Tag: posts

Texas Juries Decide Child Custody Cases

In most states, child custody matters are decided by judges; but in Texas, they are in large part decided by juries. Here’s a Texas Supreme Court decision from yesterday, Gopalan v. Marsh (written by Justice John Devine), that illustrates this and reaffirms the primacy of the jury as to some such matters:

In this divorce proceeding, the jury found that the father should have the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence. But the trial court awarded the mother more time with the children under the divorce decree’s possession order.

The central issue is whether the court’s possession order contravened the jury verdict. We hold that it did. The ordinary meaning of “primary residence” does not encompass a home where the child lives less time than elsewhere, and the statutory context supports that understanding….

Section 105.002(c) of the Family Code provides that “[i]n a jury trial”:

(1) a party is entitled to a verdict by the jury and the court may not contravene a jury verdict on the issues of: …

(D) the determination of which joint managing conservator [generally a parent] has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; … [but]

(2) the court may not submit to the jury questions on the issues of: …

(B) a specific term or condition of possession of or access to the child; or

(C) any right or duty of a conservator, other than a determination under Subdivision (1)(D), (E), or (F).

At its core, this question comes down to what “primary residence” means within the statutory context…. When a statutory term is undefined, as here, we apply its common, ordinary meaning unless this yields an absurd result or a different meaning is apparent from the statutory context. To ascertain a term’s ordinary meaning, we often start by consulting dictionaries. Dictionaries define (1) “residence” as “the place where one actually lives or has his home as distinguished from his technical domicile,” (2) “primary” as “first in rank or importance,” and (3) “primary residence” as “[t]he place where a person lives most of the time.” Simply put, a home where the child actually lives less time than elsewhere is not the child’s “primary residence” as that phrase is ordinarily understood….

We therefore hold that the trial court contravened the jury verdict by awarding greater possession time to Marsh. The verdict on the primary-residence right does not dictate a “specific term or condition” of possession; it imposes a general constraint. Thus, remand is necessary for the trial court to redetermine the decree’s possession order….

[It] deserve[s] mention … [that] the plain meaning of “primary residence” in its statutory context does not preclude a possession arrangement of equal periods. The Family Code provides that “[j]oint managing conservatorship does not require the award of equal or nearly equal periods of physical possession of and access to each of the joint conservators.” This provision implies that equal time is permissible; otherwise, the statement that it is not required would be surplusage. And in such an arrangement, the children would not be spending more time living elsewhere. That said, there can be only one “primary residence.” Accordingly, even when the parent with the primary-residence right has been awarded equal or greater possession time, the order would still contravene the jury verdict if the possession periods are structured such that the designated residence would not be “primary” in the sense of “first in rank or importance.” …

Richard R. Orsinger, Leslie Bollier, Katherine Obando, and Stephen Orsinger represent Gopalan.

The post Texas Juries Decide Child Custody Cases appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/sRk4ZmW
via IFTTT

The Art of the Deal

Just when you think there is no further outrage that the President of the United States can perpetrate to top all of the preceding outrages, along comes the Great Settlement Agreement of 2026.

Read it for yourself.  It’s only three pages long.  It’s titled “Settlement Agreement.” It is, however, not a “Settlement Agreement” within the usual and ordinary meaning of that term. You can call a duck a goose, but it’s still a duck.

Let’s review how we got here.  Trump, on January 26, 2026 (while serving as President) filed suit in federal court (SD FL) against the IRS, alleging negligent conduct by an IRS contractor which led to the release of the confidential tax records of millions of people (including Trump), and seeking $10 billion in damages.

This claim is nonsensical and worthless; a reasonable valuation of this claim – i.e., the amount a reasonable person in the claim valuation business would have offered to buy this claim were he allowed to do so – is $0.00.  You can’t sue yourself; the President runs the IRS; he can fire any or all of the IRS employees, and he can determine IRS policies (including its litigation policies); the President and an Executive Agency wholly within the scope of Presidential control cannot be legal “adversaries.” So there is no Article III “case or controversy” where the President is on one side of the case, and the IRS is on the other, and without a case or controversy the court has to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

It would be a good question for a Con Law I exam. The short answer portion; it’s too easy for a longer essay.

Trump’s lawsuit was going to be dismissed. Everyone – you, me, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Donald Trump – knew that.

At the court’s first hearing back in February, District Judge Williams noted the “outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed” between the “parties,” and requested that the “parties” brief the question for her.

