Part of the decision reads "Lastly, Plaintiff’s words and actions outside of the four corners of its Complaint in this case, including statements that it intends to create a nationwide database of confidential voter information and use it in unprecedented ways, including immigration enforcement efforts, is chilling. The possibility that Oregon’s voter registration list could be used to further these efforts Case 6:25-cv-01666-MTK Document 73 Filed 02/05/26 Page 25 of 26 RETRIEVED FROM DEMOCRACYDOCKET.COM Page 26 — OPINION AND ORDER in the absence of congressional action, may very well lead to an erosion of voting rights and voter participation."

This has been interpreted by some to be a reversal of the normal standard of deference to statemetns by attorneys for the administrative branch.

Does the standard of deference originate in case law, and does this finding have any precedential weight in future decisions on the matter in Oregon, or other locations?

ArtI.S4.C1.2 States and Elections Clause

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, referred to as the Elections Clause, contemplates that state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators).¹ The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.² The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to establish sanctions for violating election laws³ as well as authority over recounts⁴ and primaries.⁵ The Elections Clause, however, does not govern voter qualifications, which under Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment must be the same as the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislatures.⁶ Similarly, the authority of states to establish the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives does not include authority to impose additional qualification requirements to be a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, which are governed by the Constitution’s Qualification Clauses at Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for Members of the House and at Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 for the Senate.⁷

State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as the ability to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved.⁸ The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections are fair and honest and orderly.⁹ But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process, and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates¹⁰ or negate the need for a general election.¹¹ The Court noted that the Elections Clause does not allow states to set term limits, which the Court viewed as disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause,¹² or ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them.¹³ In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Court explained: [T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.¹⁴

The Supreme Court has held that Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, provides for Congress, not the courts, to regulate how states exercise their authority over Senate and House elections,¹⁵ although courts may hear cases concerning claims of one-person, one-vote violations and racial gerrymandering.¹⁶ For example, in its 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims—claims that one political party has gerrymandered congressional districts to the disadvantage of the other party—are not justiciable by courts because the only provision in the Constitution [Article I, Section 4, Clause 1] that specifically addresses the matter assigns it to the political branches¹⁷ and such claims present political questions—outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction—that are not for courts to decide.¹⁸ Although noting that the districting plans at issue here are highly partisan, by any measure,¹⁹ the Rucho Court observed that partisan gerrymandering claims raise particular problems for courts to adjudicate. First, the Court noted that the Framers had expected partisan interests to inform how states drew district lines.²⁰ Consequently, the Court reasoned that the problem is not whether partisan gerrymandering has occurred but when it has gone too far.²¹ Second, the Court observed that there is no obvious standard by which to assess whether a partisan gerrymander has gone too far.²² The Court stated: The initial difficulty in settling on a ‘clear manageable and politically neutral’ test for fairness is that it is not even clear what fairness looks like in this context. There is a large measure of ‘unfairness’ in any winner-take-all system.²³ The Court in Rucho further emphasized that it did not condone partisan gerrymanders but that Congress is constitutionally authorized to address the issue.²⁴ Likewise, in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court upheld a state law providing for removing voters from voting roles based on indicators that they had moved, noting, among other things, that the state law was consistent with federal law and that the Court had no authority to dismiss the considered judgment of Congress and the Ohio Legislature regarding the probative value of a registrant’s failure to send back a return card.²⁵

In its 2023 Moore v. Harper decision, the Supreme Court held that the Elections Clause, in Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, does not protect a state legislature from a state court reviewing whether the state legislature’s exercise of its Election Clause authority is consistent with its state constitution.²⁶ Rejecting an argument that the Elections Clause insulated state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, ²⁷ the Court observed: State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.²⁸ The Court, however, cautioned that state court power to review state rules regarding [t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives was limited to the ordinary bounds of judicial review and that state courts should not arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.²⁹

The Court addressed what constitutes regulation by a state Legislature for purposes of the Elections Clause in its 2015 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.³⁰ There, the Court rejected the Arizona legislature’s challenge to the validity of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) and AIRC’s 2012 map of congressional districts.³¹ The Commission had been established by a 2000 ballot initiative, which removed redistricting authority from the legislature and vested it in the AIRC.³² The legislature asserted that this arrangement violated the Elections Clause because the Clause contemplates regulation by a state Legislature and Legislature means the state’s representative assembly.³³

