Colorado's State Bivens Law

Colorado's General Assembly has enacted a state law authorizing suits for money damages against federal, state, and local officials violating federal constitutional rights in connection with civil immigration enforcement, because the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to extend Bivens (a U.S. Supreme Court case which created a federal common law remedy in the form of a private civil action for damages for certain violations of federal constitutional rights by federal officials) to do so. The bill has not yet been signed by the Governor, but he has not publicly threatened to veto the bill either.

Ideally, it wouldn't have been limited to civil immigration enforcement, which may be the provision of the law which makes it most vulnerable to being held unconstitutional, as immigration law is a purely federal function, but it isn't at all clear that narrowing this law beyond its maximum constitutional scope invalidates it, and there is quite a bit of law (outlined in Section 1 of the bill) which supports the conclusion that this mostly unused check on misconduct by federal official is constitutional.

The limitation of the law to civil immigration enforcement, however, does limit room to complain that the waiver of various immunities would do serious mischief to the ordinary actions of law enforcement in the state at the state and local level.

The bill's full and final text is below:

Senate Bill 26-05:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 

SECTION 1.  Legislative declaration. 

(1)  The general assembly finds and declares that: 

(a)  Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States supreme court has held, in cases such as Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and Murray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that federal officials may be liable in damages for violations of federal laws; 

(b)  In later 19th century cases as well, the United States supreme court held that federal officials could be liable for damages even for reasons relating to but beyond the lawful scope of federal duties, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115 (1851), and in particular that state courts possessed jurisdiction to consider such damages claims, Teal v. Felton, 53 U.S. 284 (1852); 

(c)  The United States supreme court has long held that federal employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply because they are federal employees. For example, in Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment", and in Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and employees are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law". 

(d)  Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials accountable for legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963), "[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law"; 

(e)  When the United States supreme court recognized a federal law cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that cause of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law remedies. Even one of the dissenting justices in Bivens noted the ongoing role of state courts, writing, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress and the legislatures of the States". 

(f)  More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government [. . .] which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States", 28 U.S.C. sec. 2679. The prime sponsor of legislation amending the federal "Tort Claims Act" to provide for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, "We make special provisions here to make clear that the more controversial issue of constitutional torts is not covered by this bill. If you are accused of having violated someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it", 134 Cong. Rec. 15963 (1988). 

(g)  In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action in Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the United States supreme court observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of government to fashion damages remedies; 

(h)  In its most recently completed term, the United States supreme court declined, in Martin v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1689 (2025), to extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional criminal law context; 

(i)  Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the United States has never been and can never be "necessary and proper" to the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the meaning of article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States constitution; and 

(j)  In enacting this act, the Colorado general assembly affirms its longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing forum in its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations. 

SECTION 2.  In Colorado Revised Statutes add 13-20-1302 as follows: 

13-20-1302.  Civil action for violation of constitutional rights during immigration enforcement - relief - attorney fees - time limit to commence action - definition. 

(1)  A PERSON WHO HAS THEIR RIGHTS THAT ARE GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VIOLATED BY ANOTHER PERSON WHO, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LAW, IS PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION. A PERSON FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHILE PARTICIPATING IN CIVIL  IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS LIABLE TO THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED FOR LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RELIEF OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 

(2) (a)  IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, A COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO A PREVAILING PLAINTIFF. IN ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, A COURT SHALL DEEM A PLAINTIFF TO HAVE PREVAILED IF THE PLAINTIFF'S SUIT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR OR SIGNIFICANT CATALYST IN OBTAINING THE RESULTS SOUGHT BY THE LITIGATION. 

(b)  WHEN A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF A DEFENDANT, THE COURT MAY AWARD REASONABLE COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES TO THE DEFENDANT FOR DEFENDING ANY CLAIMS THE COURT FINDS FRIVOLOUS. 

(3)  TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983, A GRANT OF IMMUNITY TO A DEFENDANT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY; OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY; STATUTORY IMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE "COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT", ARTICLE 10 OF TITLE 24; OR COMMON LAW IMMUNITY, DOES NOT APPLY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. 

(4)  AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" MEANS AN ACTION TO INVESTIGATE, QUESTION, DETAIN, TRANSFER, OR ARREST A PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION LAW. "CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT" DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ACTION COMMITTED BY A PEACE OFFICER WHO IS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PEACE OFFICER'S DUTIES CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. 

(5)  PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-80-102, A CIVIL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES. 

SECTION 3.  In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-80-102, amend (1)(k); and add (1)(l) as follows: 13-80-102.  General limitation of actions - two years.  The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: 

(k)  All actions brought under AND PURSUANT TO section 13-21-109(2) [ed. the bad check statute]; 

(l)  AN ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-20-1302. 