No briefing from either one of the “parties,” interestingly enough, was ever forthcoming on the question.[1]

There things remained until May 16, when Trump filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.”[2] The court, in accordance with ordinary practice (and with the governing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)), dismissed Trump’s claim with prejudice, noting further that “once a notice of dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1) is filed, the Court is stripped of jurisdiction.”

So that’s that for Trump’s so-called case.

Here’s an excerpt from the court’s final “Order Closing Case” [available here]:

“Plaintiffs state that they are voluntarily dismissing the instant litigation with prejudice. Because the dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the claims regarding the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiffs’ tax returns, the Court cancels all deadlines, including the date that the Parties were required to submit briefing as to whether an actual case or controversy existed in this matter.”

Judge Williams adds the interesting concluding paragraph:

Because [Trump’s] Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record. Additionally, Defendants—federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.

The court, in other words, is saying: “We don’t know why Plaintiff is withdrawing. There may have been a ‘settlement’ between Plaintiff and Defendants, but we have no information about that one way or the other. If there was a settlement, you might want to consider whether it is legitimate, given that it’s just the left hand settling with the right.”

In the ordinary case, the Plaintiff does not have to explain why he is withdrawing his claims; Plaintiffs are free to withdraw their claims for pretty much any reason or no reason at all.[3] It could be because Plaintiff reached some agreement with the Defendant, or because Plaintiff suddenly realizes he will lose the case, or because Plaintiff has had a change of heart, or because Plaintiff has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and wants to spend his remaining days entirely with his family, etc.

But the court here is signaling that this is not the ordinary case. The court doesn’t need to know why Trump is withdrawing, but if there has been some kind of “settlement,” it may not have been “appropriate”; just as you can’t sue yourself, you can’t enter into a “settlement” with yourself to relinquish those claims that you have asserted against yourself.

Then, on May 18th, Trump and the DOJ execute something they call a “Settlement Agreement.” In it, Trump relinquishes his so-called “claims” against the IRS.[4] In exchange, the Defendant agrees (a) to issue an apology to Trump, and (b) to set up an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” entailing a “systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who, like Plaintiffs, state that they incurred harm from Lawfare and Weaponization.”[5]

This “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will have $1.776 billion* (get it?) at its disposal.

And because the parties to this Settlement Agreement apparently think that you and I and the rest of the American people are complete morons, they say, in the Agreement, that “the corpus of the Anti-Weaponization Fund’s funding … is based on the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims.”  It is, therefore, just a coincidence that it comes to 1.776 billion.

The Fund will be administered by five Members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Attorney General (an employee of the President). One Member – but one Member only – must be chosen “in consultation with” (though not necessarily the approval of) “congressional leadership.” Members can be removed at any time, without cause, by the President. The Fund “shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting or denying claims,” and the Fund “may make those procedures public in whole or in part, in its discretion.”

Every quarter, the Fund “shall provide to the Attorney General a confidential written report” enumerating names of everyone who “received any relief” from the Fund and “the nature of such relief.”

And should you harbor any concerns about fraudulent claims, you can rest easy; the Fund “shall impose controls and systems to avoid fraudulent claims.”

Think it’s a bad deal, or even an unlawful deal, for the American people? Too bad for you! “This Settlement Agreement is enforceable and challengeable solely by Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the United States.”

And, oops!  As noted above, the May 18th Settlement Agreement contains a provision under which Trump releases his (non-existent) claims against the IRS.  It doesn’t say anything about the IRS releasing its claims against Trump.

That, apparently, was an oversight.  Like I said, oops!  Oh-so-quietly, on May 19th, the Department corrected that little oversight, notifying the world, in a document signed by Acting Attorney General Blanche, that:

“The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, [etc.], whether previously known or unknown, that, as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement [i.e., May 18th], have been or could have been asserted by [the IRS] against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals…”

Wow!  Blanche provides no explanation for why this rather important paragraph had been omitted from the original, signed, Settlement Agreement. My guess is: Bad lawyering. Maybe that’s what happens when the DOJ sheds hundreds of competent attorneys.

It is, as Mitch McConnell – Mitch McConnell! – describes it: “the nation’s top law enforcement official asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops . . . Utterly stupid, morally wrong.”

You do, though, have to hand it to Trump’s lawyers; they transformed a claim worth $0.00 into a $1.776 billion Fund to be handed out, most likely in secret, to Trump’s supporters, plus they got their client a get-out-of-jail card in connection with any possible liability Trump may have incurred for prior IRS-related defalcations (an immunity that the NY Times estimates may be worth up to $100 million to Trump and the Trump Organization). It’s truly a testament to their immense lawyerly skill that they were able to get the other side to agree to this deal, no?

