia Parlapiano at the NYT provide an in-depth look at lawsuits over the Trump administration’s changes to a variety of government funding programs, including its efforts to keep funds from communities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and from organizations that promote DEI programs. The analysis includes 198 lawsuits and notes that the “[w]hen plaintiffs have sought immediate relief, district court judges have temporarily blocked the administration’s actions 79 percent of the time, signaling plaintiffs’ likely success on the merits. In the 26 instances where district judges have issued partial or final rulings, the administration lost 23.” By comparison, “appellate courts have reversed or paused orders against the administration in about 40 percent of their rulings.”

The article noted that the Supreme Court’s June ruling “ending nationwide injunctions” has lessened the impact of lower court losses, which helps explain why the Trump administration has persisted with its plan to withhold funding from groups it disagrees with even in the face of so many lawsuits….

Onward, grinning on a foggy Thursday, now — awaiting a Kevin Mulleady felony verdict — or three.