Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida sent a warning shot Thursday to Walt Disney World, just one day after news broke that the governor's move to take over the resort and theme park's governing board is likely toothless.

Bragging about his high-profile dispute with the family-favorite company during a book stop tour in Smyrna, Georgia, DeSantis acknowledged that his moves against Disney were not yet a done deal.

"There's a lot of little back and forth going on now with the state control," DeSantis said, the audience booing at the mention of Disney. "But rest assured — you ain't seen nothing yet. There's more to come in that regard."

Soon after the governor finished his remarks, his office circulated a letter from Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody's office that demanded texts, emails, and other public records from the former board members of the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

The letter, from Moody's chief of staff James Percival, asked for "documents discussing an intention or goal of circumventing, avoiding, frustrating, mitigatin, or otherwise attempting" to avoid action from DeSantis and Florida lawmakers.

A series of sensational news reports on Thursday suggested that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — who many view as a contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — could potentially try to interfere if a New York grand jury indicts former President Donald Trump and seeks his extradition from Florida, where he’s currently residing.

Citing an obscure provision of Florida law that allows the governor, upon receiving an extradition request from another state, to investigate "whether the person ought to be surrendered,” the argument goes that this provision gives DeSantis the chance to play hero with the former president’s supporters by dragging his feet.

The legal reality is decidedly to the contrary. If Trump is indicted in New York, both the U.S. Constitution and a federal statute dating to 1793 require DeSantis (or the governor of whatever state Trump is in at the time) to hand him over. And if DeSantis still refuses, a 1987 Supreme Court decision makes clear that federal courts can order him to comply. Unlike in cases of international extradition, where treaties often leave significant room for political and diplomatic machinations and maneuvering, the law of interstate extradition is both clear and straightforward.

Let’s start with the Constitution itself. The Extradition Clause of Article IV provides that “a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.” The provision contemplates no discretion on the part of the state receiving the request, but speaks instead of a mandate to return the prisoner.

TALLAHASSEE — The Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill Thursday allowing Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a permit or training, disappointing gun-control activists while falling short of what some Second Amendment advocates wanted.

The measure now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has said he would sign it.

The 27-13 vote, which fell mostly along party lines, came days after a mass school shooting in Nashville sent a painful reminder about the children killed by gun violence in Florida, including the Parkland attack that took the lives of 17 students and school employees.

“We started yesterday with a moment of silence for the six victims of the Nashville shooting, yet we went on and rejected amendments for ideas that would make this legislation safer, our world safer,” said Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton. “Why we are going in the opposite direction of what we did after the tragedy of Parkland is truly beyond me. We finally do something good and it is working.”

The Parkland shooting in 2018 led to major gun reforms enacted by the Legislature and the creation of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission. Several bills this session would undo some of the recommendations lawmakers have put into law.

Both Democratic and Republican administrations will continue to be hit with injunctions that stop some of their programs from being implemented—not just as they affect named plaintiffs—but everyone in the US.

Courts use national injunctions as equitable remedies that restrict federal rollout of a particular policy.

Sometimes those national injunctions are justified, but they often overreach, at least in the nationwide aspect. Courts have struggled to get the problem under control, but the best and most workable solution must come from Congress. Here is why, and what Congress should do.

Call to Action

Eliminating forum shopping at the district court level is a much larger and perhaps unsolvable problem, but Congress can significantly lessen its effects on national injunctions by enacting a statute—providing that no injunction against a federal agency or officer may benefit any person beyond the named plaintiffs unless it is by a three-judge district court, which includes at least one circuit judge.

Under that statute, a plaintiff seeking relief for others would have to include a request for a three-judge court in the complaint, and the district judge to whom such a case was assigned would have no power on their own to issue any form of injunctive relief beyond the named plaintiff.

The statute should also provide that further review of a grant or denial of either a preliminary or permanent national injunction shall be by a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, filed within 30 days of the order to be reviewed.

Until 1976, use of three-judge courts was required to enjoin federal and state statutes, but those challenges were all constitutional.

Mark Joseph Stern
@mjs_DC

🚨Judge Reed O'Connor STRIKES DOWN a major provision of the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover a vast amount of preventive care cost-free (contraception, cancer screening, PrEP, a ton of pregnancy-related care). The ruling applies nationwide.

courtlistener.com
#113 in Braidwood Management Inc. v. Xavier Becerra (N.D. Tex., 4:20-cv-00283) – CourtListener.com

Here is a list of the many, many preventive care treatments that insurers must cover cost-free under the ACA. Reed O'Connor just struck down the entire section of the law mandating this coverage. This is a gigantic blow to the ACA and U.S. health care. https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-a-and-b-recommendations

O'Connor rules that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—the federal agency that decides which medical care all insurers must cover—is unconstitutional because it violates the Appointments Clause, and invalidates its power to enforce anything against anyone nationwide.

I anticipated this decision in September when O'Connor first telegraphed it. It is nothing short of catastrophic to the U.S. health care system. Millions of Americans, including many pregnant women, will have to forgo basic care if it is upheld.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/prep-hiv-religious-employer-preventive-care.html

Victor Shi
@Victorshi2020

Holy shit. Rep. Jamaal Bowman is directly calling out Republican members of Congress as they walk out of the Capitol building right now. We need to confront & expose every one of them. Make them answer. This is leadership and truly amazing.

WASHINGTON ― For the first time since becoming president, one of Joe Biden’s judicial nominees may be in real trouble.

The clearest sign? It gets really awkward when you ask abortion rights groups and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee about his nomination.

“Not decided yet,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said late last week of Michael Delaney’s nomination.

Asked if she was leaning yes or no, Hirono interrupted, “I’m just going to say, I’m not decided yet.”

“Still working through what my vote will be,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who, like Hirono, looked down and was visibly eager to end the conversation.

He declined to add if he was leaning slightly one way or another.

“Right,” Blumenthal mumbled when asked if he was squarely undecided.

They’ve had time to review his record. Delaney, the former New Hampshire attorney general and Biden’s pick for a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, had his nomination hearing more than a month ago, on Feb. 15. During that hearing, some senators had sharp questions about his legal work on a controversial school sexual assault case and abortion rights. A week later, Delaney followed up with written responses to members’ questions in a document that went on for 116 pages.

“I can guess which judge you want to ask about,” Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) said as HuffPost approached with a question about an unnamed Biden’s judicial pick.

Ossoff correctly predicted HuffPost was about to ask about Delaney ― and proceeded to avoid all questions about whether he had any concerns with his nomination.