In the history of this country, there have been many, many people who have stuck their hands, inappropriately and unlawfully, into the public till.  Some have ascended to high public office from which they could more easily implement their unlawful schemes. Democrats and Republicans, black and white, Christian and Muslim and Jew, men and women … Sad, but true.

But Donald Trump is more than just the latest member of this very unseemly fraternity – he is doing something truly without precedent. Never before, in the history of the United States, has the grab been conducted so openly and so brazenly, out there in full view of the very public that is getting fleeced.[6]

That this all comes as part of an “Anti-Weaponization” initiative from a president who has refined “weaponization” of the Justice Department into a fine art is beyond irony and beyond satire.

That Trump would like to get his hands on $1.776 billion of taxpayer money to hand out to friends and supporters is no surprise. What is much more difficult to understand is why so many people seem willing to let him get away with it.

The semi-revolt by Senate Republicans in the face of this monstrosity gives me (a little) hope that this may have finally crossed the line, for at least some of his supporters in the Republican party. We’ll see if this gives a few of them the backbone to stand up to Trump, at least so as to nullify (if, indeed, nullification is even a possibility) this “Settlement.”

[1] I can understand why Trump’s lawyers didn’t file a brief addressing the question; there’s nothing they could possibly have come up with to defend the continuation of the suit.  But you’d think that the IRS lawyers would jump into the fray, no? Their reluctance to do so can’t have anything to do with the fact that the plaintiff is their boss, could it?  Proving the point, no?

[2] A “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice” is a notification to the court from the Plaintiff: “I give up my claims now and forever; please dismiss them with prejudice.” It’s a “notice”, not a “motion”; it’s not asking the court to do something, it’s telling the court what plaintiff has decided to do. Under Rule 41(a)(1), the claim strips the court of jurisdiction once it is filed by the plaintiff, so there’s nothing the court can do anymore, other than close the case.

[3] There are exceptions to this general rule, of course; in class action cases, for example, the court has to approve any voluntary dismissal, which will involve examining the terms of any settlement that the parties have entered into, because the dismissal will affect the rights of third-parties who are parties to the suit but not to the settlement negotiations.

[4] The Agreement reads: “In exchange for the relief provided in this Settlement Agreement, and except as provided herein … Plaintiffs hereby RELEASE, WAIVE, ACQUIT, and FOREVER DISCHARGE Defendants and the United States from, and are hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, charges, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, … that –  as of the Effective Date – have been or could have been asserted by Plaintiffs …”)

[5] “Lawfare and Weaponization” are defined in the Agreement as the “sustained use of the levers of government power . . . in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons”.

[6] If you know of any actual case to prove me wrong on this, please let me know in the Comments or otherwise.

The post The Art of the Deal appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/N24cVnb
via IFTTT

The Art of the Deal

Just when you think there is no further outrage that the President of the United States can perpetrate to top all of the preceding outrages, along comes the Great Settlement Agreement of 2026.

Read it for yourself.  It’s only three pages long.  It’s titled “Settlement Agreement.” It is, however, not a “Settlement Agreement” within the usual and ordinary meaning of that term. You can call a duck a goose, but it’s still a duck.

Let’s review how we got here.  Trump, on January 26, 2026 (while serving as President) filed suit in federal court (SD FL) against the IRS, alleging negligent conduct by an IRS contractor which led to the release of the confidential tax records of millions of people (including Trump), and seeking $10 billion in damages.

This claim is nonsensical and worthless; a reasonable valuation of this claim – i.e., the amount a reasonable person in the claim valuation business would have offered to buy this claim were he allowed to do so – is $0.00.  You can’t sue yourself; the President runs the IRS; he can fire any or all of the IRS employees, and he can determine IRS policies (including its litigation policies); the President and an Executive Agency wholly within the scope of Presidential control cannot be legal “adversaries.” So there is no Article III “case or controversy” where the President is on one side of the case, and the IRS is on the other, and without a case or controversy the court has to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

It would be a good question for a Con Law I exam. The short answer portion; it’s too easy for a longer essay.

Trump’s lawsuit was going to be dismissed. Everyone – you, me, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Donald Trump – knew that.

At the court’s first hearing back in February, District Judge Williams noted the “outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed” between the “parties,” and requested that the “parties” brief the question for her.

No briefing from either one of the “parties,” interestingly enough, was ever forthcoming on the question.[1]

There things remained until May 16, when Trump filed a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.”[2] The court, in accordance with ordinary practice (and with the governing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)), dismissed Trump’s claim with prejudice, noting further that “once a notice of dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1) is filed, the Court is stripped of jurisdiction.”