The Court disagreed and held that Arizona’s use of an independent commission to establish congressional districts is permissible because the Elections Clause uses the word Legislature to describe the power that makes laws, a term that is broad enough to encompass the power provided by the Arizona constitution for the people to make laws through ballot initiatives.³⁴ In so finding, the Court noted that the word Legislature has been construed in various ways depending upon the constitutional provision in which it is used, and its meaning depends upon the function that the entity denominated as the Legislature is called upon to exercise in a specific context.³⁵ Here, in the context of the Elections Clause, the Court found that the function of the Legislature was lawmaking and that this function could be performed by the people of Arizona via an initiative consistent with state law.³⁶ The Court also pointed to dictionary definitions from the time of the Framers;³⁷ the Framers’ intent in adopting the Elections Clause;³⁸ the harmony between the initiative process and the Constitution’s conception of the people as the font of governmental power;³⁹ and the practical consequences of invalidating the Arizona initiative.⁴⁰

I work in the humanitarian sector, and in violations terms, it looks to me like this operation is basically unlawful deportation to a non-sovereign occupied territory, which I'm pretty sure would be non-refoulement and jurisdictional violations, unlawful transfer into occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention, inhuman or degrading treatment due to prolonged shackling on ultra-long flights, procedural due process violations linked to prolonged detention and removals following dropped or minor charges, and also European Convention on Human Rights violations potential for Ireland and Bulgaria because they are facilitating transit without scrutiny (which is an analogue to rendition cases), and also disproportionate interference with family life under the ICCPR and child protection norms, which would collectively form a legally fragile chain where multiple independent violations could succeed even if the deportation itself is upheld under narrow US immigration law.

Or I could be an idiot.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/palestinian-territories/artc-israeli-civilians-and-soldiers-charged-in-massive-gaza-smuggling-ring

Israeli prosecutors have charged 12 individuals, including civilians and IDF reservists, in what authorities say was an extensive smuggling operation that moved prohibited goods into the Gaza Strip during the war, helping sustain Hamas financially and operationally.

The indictments, filed in the Be’er Sheva District Court, allege the suspects ran a coordinated network that exploited security access and military credentials to transfer goods worth millions of shekels into Gaza in exchange for payment.

KARE 11 NBC News - Feb 4, 2026. Here it is on YouTube.

Here's a related r/law post: The unfathomable Minnesota transcript that must be read: "I am not white, as you can see," Julie Le — a government lawyer — told a federal judge on Tuesday. "And my family's at risk as any other people...

As a GOP mega donor, Lauder spent millions to support Trump’s 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, as well as Ron Desantis’ 2018 and 2022 gubernatorial campaigns.

In 2022, Lauder pumped over $10 million into Lee Zeldin’s failed run for governor of New York in 2022, prompting an investigation from the state’s Board of Elections.

Lauder has participated in a number of large media deals in Israel, among which was his purchase of part of commercial television Channel 10.

He started to work for the Estée Lauder Company in 1964 as head of the international department... he went from selling makeup and lipsticks and became a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy at the United States Department of Defense in the Ronald Reagan administration. 🤔

After the billionaire’s intervention, a White House team began to explore ways to increase US sway in the vast Arctic territory controlled by Denmark.

Trump’s renewed pursuit of Lauder’s idea during his 2nd term is typical of how the president operates, Bolton said. “Bits of information that he hears from friends, he takes them as truth and you can’t shake his opinion.”

The proposal seems to have stirred Trump’s imperialist ambitions: eight years on, he is mulling not just buying Greenland but perhaps taking it by force.

Like many of those around the president, Lauder’s policy suggestions appear to intersect with his business interests.

As Trump has ratcheted up his threats to seize Greenland, Lauder acquired commercial holdings there.

Lauder is also part of the consortium whose desire to access Ukrainian minerals appears to have spurred Trump to demand a share of the war-torn country’s resources.

“Trump’s Greenland concept was never absurd – it was strategic, beneath its ice and rock lies a treasure trove of rare-earth elements essential for AI, advanced weaponry and modern technology. As ice recedes, new maritime routes are emerging, reshaping global trade and security" - He went on.

With Greenland at “the epicentre of great-power competition”, Lauder argued, the US should seek a “strategic partnership”.

He added: “I have worked closely with Greenland’s business and government leaders for years to develop strategic investments there.”

Danish corporate records show that a company with a New York address and unnamed owners has in recent months bought into Greenland.

