r/law • u/orangejulius • Aug 31 '22
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent about it.
A quick reminder:
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.
You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.
r/law • u/orangejulius • Oct 28 '25
Quality content and the subreddit. Announcing user flair for humans and carrots instead of sticks.
Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law
When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.
If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.
Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.
A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.
Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.
A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.
Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.
Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.
---
Are you saving our user names?
- No. Once you claim your flair your username is purged. We don’t see it. Nor do we want to. Nor do we care. We just have a little robot that sees you enter an email, then adds flair to the user name you tell it to add.
What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?
- Reddit doesn't support visibility for either of those things anymore. You'll notice that our automod comment asking OP to state why something belongs here to help guide discussion is automatically collapsed and megathreads get no visibility. Without those easy tools we're going to try something different.
This won’t solve anything!
- Maybe not. But we’re going to try.
Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?
- Moderation will stay roughly the same. We moderate a ton of content. Flair isn’t a license to act like a psychopath on the Internet. I've noticed that people seem to think that mods removing comments or posts here are some sort of conspiracy to "silence" people. There's no conspiracy. If you're totally wrong or out of pocket tough shit. This place is more heavily modded than most places which is a big part of its past successes.
What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.
- Yeah, well, so are we. If you were here for his first 4 years he does a lot of not legal stuff, sues people, gets sued, uses the DoJ in crazy ways, and makes a lot of judicial appointments. If we leave something up that looks political only it’s because we either missed it or one of us thinks there’s some legal issue that could be discussed. We try hard not to overly restrict content from post submissions.
Remove all Trump stuff.
- No. You can use the tags to filter it if you don’t like it.
Talk to me about Donald Trump.
- God… please. Make it stop.
I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.
- You need therapy not a message board.
You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!
- Yes.
You guys aren’t fair to both sides.
- Being fair isn’t the same thing as giving every idea equal air time. Some things are objectively wrong. There are plenty of instances where the mods might not be happy with something happening but can see the legal argument that’s going to win out. Similarly, a lot of you have super bad ideas that TikTok convinced you are something to existentially fight about. We don’t care. We’ll just remove it.
You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.
- That's because it sucks.
You have to watch the whole thing!
- No I don't.
---
General Housekeeping:
We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.
r/law • u/Aggravating_Money992 • 6h ago
Legal News Texas Sued After Glitch Delays 600,000 Voter Registrations | Voting rights groups are suing Texas over an alarming backlog ahead of the election.
r/law • u/Agitated-Quit-6148 • 3h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Donor Files Defamation Suit Against Kimberly Guilfoyle, Vows to Reveal Evidence That May bring down administration.
Trump donor Eric Deters announced on Thursday that he has filed a defamation lawsuit against former U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle, while threatening to play a damning phone recording.In a scathing video shared to Facebook on Thursday, Deters held up a copy of the lawsuit, threatening that it “might bring down the entire Trump administration” and may “end the JD Vance/Marco Rubio ticket.”
Executive Branch (Trump) New White House press secretary Katie Zacharia shared at least 15 social media posts identifying her as an “attorney” over the past two years
r/law • u/gooblefrump • 4h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Zacharia: "A lot of the misinformation, miscommunication is around the fact that I labeled myself a lawyer..."
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
r/law • u/thenewrepublic • 7h ago
Judicial Branch Trump Uses Nuclear Option to Hide Kennedy Center Docs From Judge
Donald Trump wants to hide the true extent of his Kennedy Center takeover.
r/law • u/Hafiz_TNR • 6h ago
Legal News Two Women Accuse Matt Gaetz of Sex Trafficking in New Lawsuit
r/law • u/Hafiz_TNR • 12h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) DOJ Begs Judge to Ignore Hegseth as She Considers Making Him Testify
r/law • u/joeshill • 8h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump formally asserts executive privilege in legal fight over Kennedy Center's closure
r/law • u/bloomberglaw • 10h ago
Legal News Fox News, Kevin O’Leary Sued for Defamation Over Claims that Data Center Opponent Was a Chinese Operative
r/law • u/Bongobhondu • 4h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) The Omar Case Encapsulates MAGA’s Attack on Citizenship
r/law • u/yahoonews • 11h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump says military execution will not be livestreamed
r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 6h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump DOJ demanded California vet 20,000 voters within 48 hours, before suing
r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 9h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) In defeat for Trump, court allows nonprofits to register voters at naturalization ceremonies
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump administration announces intention to strip U.S. citizenship from Rep. Ilhan Omar, deport her with criminal investigation
r/law • u/theindependentonline • 13h ago
Other Trump press secretary Katie Zacharia may have violated California law by calling herself an attorney, group says
r/law • u/AgnosticScholar • 10h ago
Other Protesters in NYC gather to demand justice and federal investigation into the death of Nolan Wells following grand jury’s decision not to file charges
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
r/law • u/No-Mirror3429 • 2h ago
Judicial Branch Justice Department Voter Data Reached ICE Before a Judge Ruled the Program Unlawful
This relates directly to Common Cause v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:26-cv-01352-SLS (D.D.C.), in which a federal judge on October 9 vacated the Justice Department's policy for collecting and sharing state voter-registration records.