So that’s that for Trump’s so-called case.

Here’s an excerpt from the court’s final “Order Closing Case” [available here]:

“Plaintiffs state that they are voluntarily dismissing the instant litigation with prejudice. Because the dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the claims regarding the unlawful disclosure of Plaintiffs’ tax returns, the Court cancels all deadlines, including the date that the Parties were required to submit briefing as to whether an actual case or controversy existed in this matter.”

Judge Williams adds the interesting concluding paragraph:

Because [Trump’s] Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record. Additionally, Defendants—federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.

The court, in other words, is saying: “We don’t know why Plaintiff is withdrawing. There may have been a ‘settlement’ between Plaintiff and Defendants, but we have no information about that one way or the other. If there was a settlement, you might want to consider whether it is legitimate, given that it’s just the left hand settling with the right.”

In the ordinary case, the Plaintiff does not have to explain why he is withdrawing his claims; Plaintiffs are free to withdraw their claims for pretty much any reason or no reason at all.[3] It could be because Plaintiff reached some agreement with the Defendant, or because Plaintiff suddenly realizes he will lose the case, or because Plaintiff has had a change of heart, or because Plaintiff has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and wants to spend his remaining days entirely with his family, etc.

But the court here is signaling that this is not the ordinary case. The court doesn’t need to know why Trump is withdrawing, but if there has been some kind of “settlement,” it may not have been “appropriate”; just as you can’t sue yourself, you can’t enter into a “settlement” with yourself to relinquish those claims that you have asserted against yourself.

Then, on May 18th, Trump and the DOJ execute something they call a “Settlement Agreement.” In it, Trump relinquishes his so-called “claims” against the IRS.[4] In exchange, the Defendant agrees (a) to issue an apology to Trump, and (b) to set up an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” entailing a “systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who, like Plaintiffs, state that they incurred harm from Lawfare and Weaponization.”[5]

This “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will have $1.776 billion* (get it?) at its disposal.

And because the parties to this Settlement Agreement apparently think that you and I and the rest of the American people are complete morons, they say, in the Agreement, that “the corpus of the Anti-Weaponization Fund’s funding … is based on the projected valuation of future claimants’ claims.”  It is, therefore, just a coincidence that it comes to 1.776 billion.

The Fund will be administered by five Members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Attorney General (an employee of the President). One Member – but one Member only – must be chosen “in consultation with” (though not necessarily the approval of) “congressional leadership.” Members can be removed at any time, without cause, by the President. The Fund “shall have the power to determine its own procedures for submitting, receiving, processing, and granting or denying claims,” and the Fund “may make those procedures public in whole or in part, in its discretion.”

Every quarter, the Fund “shall provide to the Attorney General a confidential written report” enumerating names of everyone who “received any relief” from the Fund and “the nature of such relief.”

And should you harbor any concerns about fraudulent claims, you can rest easy; the Fund “shall impose controls and systems to avoid fraudulent claims.”

Think it’s a bad deal, or even an unlawful deal, for the American people? Too bad for you! “This Settlement Agreement is enforceable and challengeable solely by Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the United States.”

And, oops!  As noted above, the May 18th Settlement Agreement contains a provision under which Trump releases his (non-existent) claims against the IRS.  It doesn’t say anything about the IRS releasing its claims against Trump.

That, apparently, was an oversight.  Like I said, oops!  Oh-so-quietly, on May 19th, the Department corrected that little oversight, notifying the world, in a document signed by Acting Attorney General Blanche, that:

“The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, [etc.], whether previously known or unknown, that, as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement [i.e., May 18th], have been or could have been asserted by [the IRS] against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals…”

Wow!  Blanche provides no explanation for why this rather important paragraph had been omitted from the original, signed, Settlement Agreement. My guess is: Bad lawyering. Maybe that’s what happens when the DOJ sheds hundreds of competent attorneys.

It is, as Mitch McConnell – Mitch McConnell! – describes it: “the nation’s top law enforcement official asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops . . . Utterly stupid, morally wrong.”

You do, though, have to hand it to Trump’s lawyers; they transformed a claim worth $0.00 into a $1.776 billion Fund to be handed out, most likely in secret, to Trump’s supporters, plus they got their client a get-out-of-jail card in connection with any possible liability Trump may have incurred for prior IRS-related defalcations (an immunity that the NY Times estimates may be worth up to $100 million to Trump and the Trump Organization). It’s truly a testament to their immense lawyerly skill that they were able to get the other side to agree to this deal, no?

