Stalinists in Washington

Plus a price cut

Good Morning:

It’s a weird feeling going down to the White House and finding people carrying pictures of Joseph Stalin and flags with hammers and sickles. But that actually happened to me the other day. The Russian demonstration was notionally a World War II memorial, and it involved a March from the Lafayette Square to the World War II monument. But it was clearly also about a pro-Russian show of force in front of a compliant White House in the midst of the Ukraine war. Needless to say, a crowd of plucky Ukrainians showed up to heckle. :)

---

Price Cut

With all the talk of rising prices from tariffs, I’ve decided it’s time to cut the price of #DogShirtDaily. When I started this newsletter, I just went with the default, recommended price suggested by Substack. I had no idea, and still don’t, whether that is the revenue maximizing point or not. So I’ve decided to cut the price and see if I take a revenue hit or not. The goal here is to get as many people signed up as possible without hurting revenues—so as long as revenues don’t fall, they don’t necessarily have to go up for this to be worth it.

Remember, a paid subscription to #DogShirtDaily gets you access to the mysterious additional material below the paywall—including my notes on The Confrontation. It also gets you membership in the famed Greek Chorus—the privileged group that gets to be part of the live audience in #DogShirtTV. And it supports #SpecialMilitaryOperations against Russian diplomatic facilities worldwide.

---

Documents

I’ve been dilatory about posting documents the last few days, but here are two interesting court opinions from the period:

• A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas rules that: “The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the President can utilize a specific statute, the [Alien Enemies Act], to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of [Tren de Aragua]. As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms. As a result, the Court concludes that as a matter of law, the Executive Branch cannot rely on the AEA, based on the Proclamation, to detain the Named Petitioners and the certified class, or to remove them from the country.”

• A federal judge in Washington in the Perkins Coie case rules that: “Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion.’ The Supreme Court has long made clear that ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics . . . or other matters of opinion.’ Simply put, government officials ‘cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’ That, however, is exactly what is happening here. For this reason, and those explained more fully below, Executive Order 14230 is unconstitutional, and the findings and instructions to Executive Branch agencies issued in its Sections 1 through 5 cannot be allowed to stand.”

---

My friend and fellow

Lawfare

contributor

Paul Rosenzweig

has a long essay in The Atlantic on the destruction of the Justice Department. I have not read it yet, but I am looking forward to it and recommend it in advance. It opens:

When Thomas Paine asked what made America different from England, he had a ready answer: “In America, the law is king.” America has not always upheld that ideal, but, taking the long view, it has made great progress toward that principle. In recent decades, the Department of Justice has become an institutional embodiment of these aspirations—the locus in the federal government for professional, apolitical enforcement of the law, which is in itself a rejection of the kingly prerogative. That is why Donald Trump’s debasement of the DOJ is far more than the mere degradation of a governmental agency; it is an assault on the rule of law.

His attack on the institution is threefold: He is using the mechanisms of justice to go after political opponents; he is using those same mechanisms to reward allies; and he is eliminating internal opposition within the department. Each incident making up this pattern is appalling; together, they amount to the decimation of a crucial institution.

---

Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Jonathan Rauch and I welcomed the estimable Emma Petty Adams, director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, to discuss her organization’s quilting offensive and the role of creativity, grassroots organizing, and faith in approaching The Situation:

---

Yesterday On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett

The U.S.-Ukraine Agreement: Legality and Transparency

Curtis Bradley, Jack Goldsmith, and Oona Hathaway break down the terms of the recently signed agreement between the United States and Ukraine to establish a fund sharing revenues from the future extraction of Ukraine’s mineral and energy resources. Bradley, Goldsmith, and Hathaway explain that although this agreement is likely exempt from congressional consent, other associated agreements are still subject to authorization and transparency requirements:

The transparency requirements could become even more important when it comes to the LP Agreement. That agreement is subject to the same transparency requirements—and thus must be reported to Congress and published. Perhaps Ukraine will again make the agreement public. After all, much of the value of the agreement to Ukraine is the public show by the United States of a long-term investment in Ukraine. But the American public should not have to rely on a foreign partner to publish the agreement in order to learn what commitments the executive branch has made on the United States’ behalf. (As we recently discussed, this concern about transparency also applies to an agreement that the administration has made with El Salvador concerning the detention of migrants—an agreement that is highly relevant to pending litigation but that the administration is trying to keep secret.)

The Anti-Terrorism Act Is Being Weaponized to Harass Israel’s Critics

Joseph Pace highlights the legal shortcomings of a recently filed lawsuit in which pro-Israel groups alleged that pro-Palestinian student groups at Columbia University aided and abetted Hamas’s terrorist operations. Pace argues that pro-Israel groups—despite knowing their complaints will not hold up in court—bring suit under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to suppress dissent and stigmatize pro-Palestinian voices:

Like the other complaints, this one comes nowhere close to satisfying the ATA’s requirements. The fact that the plaintiffs would file a suit with no prospect of proceeding to discovery, much less yielding a judgment, suggests its real purpose: to generate negative press coverage of pro-Palestine protesters, brand them as adjuncts of Hamas in the public imagination, and muzzle campus critics of Israel. The complaint is, in essence, a press release with a docket number.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, Renee DiResta sits down with Mary Anne Franks, Becca Branum, and Adam Conner to discuss why the TAKE IT DOWN Act—the first major U.S. federal law to squarely target non‑consensual intimate imagery—gained bipartisan support and whether its sweeping takedown mandate will protect victims or chill lawful speech:

---

As you all know, cats and dogs are only eligible to be the #BeastOfTheDay if they perform a notable Act of Valor.

As all older siblings know, one’s younger sibling is continually trying to kill themself by accident, and our efforts to prevent them from succeeding are worthy of recognition.

Therefore, today’s #BeastOfTheDay is this dog, whose Act of Valor is its continual defense of its sibling:

Video Source

In honor of today’s Beast, be grateful for all the times your older siblings jumped on you. You deserved it.