The documentary record reveals an important sequence of events.
On March 12, DOJ confirmed in writing that it had granted the Department of Homeland Security access to state voter-registration data. A separate May 25 report from ICE's Homeland Security Investigations division recorded 50.6 million DOJ records ingested for further processing.
The available documents do not establish that all 50.6 million records came from that particular transfer, which states were represented, or whether the data was subsequently used in immigration enforcement.
The court found that DOJ's disclosures to ICE, USCIS, and contractors violated the Privacy Act. However, the October 9 order vacated the underlying policy without resolving what must happen to copies of voter data already distributed.
There is also a new development: On October 15, DOJ filed suit against California seeking to prevent certain ballots from being counted until voters' citizenship could be verified. The complaint describes a separate federal screening process, but does not establish a connection to the 50.6-million-record intake.
The article examines the court's findings, the underlying DOJ and ICE documents, and the unresolved legal question of how previously shared voter records are being retained or used.
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 1d ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Jared Kushner 'unlawfully' serving as diplomat with huge conflicts of interest, lawsuit alleges
Executive Branch (Trump) FBI agents and analysts fired for roles in Trump classified files probe sue to get their jobs back
r/law • u/retiredagainstmywill • 1d ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Jaw-Dropping Scale of Trump’s Reflecting Pool Fiasco Exposed
r/law • u/Elegant_Tap7937 • 14h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) 3 Men Accused by Nancy Mace in House Speech Are Charged With Sex Crimes
Representative Nancy Mace’s former fiancé and two of his business associates were charged on Wednesday with a number of sex crimes in connection with an episode she described at length last year in a speech on the House floor.
Brendan Patrick Bryant, 53, Ms. Mace’s former fiancé, was charged with voyeurism. John Douglas Osborne, 46, whom Ms. Mace described in her speech as Mr. Bryant’s business associate, was charged with first-degree assault and battery and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Eric Bernard Bowman, 46, another of Mr. Bryant’s business associates, was charged with voyeurism, obstruction of justice and publishing the name of a victim of criminal sexual conduct.
The three men were booked into the Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center in Charleston County. The charges stem from events that occurred on an evening in October 2018 in Charleston, S.C.
The victim, a woman who was 23 years old at the time of the incident, had fallen into a pool and later passed out on a couch, where she lay covering herself with a pillow after removing her wet clothes, according to an arrest affidavit. The police described her as drunk and incapacitated, according to the records.
Mr. Osborne then performed sex acts on her while Mr. Bryant and Mr. Bowman watched, according to the documents.
The men discussed who should assault the woman first, and they photographed and recorded the assault, according to the affidavit.
The episode came to light after it was captured on a security system feed, according to the affidavit. A witness monitoring the feed wrote a detailed account of the incident, according to court records.
The charge against Mr. Bowman of publishing a victim’s name stems from his posting of the woman’s name along with a video of her on social media, according to the affidavit.
In her speech delivered in February last year, Ms. Mace accused her former fiancé and three other men of raping her and other women. Ms. Mace, a Republican of South Carolina, also said the men had filmed and photographed women and underage girls without their consent
“You’ve booked yourself a one-way ticket to hell,” she said during the speech, which ran nearly an hour. “It is nonstop. There are no connections. So I and all of your victims can watch you rot into eternity.”
In an extraordinary departure from House custom, she displayed the men’s names and photographs on a placard. Because she spoke on the House floor, her remarks were protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress from criminal prosecution and civil suits over their legislative acts.
Ms. Mace offered no evidence for the accusations at the time, though she said she had plenty. A fourth man Ms. Mace accused in her speech was not arrested on Wednesday.
Mr. Bryant, at the time, denied the accusations. All three men posted their bond and were released on Wednesday, according to officials at the jail.
Lawyers for Mr. Bryant and Mr. Osborne did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Mr. Bowman could not be reached.
A victim’s advocate with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division read a statement in court from the woman in the case on Wednesday.
The woman compared her experiences to that of the victim at the center of a sexual assault episode that is roiling Cornell University, and said her world turned upside down after realizing she had been recorded while incapacitated.
“Since then, my sense of safety, privacy and trust has been shattered,” the statement said. “I constantly worry about being watched, followed or secretly recorded.”
r/law • u/bloomberglaw • 8h ago