In the history of this country, there have been many, many people who have stuck their hands, inappropriately and unlawfully, into the public till.  Some have ascended to high public office from which they could more easily implement their unlawful schemes. Democrats and Republicans, black and white, Christian and Muslim and Jew, men and women … Sad, but true.

But Donald Trump is more than just the latest member of this very unseemly fraternity – he is doing something truly without precedent. Never before, in the history of the United States, has the grab been conducted so openly and so brazenly, out there in full view of the very public that is getting fleeced.[6]

That this all comes as part of an “Anti-Weaponization” initiative from a president who has refined “weaponization” of the Justice Department into a fine art is beyond irony and beyond satire.

That Trump would like to get his hands on $1.776 billion of taxpayer money to hand out to friends and supporters is no surprise. What is much more difficult to understand is why so many people seem willing to let him get away with it.

The semi-revolt by Senate Republicans in the face of this monstrosity gives me (a little) hope that this may have finally crossed the line, for at least some of his supporters in the Republican party. We’ll see if this gives a few of them the backbone to stand up to Trump, at least so as to nullify (if, indeed, nullification is even a possibility) this “Settlement.”

[1] I can understand why Trump’s lawyers didn’t file a brief addressing the question; there’s nothing they could possibly have come up with to defend the continuation of the suit.  But you’d think that the IRS lawyers would jump into the fray, no? Their reluctance to do so can’t have anything to do with the fact that the plaintiff is their boss, could it?  Proving the point, no?

[2] A “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice” is a notification to the court from the Plaintiff: “I give up my claims now and forever; please dismiss them with prejudice.” It’s a “notice”, not a “motion”; it’s not asking the court to do something, it’s telling the court what plaintiff has decided to do. Under Rule 41(a)(1), the claim strips the court of jurisdiction once it is filed by the plaintiff, so there’s nothing the court can do anymore, other than close the case.

[3] There are exceptions to this general rule, of course; in class action cases, for example, the court has to approve any voluntary dismissal, which will involve examining the terms of any settlement that the parties have entered into, because the dismissal will affect the rights of third-parties who are parties to the suit but not to the settlement negotiations.

[4] The Agreement reads: “In exchange for the relief provided in this Settlement Agreement, and except as provided herein … Plaintiffs hereby RELEASE, WAIVE, ACQUIT, and FOREVER DISCHARGE Defendants and the United States from, and are hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, charges, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, … that –  as of the Effective Date – have been or could have been asserted by Plaintiffs …”)

[5] “Lawfare and Weaponization” are defined in the Agreement as the “sustained use of the levers of government power . . . in order to target individuals, groups, and entities for improper and unlawful political, personal, and/or ideological reasons”.

[6] If you know of any actual case to prove me wrong on this, please let me know in the Comments or otherwise.

The post The Art of the Deal appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/N24cVnb
via IFTTT

Abigail Spanberger Vetoes Mandatory Collective Bargaining, Defying Virginia Unions


Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger | Peter Casey/TNS/Newscom

Since a Democratic trifecta took control of Virginia’s government in the 2025 election, two longtime progressive labor policy priorities have been front and center: repealing the state’s right-to-work law and mandating public sector collective bargaining. Now, less than six months into the Democratic reign in Richmond, pro-union forces have come away empty handed. While unions may be disappointed, Virginia taxpayers have new reason to celebrate.

They also have an unlikely person to thank, at least for the moment: Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who vetoed collective bargaining legislation last week.

The drama traces back to the campaign trail. Then-candidate Abigail Spanberger secured the Democratic nomination amid strong support for unions. She even managed to  secure the endorsement of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association—a police union that had largely supported GOP candidates in recent elections—over Republican candidate Winsome Sears, further underscoring Spanberger’s pro-union appeal.

Despite her strong affiliation with organized labor, Spanberger said several times during her campaign that she did not support a “full” repeal of Virginia’s right-to-work law, which has existed in the state for close to 80 years. This led many observers—including yours truly—to try to read the tea leaves behind her statements, including whether she might still support some version of a “partial” right-to-work repeal.

Yet there was much less ambiguity when it came to public sector collective bargaining. During the campaign, Spanberger answered “yes” on a candidate questionnaire that asked if she would “champion and sign legislation to ensure collective bargaining rights for all public employees.”

Virginia is one of a handful of states that bans public sector collective bargaining, having done so since a 1977 state supreme court decision. In 2021, when former Gov. Ralph Northam was in office, Democrats changed the law to an opt-in system, whereby localities could pass ordinances to allow public sector collective bargaining. (Only a small fraction have opted in).