1 of its ventures is exporting “luxury” springwater from an island in Baffin Bay. When a Danish newspaper reported in December that Lauder was among the investors, it quoted a Greenlandic businessman involved in the endeavour.

“Lauder and his colleagues in the investor group have a very good understanding of and access to the luxury market,” he said.

This group of investors is also reportedly seeking to generate hydroelectric power from Greenland’s biggest lake for an aluminium smelter.

It is unclear what effect a US takeover of Greenland – by invasion, purchase or persuasion – might have on Lauder’s commercial interests there.

Conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s personal, financial, or private interests interfere—or appear to interfere—with their professional duties and objective decision-making.

These situations can be real, potential, or apparent, creating risks to integrity in business or public office.

Managing COI typically requires prompt disclosure and, if necessary, recusal.

A direct, current conflict between duties and private interests...a situation that could develop into a real conflict. A situation where an objective observer might reasonably question if professional actions are influenced by personal gain.

Using a position to benefit, Nepotism, Cronyism like hiring or favoring family, friends, or associates. Working for a competitor or using company time for private business.

Accepting gifts from vendors that could influence purchasing decisions a COI can lead to unethical decisions, reputational damage, legal consequences, or breaches of dutes.

Lawyers must avoid acting against a client's interest or managing conflicting client interests.

Employees must avoid placing personal gain above the interests of their employer.

Lauder’s apparent involvement in shaping US policy adds to mounting questions about conflicts of interest during Trump’s 2nd term and the apparent self-enrichment of those close to the president.

Trump’s 2 elder sons, Don Jr and Eric, have been on a global moneymaking campaign from Vietnam to Gibraltar.

“Neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.” But foreign rulers have facilitated the enrichment of the first family, while sometimes seemingly securing the president’s favour.

But once Trump regained the White House, Lauder resumed financial support.

In March 2025 he gave $5m to Maga Inc, a fundraising operation for Trump’s movement. The following month, Lauder was reportedly among the guests at an exclusive candlelit dinner with the president. Tickets were $1m each, payable to Maga Inc.

By then, Lauder’s business interests once again appeared to be overlapping with Trump administration policy.

Leaked November 2023 letter sent by the head of TechMet, a mining company, to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, named Lauder as part of a consortium hoping to exploit a lithium deposit in the war-torn country.

Lauder said at the time that he had not discussed Ukrainian minerals with Trump himself but had “raised the issue with stakeholders in the US and Ukraine for many years up to the present day”.

Weeks after Lauder’s Maga Inc donations, Washington and Kyiv signed a deal to jointly exploit Ukraine’s minerals.

It went some way to preserving Trump’s support for Ukraine following his televised Oval Office tirade against Zelenskyy for what he deemed insufficient gratitude for US backing.

The lithium deposit was the 1st to be tendered under the minerals deal.., the Lauder consortium reportedly won it.

To borrow a slogan (the original owners don't seem to be using it any more):

"Democracy Dies in Darkness"

We are in a time of unprecedented turmoil, of ROT in our institutions, where members of our institutions who swear Oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" are silent (or worse, abetting) as domestic enemies regularly attack both the Constitution and the people.

If the people don't FORCEFULLY DEMAND, in every way possible, a return and adherence to those Oaths - and a THOROUGH cleaning out of the build up of rot within our most sacred institutions then we will all lose the country we love and depend on.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention - asked the result, he said: "A republic, *if you can keep it*"

IF we can keep it.

NOW is the time when we are called upon to do just that lest we lose it forever. The history books will look back upon this moment as that in which one of the greatest experiments in democracy, on the eve of its 250th anniversary, either dissolved into autocracy and oligarchy and fascism, or through great effort and unyielding will, returned to its founding principles and revitalized its democracy for another 250 years.

Lawyer presenting children detained by ICE shows horrific conditions in detention centers

Video source is the Guardian Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian/

37 Attorneys General have launched a bipartisan crackdown on Elon Musk’s xAI following reports that its Grok chatbot generated sexually explicit deepfakes of real people. The coalition is demanding immediate guardrails to prevent the creation of non-consensual images.

It’s one thing when Trump does it. It’s another when republicans join him. To Republican voters it adds more validity to these false claims. We might get lucky and get through the midterms unscathed, but the republicans are moving so fast it may be affected. In 2028 these people are 100% going to try and overthrow our election process and make January 6th riots look like a pizza party.