Fogbow

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:07 am Thomas has to deliver for his customers.

A Texas landowner can sue the state for flood damage to his property, U.S. Supreme Court rules
Richie DeVillier, who owns land east of Houston, said the state owes him damages for constant flooding after Texas made changes to Interstate 10 near his property.

BY JESS HUFF
APRIL 16, 2024 10 AM CENTRAL

LUFKIN — A Texas landowner may seek compensation from the state for damages to his property east of Houston, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday.

Richie DeVillier, a landowner in Chambers County, sued the state in 2020 after his land repeatedly flooded following changes Texas made to Interstate 10. The original lawsuit argued DeVillier had a right to damages under state law and the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which prohibits governments from taking private property for public use without compensation.

Texas officials moved the case to federal courts, then sought to dismiss it, suggested it was not a Fifth Amendment issue. Lower courts disagreed prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

Aaron Lloyd Nielson of the Texas Attorney General’s Office said at oral arguments on Jan. 16 that the state would accept the case if it were updated to reflect only state law.

The Supreme Court determined Texas ought to consider the case under state law, which would permit DeVillier to pursue compensation.

“And, although Texas asserted that proceeding under the state-law cause of action would require an amendment to the complaint, it also assured the Court that it would not oppose any attempt by DeVillier and the other petitioners to seek one,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.

DeVillier’s lawsuit was representative of 120 other property owners who also faced significant damage during Hurricane Harvey as a result of the barrier.



https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/16 ... eme-court/

Igor Bobic @igorbobic wrote: Alito described consquences for Trump of going to trial:

"That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal."

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:26 pm The Three Stooges of Death had a field day muddying the non-issue. Bluster bluster bluster most important case ever bluster bluster Ford decision to pardon Nixon proven the correct one (not) bluster bluster wake up Thomas so we can go crime somewhere else.

Gee, for a group with no credibility, they have a lot of power.

Minor curiosity as to whether or not Roberts and/or (shock) Barrett will go full corruption or allow the trial to go ahead.

Not putting a dime on that.

@judgeluttig @judgeluttig wrote: As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:30 pm https://x.com/judgeluttig/status/1783542480069185587

@judgeluttig @judgeluttig wrote: As with the three-hour argument in Trump v. Anderson, a disconcertingly precious little of the two-hour argument today was even devoted to the specific and only question presented for decision.

That's cause the fix is in!

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:41 pm Jackson doggedly brought it up each time she spoke.

Citizen Free Press @CitizenFreePres wrote: Justice Alito

If an incumbent president knows he may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country...

Ryan Goodman @rgoodlaw wrote: Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.

It'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.

Mrs. Betty Bowers @BettyBowers wrote: If SCOTUS rules that presidents have absolute immunity, Joe Biden should sign executive orders to pack the Court & require it to adopt strict new ethics/recusal rules—and then use the military to enforce them.

Ryan Teague Beckwith @ryanbeckwith wrote: SCOTUS: The president does not have the power to forgive student loans under this particular law.

TRUMP: OK, but he could order someone killed, though, right?

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:52 pm How is Kavanaugh reacting? I hate to say it, but he's done the right thing a time or two.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:47 pm Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 3:41 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:52 pm How is Kavanaugh reacting? I hate to say it, but he's done the right thing a time or two.

The worst. Started out by talking about how they should send the case back to Chutkin to rule on which charge were private, etc.

Marc E. Elias @marceelias wrote: I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as "an official act."

I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.

US supreme court eyes returning Trump immunity claim to lower court after arguments
Justices appeared unlikely to grant request for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to former president

Hugo Lowell and Martin Pengelly in Washington
Thu 25 Apr 2024 19.46 CEST

The US supreme court on Thursday expressed interest in returning Donald Trump’s criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election back to a lower court to decide whether certain parts of the indictment were “official acts” that were protected by presidential immunity.

During oral arguments, the justices appeared unlikely to grant Trump’s request for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, with both Trump’s lawyer and the justice department’s lawyer agreeing there were certain private acts that presidents would have no protection for.

But the chief justice, John Roberts, and the conservative justices suggested that presidents should have some level of immunity and would favor the presiding trial judge in the case deciding whether any acts in the indictment were official and should be expunged.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... nity-claim

Aaron Rupar @atrupar wrote: Trump lawyer says that if Trump sold nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, he couldn't be prosecuted unless he was impeached and convicted first

scary lawyerguy @scarylawyerguy wrote: This should be ALL CAPS 72 font banner headlines in every newspaper in America tomorrow but we know from long experience that they'll shrug this off. We're sliding toward autocracy b/c the press either doesn't understand or doesn't care about what Trump is doing.

Jamie Dupree @jamiedupree wrote: Trump's lawyer told Justice Amy Coney Barrett that the only way a President could be prosecuted for ordering a coup is if there was a law which specifically made it illegal for a President to order a coup.

Anthony Michael Kreis @AnthonyMKreis wrote: Unbelievable that Supreme Court justices who see forgiving student loans, mandating vaccines, and regulating climate change as a slippery slope toward tyranny were not clear-eyed on questions of whether a president could execute citizens or stage a coup without being prosecuted.