The goal of Virginia Democrats in 2026 was to turn collective bargaining into a statewide mandate, not a local choice. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to make this mandate a reality. The bill cleared the state legislature and went to Spanberger’s desk, where union interests were confident it would be signed by the governor.

But Spanberger surprised many by sending a revised version of the bill back to the Legislature. The governor’s amended version made material changes to the bill, including changing “shall” language—as in, the scope of collective bargaining “shall include” bargaining over wages, hours, and benefits—to “may,” thereby cutting back on the prescriptive text. It also delayed the law’s implementation for localities from 2028 to 2030 and opted for advisory arbitration, rather than binding, to settle contract disputes.

Perhaps most significantly, Spanberger’s version gave more power to a new government agency that would be created under the legislation, known as the Public Employee Relations Board. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute noted that the original bill contained detailed rules about union elections and contract negotiation timelines, while Spanberger’s version left these matters up to the body’s discretion.

Unions argued that this amounted to a regulatory death sentence given that the board’s five members are appointed by the governor, raising fears that a future Republican leader could stock the board with anti-union members. Spanberger’s revised version also eliminated a requirement that two of the board’s members must be union representatives, further watering down union influence over the process.

Faced with this revised bill, the state assembly bowed to union pressure and rejected Spanberger’s amendments. This put the ball back in the governor’s court, daring her to veto the original bill or acquiesce. Spanberger chose the veto.

Predictably, union interests cried foul, viewing it as a bait and switch and likening Spanberger to her Republican predecessor Gov. Glenn Youngkin. Despite her veto, Spanberger maintains that she supports public sector collective bargaining and that she will “continue to look forward to a place where we’ll have a bill that I’ll sign into law.” Virginia Democrats will retain their trifecta through at least the 2027 state elections, perhaps providing enough time for them to iron out the dispute before the balance of power in Richmond potentially changes.

In the meantime, Virginians can enjoy the reprieve—because public sector collective bargaining continues to be a bad bet from a policy standpoint. Research has found that mandatory bargaining raises state and local government spending anywhere from $600 to $750 per person annually, which could amount to a substantially larger tax burden for a small family. It is estimated that the proposed Virginia legislation would have cost the state $50 million annually, while the costs for localities could have ranged anywhere from $50,000 to $403 million over a two-year period.

Virginia taxpayers, in other words, dodged a bullet with Spanberger’s veto. They’ll have to hope she continues holding the line.

The post Abigail Spanberger Vetoes Mandatory Collective Bargaining, Defying Virginia Unions appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ToK1l0P
via IFTTT

Abigail Spanberger Vetoes Mandatory Collective Bargaining, Defying Virginia Unions


Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger | Peter Casey/TNS/Newscom

Since a Democratic trifecta took control of Virginia’s government in the 2025 election, two longtime progressive labor policy priorities have been front and center: repealing the state’s right-to-work law and mandating public sector collective bargaining. Now, less than six months into the Democratic reign in Richmond, pro-union forces have come away empty handed. While unions may be disappointed, Virginia taxpayers have new reason to celebrate.

They also have an unlikely person to thank, at least for the moment: Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who vetoed collective bargaining legislation last week.

The drama traces back to the campaign trail. Then-candidate Abigail Spanberger secured the Democratic nomination amid strong support for unions. She even managed to  secure the endorsement of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association—a police union that had largely supported GOP candidates in recent elections—over Republican candidate Winsome Sears, further underscoring Spanberger’s pro-union appeal.

Despite her strong affiliation with organized labor, Spanberger said several times during her campaign that she did not support a “full” repeal of Virginia’s right-to-work law, which has existed in the state for close to 80 years. This led many observers—including yours truly—to try to read the tea leaves behind her statements, including whether she might still support some version of a “partial” right-to-work repeal.

Yet there was much less ambiguity when it came to public sector collective bargaining. During the campaign, Spanberger answered “yes” on a candidate questionnaire that asked if she would “champion and sign legislation to ensure collective bargaining rights for all public employees.”

Virginia is one of a handful of states that bans public sector collective bargaining, having done so since a 1977 state supreme court decision. In 2021, when former Gov. Ralph Northam was in office, Democrats changed the law to an opt-in system, whereby localities could pass ordinances to allow public sector collective bargaining. (Only a small fraction have opted in).

The goal of Virginia Democrats in 2026 was to turn collective bargaining into a statewide mandate, not a local choice. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to make this mandate a reality. The bill cleared the state legislature and went to Spanberger’s desk, where union interests were confident it would be signed by the governor.

