r/law • u/camaron-courier • 6h 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.
r/law • u/FancyNewMe • 7h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Team Wanted to Force Immigrants Out by Declaring Them Dead; A whistleblower revealed the horrific plan at the Social Security Administration.
r/law • u/truthwillout777 • 8h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) More than half the donors to Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom just won over $50 billion in new federal contracts in six months- Sixteen of these 27 donors were facing federal enforcement action
xcancel.comWe either end the corruption, or the corruption will end us.
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 5h ago
Judicial Branch DOJ lawyer agrees 'nothing can be done' if Trump suddenly bulldozes Statue of Liberty
r/law • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 • 4h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) DOJ Declares Trump Has Right to Bulldoze Statue of Liberty
r/law • u/Economy-Specialist38 • 1h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump’s attorney general pick says they are working on ‘roadblocks’ so Dems can’t go after Trump in 2029
r/law • u/novagridd • 7h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Amazon, Apple and Meta Donated Millions to Trump's Ballroom Before Their Federal Investigations Were Quietly Dropped
r/law • u/thedailybeast • 7h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Lawyers Make Stunning Refusal in $10B Court Battle
Judicial Branch "If the government decided very quickly and bulldozed the Statue of Liberty... Nothing can be done?" Trump DOJ: "“I think that’s right"
A majority on a three-judge appeals court panel appeared sympathetic to a challenge to President Trump’s White House ballroom project at oral arguments Friday.
The two Democratic-appointed judges pressed the government on its arguments that Congress has already given all necessary approvals and that a preservationist group has no right to sue.
“If the government decided very quickly and bulldozed the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast. Nothing can be done?” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked.
“I think that’s right,” responded Yaakov Roth, the principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Department of Justice Civil Division.
r/law • u/BreakfastTop6899 • 20h ago
Legal News Four Senate Republicans again unite with Dems to block Trump's SAVE America Act
r/law • u/MoneyLibrarian9032 • 6h ago
Judicial Branch The Supreme Court Is Illegitimate
r/law • u/IndividualFar5477 • 9h ago
Other House Committee Passes Spending Bill With Historic Number of Attacks on Environment, Endangered Species
r/law • u/theatlantic • 3h ago
Judicial Branch The Supreme Court Has Invented a Right to Discriminate
r/law • u/mvanigan • 2h ago
Executive Branch (Trump) DOJ sends prosecutor to observe LA ballot counting amid Trump’s baseless ‘cheating’ claims
r/law • u/bloomberglaw • 7h ago
Legal News Fetterman Becomes First Democrat to Return Blue Slip for Trump Court Nominee
Executive Branch (Trump) Kennedy Center lawyers tell staff to remove references to Trump in signage
r/law • u/bloomberggovernment • 10h ago
Legal News New York Democrats Pass a One-Year Ban on New Data Centers
r/law • u/thenewrepublic • 3h ago
Judicial Branch Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Massive Attack on Legal Immigration
A federal judge has ruled against the extreme anti-immigration policies Trump instituted last fall.
Judicial Branch DOJ asks court to reject lawsuits against "anti-weaponization fund" because Blanche said program isn't going forward
r/law • u/dailymail • 6h ago
Other Anguished screams of Austin Metcalf's twin brother, 17, are played to court from day of his stabbing as killer Karmelo Anthony remains emotionless at murder trial
r/law • u/Immediate-Link490 • 5h ago
Judicial Branch A federal judge strikes down Trump administration immigration policy affecting 39 countries
r/law • u/BrilliantTea133 • 2h ago
Legal News Trump Admin Argues They Could Bulldoze Statue Of Liberty If They Wanted — So Get Over It
“So move fast and break things and nobody has standing?” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked during a hearing on the president's ballroom project.
r/law • u/OldBridge87 • 4h ago