r/law Aug 31 '22

This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent about it.

3.9k Upvotes

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 Oct 28 '25

Quality content and the subreddit. Announcing user flair for humans and carrots instead of sticks.

Post image
137 Upvotes

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 8h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump faces impeachment calls after massive TikTok deal fee revealed

Thumbnail msn.com
25.9k Upvotes

r/law 4h ago

Legal News A tourist sued a taqueria over spicy salsa. A judge says spice is 'the point.'

Thumbnail
usatoday.com
7.7k Upvotes

Faycal Manz sued Los Tacos No. 1 for $100,000 in damages after he allegedly experienced gastrointestinal problems, high blood pressure and emotional distress from eating spicy salsas at the New York City restaurant in 2024, according to court filings obtained by USA TODAY.

****

In the complaint, Manz said he wanted to eat tacos while on vacation in New York in August 2024 because "there is no possibility for me to eat tacos in my small German hometown."

After finding the restaurant online, he went to Los Tacos No. 1 and purchased three tacos. Manz said he then added two types of salsas from the restaurant's self-service area to his tacos.

Upon eating the food topped with salsa, Manz said his tongue and mouth began "burning immediately," and his Apple Watch registered an elevated pulse.

"For someone like me living in Germany and eating nothing spicy, it was a very big shock physically and mentally," Manz said in the complaint.

I feel like this is the best thing I've read all week.


r/law 3h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) DOJ is barely even a functional law firm at this point. Each day there is more proof.

Thumbnail
lawdork.com
1.8k Upvotes

r/law 6h ago

Legal News DOJ drops case against veteran arrested after burning American flag near White House

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
1.5k Upvotes

r/law 2h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump fundraising email uses photo from soldiers’ dignified transfer and promises ‘private national security briefings’

Thumbnail
edition.cnn.com
286 Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Legal News Anti-ICE protesters accused of being part of antifa found guilty of support for terrorism in Texas | Case was seen as major test of the first amendment and whether the US could use broad anti-terrorism statute to prosecute leftwing protesters

Thumbnail
theguardian.com
16.7k Upvotes

r/law 10h ago

Legal News Pentagon elevates investigation into Iran school strike | Reuters

Thumbnail
reuters.com
488 Upvotes

r/law 8h ago

Judicial Branch Social Media Isn’t Just Speech. It’s Also a Defective, Hazardous Product.

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
219 Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Legislative Branch House Republicans threaten to oppose Senate bills until SAVE America Act passes

Thumbnail
thehill.com
12.3k Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Legal News ICE Accused Of Detaining 14-Year-Old Girl In Massachusetts As 'Bait' To Snare Her Father — Judge Orders Her Immediate Return

Thumbnail
ibtimes.co.uk
20.0k Upvotes

r/law 1h ago

Legal News Florida Priest Faces $500K in Fines for Feeding The Homeless. How Zoning Rules Impact Charities

Thumbnail
moneywise.com
Upvotes

Should it be easier for people to actually do good in this world? Being fined half a million bucks for feeding homeless people is wild, no?


r/law 15h ago

Judicial Branch In ordering the government to turn over the DOGE employee roster, judge cites Giuffre v. Maxwell

Thumbnail storage.courtlistener.com
692 Upvotes

This is what U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon wrote:

Absent some specific and articulable privacy or safety concern, the public is entitled to know who works for its government and in what capacity. Such transparency is "essential" to democratic accountability, Giuffre v. Maxwell, 146 F.4th 165, 175 (2d Cir. 2025), and it informs the public's ability to evaluate the exercise of governmental power challenged in federal court.

I thought this was an interesting case to reference. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Here are the two rosters: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.642287/gov.uscourts.nysd.642287.122.1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.642287/gov.uscourts.nysd.642287.122.2.pdf


r/law 1d ago

Judicial Branch ICE agents reveal daily arrest quotas and surveillance app in rare court testimony

Thumbnail
theguardian.com
4.0k Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Other Hegseth violating International Law with “no mercy, no quarter” declaration

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
6.4k Upvotes

“No mercy" or "no quarter" is a grave war crime under international humanitarian law, the DoD Law of War Manual and is strictly prohibited by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and customary international law. It means ordering that no survivors be taken, refusing to spare the lives of enemies who are surrendering or incapacitated.


r/law 7h ago

Legal News They Didn’t Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge Would Decide How They Gave Birth.

Thumbnail
propublica.org
135 Upvotes

r/law 19h ago

Legal News House Oversight calls prison guard on duty during Epstein's death to testify

Thumbnail
axios.com
1.0k Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Administration Set to Receive $10 Billion Fee for Brokering TikTok Deal

Thumbnail
wsj.com
2.6k Upvotes

r/law 5h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Everyone Has Trump’s Phone Number Now

Thumbnail
theatlantic.com
64 Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Legal News Judge blocks subpoenas against Fed Chair Jerome Powell citing 'essentially zero evidence'

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
3.2k Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Legal News Montana halts permitting on all weekend rallies at Capitol, thwarts upcoming ‘No Kings’ event

Thumbnail
apnews.com
2.3k Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Judicial Branch 'Appears contrived': Judge scolds Trump admin for using AI to generate after-the-fact excuse for targeting 'sanctuary' states with massive cuts to public health funding

Thumbnail
lawandcrime.com
2.0k Upvotes

r/law 1d ago

Legal News Americans are demanding refunds from the $180 billion in tariffs they paid for, and they’re suing companies like Costco to make it happen

Thumbnail
fortune.com
2.7k Upvotes

Americans have footed the bill for President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and now they’re demanding a refund.

The Supreme Court ruling striking down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) opened the door for U.S. companies to snap up refunds from the approximately $180 billion in import tax revenue. Now customers who experienced higher prices from the tariffs are demanding their fair share.

Overwhelming data, including a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, indicated that U.S. importers paid for the majority of the tariffs—up to 90%—with many passing down the increased costs to American consumers. Goldman Sachs estimated the tariffs added a 0.7% increase to inflation over 10 months, with prices to increase another 0.1% in 2026 because of levies.

Some U.S. consumers have taken matters into their own hands to recoup the extra costs they paid on tariffed goods over the last year, including pursuing litigation against U.S. companies, suing for tariff refunds. On Wednesday, plaintiff Matthew Stockov, an Illinois resident, filed a lawsuit against Costco, alleging the big-box retailer raised prices as a result of the tariffs and would receive “double recovery” if it collected the import tax refunds without distributing it back to consumers.

Read more: https://fortune.com/2026/03/13/americans-demanding-tariff-refunds-suing-costco-fedex/?preview_id=4440481


r/law 1h ago

Legal News Judge orders Kennedy Center to include Rep. Joyce Beatty at next board meeting

Thumbnail
thehill.com
Upvotes

A federal judge ruled Saturday that the Kennedy Center must provide Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) a “meaningful opportunity” to participate in next week’s board meeting on the storied institution’s revamp, but they don’t have to let her vote.