But Spanberger surprised many by sending a revised version of the bill back to the Legislature. The governor’s amended version made material changes to the bill, including changing “shall” language—as in, the scope of collective bargaining “shall include” bargaining over wages, hours, and benefits—to “may,” thereby cutting back on the prescriptive text. It also delayed the law’s implementation for localities from 2028 to 2030 and opted for advisory arbitration, rather than binding, to settle contract disputes.

Perhaps most significantly, Spanberger’s version gave more power to a new government agency that would be created under the legislation, known as the Public Employee Relations Board. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute noted that the original bill contained detailed rules about union elections and contract negotiation timelines, while Spanberger’s version left these matters up to the body’s discretion.

Unions argued that this amounted to a regulatory death sentence given that the board’s five members are appointed by the governor, raising fears that a future Republican leader could stock the board with anti-union members. Spanberger’s revised version also eliminated a requirement that two of the board’s members must be union representatives, further watering down union influence over the process.

Faced with this revised bill, the state assembly bowed to union pressure and rejected Spanberger’s amendments. This put the ball back in the governor’s court, daring her to veto the original bill or acquiesce. Spanberger chose the veto.

Predictably, union interests cried foul, viewing it as a bait and switch and likening Spanberger to her Republican predecessor Gov. Glenn Youngkin. Despite her veto, Spanberger maintains that she supports public sector collective bargaining and that she will “continue to look forward to a place where we’ll have a bill that I’ll sign into law.” Virginia Democrats will retain their trifecta through at least the 2027 state elections, perhaps providing enough time for them to iron out the dispute before the balance of power in Richmond potentially changes.

In the meantime, Virginians can enjoy the reprieve—because public sector collective bargaining continues to be a bad bet from a policy standpoint. Research has found that mandatory bargaining raises state and local government spending anywhere from $600 to $750 per person annually, which could amount to a substantially larger tax burden for a small family. It is estimated that the proposed Virginia legislation would have cost the state $50 million annually, while the costs for localities could have ranged anywhere from $50,000 to $403 million over a two-year period.

Virginia taxpayers, in other words, dodged a bullet with Spanberger’s veto. They’ll have to hope she continues holding the line.

The post Abigail Spanberger Vetoes Mandatory Collective Bargaining, Defying Virginia Unions appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ToK1l0P
via IFTTT

FBI Director Kash Patel’s Girlfriend’s Defamation Suit Over Allegations She Was Israeli Spy Can Go Forward

From Judge David Alan Ezra (W.D. Tex.) today in Wilkins v. Seraphin:

This case arises from allegedly defamatory statements made by Defendant Kyle M. Seraphin on his podcast show, the Kyle Seraphin Show, about Plaintiff Alexis Wilkins ….

Plaintiff Alexis Wilkins [alleges she] “is a patriotic, conservative, Christian, country music artist and published writer, who also works for a conservative advocacy and educational company, PragerU.” Since January 2023, Plaintiff has been in a long-term relationship with Kashyap “Kash” Patel, the Director of the … FBI ….

Defendant Kyle M. Seraphin is a U.S. Air Force veteran and former FBI special agent in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. A self-proclaimed “Podcaster,” “Whistleblower,” and “Recovering FBI agent,” Defendant hosts the Kyle Seraphin Show, during which he “trades on his insider knowledge of the FBI and his experience in law enforcement” to tell his audience the “uncomfortable truth.”

The show, which is livestreamed on YouTube, “Rumble,” and Defendant’s website, garners wide reach. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant has over 271,800 followers on X, and his posts frequently reach tens of thousands of views and numerous re-posts. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant receives income through his video sponsorships, paid membership through YouTube, and donations through YouTube.

On August 22, 2025, Defendant stated the following on the Kyle Seraphin Show:

[FBI Director Kash Patel] has had his own little ‘honeypot’ issue that’s been going on of late, so we’re just going to acknowledge it real publicly. He’s got a girlfriend that is half his age, who is apparently is both a country music singer, a political commentator on Rumble, a friend of John Rich through Bongino, who also now owns a big chunk of Rumble, and she’s also a former Mossad agent in what is like the equivalent of their NSA. But I’m sure that’s totally because, like, she’s really looking for like a cross-eyed, you know, kind of thickish built, super cool bro who’s almost 50 years old who’s Indian in America.

Like it has nothing to do with the fact that uh we’re really close to the Trump administration. Anyway, I’m sure that’s totally just like love.

That’s what real love looks like.

