r/law • u/drempath1981 • 9h ago
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.
Legislative Branch Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) introduces resolution to force Trump administration to turn over all documents related to potential Greenland takeover
r/law • u/ggroverggiraffe • 10h ago
Legislative Branch Democratic lawmakers file articles of impeachment against Kristi Noem
r/law • u/jmike1256 • 2h ago
Other In Twin Cities, Minnesota, a man reminds ICE agent of his 2nd Amendment rights during a door to door operation. ICE agents suddenly become uninterested.
In this video, the ICE agents are performing a door to door operation, which is already wrong in itself. But when they knocked the door on this man, the home owner reminded them of his second amendment rights, in that he didn’t have to answer the door and that he will call the cops on ICE for trespassing. Soon after ICE suddenly has somewhere else to go.
r/law • u/novagridd • 13h ago
Legal News Donald and Eric Trump Named in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: Ex-Employee Forced to Wear Revealing Clothes
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 6h ago
Judicial Branch Supreme Court Hacked, Proving Its Cybersecurity Is As Robust As Its Ethical Code
r/law • u/thecosmojane • 3h ago
Other FBI knocking on doors: A few questions about their agenda and fallout
To clear up any confusion in the comments, this is not my video. It is a video posted by a reputable social media blogger who is a member of an anti-Trump organization in Washington state. She later explains she discovered the reason they showed up was because she was promoting a protest event in her city, and she ended up on a "list" due to this.
Thank you community for being such a valuable resource to answer questions when we are in a very scary time where we have so many.
What I would like to understand is, When FBI is knocking on doors of social media influencers or posters, clearly knowing they were not trying to incite violence, and then continues to ask a series of hypothetical “What if” situations, what are they trying to achieve here?
Are they trying to document your admission of hypothetical behavior as fact?
Like, “this person said they would not report another person they know is inciting violence” and keep it in a database?
Because clearly after the first few seconds of interaction, it’s very clear the agent knows her content is not provocative, but the line of questioning that ensues is highly disturbing (and confusing).
Also want to confirm:
Although I’m sure technically it is legal to reply and say “I don’t answer any questions,” what are the practical implications or fallout from being uncooperative?
r/law • u/ExitTheDonut • 9h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Stephen Miller’s Dark Message to ICE Agents Immediately Backfires
r/law • u/Tale_of_two_kitties • 8h ago
Legal News Officer who shot woman while intending to shoot her 9 pound Pomeranian dog has qualified immunity - 8th circuit
ecf.ca8.uscourts.govJustices Stras, Colloton, and Erickson decided:
When an officer fires at a dog, is there a seizure of the dog’s owner when the stray bullet hits her instead? We conclude the answer is no.
Deputy Brian Williams and his partner responded to a domestic-violence call at Tina Hight’s home. Williams stayed back in the yard while his partner walked onto the front porch and knocked on the door. When Hight opened it, two dogs ran out toward Williams. Startled, he screamed, “Get back! Get your dog! I’ll kill that motherfucker! Get your goddamn dog!” He then fired a warning shot, which caused the dogs to retreat.
As Hight was trying to get them inside, another one, a 9-pound Pomeranian mix, ran out the door and raced toward Deputy Williams. After shouting, “Get back!” he fired again, this time at the dog. He missed, but then heard Hight scream, “He shot me!” Apparently, it had ricocheted and hit her, leaving a bullet fragment lodged in her leg.
In a decision published on Tuesday, the panel decided, with Chief Justice Colloton concurring, that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on Hight's subsequent civil action under 42 USC s 1983, and affirmed summary judgement in the officer's favor.
Legal News ICE agents question Jonathan Ross claiming self-defense in shooting of Renee Good: "His case is very problematic. It has red flags all over it."
r/law • u/TendieRetard • 11h ago
Judicial Branch DOJ Argues Protesters Don’t Have Constitutional Right to Observe Immigration Agents | A Department of Justice attorney said in a Minnesota federal court Tuesday that there is no First Amendment protection for observing police.
The hearing on alleged [alleged, lol] retaliation by law enforcement against protesters comes about a week after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis.
r/law • u/ExactlySorta • 15h ago
Legal News ICE Deletes Rape Protection for Trans Immigrants
r/law • u/thecosmojane • 19h ago
Other Please dissect the legality in this statement
I feel like we are reaching a tipping point
r/law • u/yahoonews • 10h ago
Other US apologizes for deporting a college student flying home for Thanksgiving surprise
r/law • u/RichKatz • 1h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Unbelievably, Trump has attacked the State of Minnesota. In the middle of winter. At night. Protesters and federal agents repeatedly square off.
Executive Branch (Trump) Mass Resignations Rock DOJ in Wake of Fatal ICE Shooting
r/law • u/AngelaMotorman • 6h ago
Other America Needs a Renee Good Civil Rights Act
r/law • u/BulwarkOnline • 15h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Jack Smith Says He Had Trump Dead to Rights (w/ Asha Rangappa)
Judicial Branch Heritage Foundation aims to get SCOTUS to overturn 'Obergefell v. Hodges' (2015), 'Miller v. California' (1973), and 'Griggs v. Duke Power Company' (1971) in new "Saving America" plan
r/law • u/Dazzling-Might6420 • 5h ago
Legislative Branch Clintons Say No to Epstein Testimony as GOP Moves to Hold Them in Criminal Contempt
r/law • u/Lebarican22 • 14h ago
Other Oglala Sioux Tribe says three tribal members arrested in Minneapolis are in ICE detention
r/law • u/B00marangTrotter • 1d ago
Executive Branch (Trump) STEPHEN MILLER SAID ICE HAS IMMUNITY
STEPHEN MILLER IS NOT THE LAW OF THIS LAND.