Trump Administration's Lawsuit Against Federal Judges & Retaliatory Redistricting

Trump Administration vs. Federal Judiciary

• ⚖️ The Trump administration filed an unprecedented lawsuit against all 15 federal district judges in Maryland.
• 📌 This action was a response to an order granting a two-day stay of deportation for migrants filing habeas corpus petitions.
• 🏛️ Maryland's federal judges argued the lawsuit was an assault on the separation of powers and requested its dismissal.
• 💡 Retired federal judge Andre Davis described the lawsuit as "off the charts extraordinary" and inconsistent with separation of powers principles.
• 🛡️ Judges are protected by sovereign immunity and judicial immunity, which Davis believes leaves no legitimate response to their claims.

Redistricting and Political Strategy

• 📈 President Trump has openly discussed using redistricting to help Republicans retain control of the House, particularly in Texas.
• 🎯 Texas Governor Greg Abbott added redistricting to the legislative agenda, aiming to add GOP-aligned congressional seats.
• 🔄 Democrats are reportedly exploring retaliatory redistricting in blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey.
• ⚖️ Richard Briffault, an elections law expert, notes that mid-cycle redistricting is unusual and often done for blatantly partisan purposes.
• ⚠️ The Supreme Court has stated that partisan gerrymandering is not unconstitutional, but racial gerrymandering is.

Copyright Law and Tattoo Artistry

• 🎨 A photographer sued tattoo artist Kat Von D for copyright infringement over a tattoo of Miles Davis based on his photograph.
• 🧑‍⚖️ A jury found for Kat Von D, ruling the tattoo was not substantially similar to the copyrighted photo.
• appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit struggled with the jury's verdict, questioning how it could be reached when the tattoo and photo appeared similar.
• 🧐 The Ninth Circuit uses a two-part test for copyright infringement: an objective extrinsic test by the court and a subjective intrinsic test by the jury.
• 🚫 The appellate court is unlikely to overturn the jury's verdict on substantial similarity, as it's a subjective test and appellate judges cannot substitute their opinion for the jury's.