Plaintiff alleges that, in making this statement, Defendant falsely and maliciously characterized her as a “honeypot”—which she defines as an agent of a foreign government who began a relationship with another for purposes of manipulating and compromising them—and accused her of “conduct[ing] espionage to undermine [] national security” and “committing treason.” …

The court concluded that Wilkins had adequately alleged that the statements about her were false factual assertions (rather than opinion or hyperbole); recall that at this stage, the question is just about whether the allegations are legally sufficient—determining their truth or falsity is for later in the case:

First, Defendant asserts that his “sarcastic, humorous, and hyperbolic statements” that Plaintiff is a “honeypot” and “former Mossad agent” are not defamatory as a matter of law. Because these “tongue-in-cheek” comments were given “in the context of a political podcast,” a reasonable listener would understand that these “purposefully over-the-top representations” were not assertions of fact, but rather “an effort to make news of the day interesting to listeners,” he contends….

A statement is considered defamatory under Texas law if “a person of ordinary intelligence would interpret it in a way that tends to injure the subject’s reputation and thereby expose the subject to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or financial injury, or to impeach the subject’s honesty, integrity virtue, or reputation.” …

In First, Defendant’s statements here are verifiably false [in context, this appears to mean “verifiable as false,” which is to say capable of being proved true or false -EV]. Second, when viewed in context, the Court finds that these statements would reasonably be understood as describing actual facts, rather than “opinion masquerading as fact.”

In the episode at issue, Defendant begins by describing himself as a “real whistleblower” and former FBI agent who presents the “uncomfortable truth” during his podcast. As pleaded by Plaintiff, the introduction to the podcast also begins with a voiceover that says, “this program has no time for comforting lies.”

In addition, preceding the statements about Plaintiff in his show, Defendant surveyed news reports of undercover and “honeypot” techniques used by the FBI in various investigations. Then, Defendant discussed Director Patel having his own “little honeypot issue that’s been going on of late” and proceeded to talk about Plaintiff. After these statements, Defendant continued his criticism of Director Patel by wading into “the Epstein situation,” the FBI’s New York Field Office, and the “New York Mafia” to “break it down for people so we have this real clear idea of … who’s really running the FBI[.]”

When viewed in this context, the Court finds that a reasonable viewer would take Defendant’s statements as part and parcel of the show’s stated aim of presenting “uncomfortable truths” and a continuance of the factual discussions immediately before and after the statements. Defendant’s arguments to the contrary ignore this context.

{The Court is also not persuaded by Defendant’s citation to Patel v. Figliuzzi (S.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2026). There, the court found that a statement that Director Patel has “been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover building” was mere “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, that statement is different in kind from the statement at issue here. Id. (explaining that by saying Director Patel spent “far more” time at nightclubs than his office, the defendant delivered his answer ‘in an exaggerated, provocative and amusing way'”). When viewed in context, the Court does not agree with Defendant that the statements here are mere “rhetorical hyperbole.”} …

And the court concluded that Wilkins had adequately alleged “actual malice” on Seraphin’s part:

Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded actual malice and so declines to rule on Plaintiff’s status as a public or private figure at this stage of the proceedings. Actual malice requires a statement made “‘with knowledge that it is false, or with reckless disregard of whether it is true.'” … [R]eckless disregard is a “subjective standard that focuses on the conduct and state of mind of the defendant.” … [M]ere negligence is insufficient.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted with actual malice in making the allegedly defamatory statements. She asserts that Defendant “published his defamatory statements across numerous outlets, knowing that they were false” and “entirely fabricated the story to generate video engagement revenue and to indulge in his obvious animus against Dir. Patel and against Ms. Wilkins.”

In support of these allegations, Plaintiff states that she and Defendant met in person approximately two years ago at a political event. Plaintiff alleges that, because of that meeting, which took place before Director Patel became the FBI Director, Defendant knew that Plaintiff was American, not Israeli, that she was not a Mossad agent, and that her relationship with Director Patel began long before he became Director. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant had never once reached out to her and that she stated publicly prior to Defendant’s statements that the allegations regarding her affiliation with Israel are false.

Based on this, Plaintiff contends that Defendant knew she was not part of any foreign intelligence agency, and instead “fabricated this accusation at the expense of [Plaintiff] to obtain personal profit, generating outrage to drive up his viewership.” This animus and “malicious intent,” Plaintiff asserts, “is further emphasized by [Defendant’s] desire to spread this lie ‘real publicly.'” Taking these well-pleaded allegations as true and viewing them in light most favorable to her, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded actual malice….

Jared Joseph Roberts and Jason C. Greaves (Binnall Law Group PLLC) represent Wilkins.

The post FBI Director Kash Patel's Girlfriend's Defamation Suit Over Allegations She Was Israeli Spy Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/OadbnEw
via IFTTT