SECTION 4.  Severability. If any provision of this act or the application of this act to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable. 

SECTION 5.  Appropriation. (1)  For the 2026-27 state fiscal year, $125,604 is appropriated to the department of law. This appropriation is from the legal services cash fund created in section 24-31-108 (4), C.R.S., from revenue received from the department of personnel that is continuously appropriated to the department of personnel from the risk management fund created in section 24-30-1510 (1)(a), C.R.S. The appropriation to the department of law is based on an assumption that the department of law will require an additional 0.5 FTE. To implement this act, the department of law may use this appropriation to provide legal services for the department of personnel.

SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state institutions.

Some Quick, Ill Developed, Political Ideas

In defense of the deep state

The "deep state" is valuable and good, not a conspiratorial anti-democratic force. It is the bureaucratic manifestation of the rule of law.

We say we live in a "democracy" but that's an oversimplification. Obeying the law is not a matter up for popular vote. When we say we are a democracy what we really mean is that changes in the law must be made democratically. Not even the President is allowed to deviate from the law, which the President is sworn to faithfully execute. The President, wearing a different hat, can participate in the legislative process. But the bureaucratic organization that is the state can and normatively should push back against a President who tries to deviate from the way that the law mandates that the organization should behave.

Fiscal federalism

Trump 2.0 has illustrated the perils of relying too heavily on the federal budgetary process to spend funds for public purposes. So have many past government shutdowns.

Of course, dysfunction in the federal budgetary process leaves undisturbed public functions funded and operated at the state and local level with state and local funding. Most law enforcement comes from state and local law enforcement, most court cases (criminal and civil) are handled in the state courts, most K-12 and higher education funding is state and local, most roads and bridges are maintained at the state and local level, state and local law and funding keeps the water running, the sewers flowing, clears away trash from homes and businesses, and regulates the construction industry and real estate development for the most part.

We've seen what happens when this falls apart now. Because Medicaid and VA Health Care are federally funded and don't even had dedicated federal tax funding, they can be undermined quickly when the federal budgetary process goes astray and also equalize services between poor states and rich states. A simple federal tax law change can undermine ACA individual health insurance marketplace subsidies. K-12 education relies heavily on federal funding for special education (i.e. educating the disabled) and for schools in low income areas (which also equalizes situations between poor states and rich states). Higher education relies upon federal funding for grants for low income students, higher educational institutions for military officers and the deaf, student loan financing, and research grants. Disaster relief is heavily federally funded and leaves havoc unchecked when that is suspended. Disease control and weather prediction and monitoring are also heavily federally funded and are screwed up when this changes.

While we couldn't fund the military or the national debt at the state and local level, we could have a system where more health care and education spending is state and local. This would reduce federal influence on how those industries run and remove those industries from the whims of the federal budget process to a great extent, but would also lead to weaker subsidies of poor states and disproportionately worse services in poor states and would subject those services to greater state and local political influence.

After 9-11 we federalized airport security creating the TSA. Today, we see the political price of that as a federal budgetary process fight unrelated to the TSA itself disrupts airport service. Early in Trump 2.0 we saw what happened to FAA air traffic control as a result of exposure to the Trump 2.0 administration and the federal budgetary process.

So far, Social Security is only suffering deficiencies in administrative processing of disability claims for the most part, because it has its own dedicated funding source that insulates it from the federal budgetary process as an entitlement.

But national parks and major transportation ad energy infrastructure programs have seen a twirl.

Could we build a more robust system without facing too many costs?

Prosecuting Federal Officials For State Law Crimes

Prosecuting federal officials for crimes arising under state law committed in the course of their federal duties is not only not forbidden by the supremacy clause, it is actually expressly contemplated and provided for by a federal statute. 

In those cases, the case is started in state court, but may be removed to federal court, where the case continues to be prosecuted by state prosecutors in federal court with a federal judge presiding.

28 U.S. Code § 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.

(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;

(4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.

(b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the defendant was served with process.

(c) Solely for purposes of determining the propriety of removal under subsection (a), a law enforcement officer, who is the defendant in a criminal prosecution, shall be deemed to have been acting under the color of his office if the officer—

(1) protected an individual in the presence of the officer from a crime of violence;

(2) provided immediate assistance to an individual who suffered, or who was threatened with, bodily harm; or

(3) prevented the escape of any individual who the officer reasonably believed to have committed, or was about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in, or was likely to result in, death or serious bodily injury.

(d) In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) The terms “civil action” and “criminal prosecution” include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district court.

(2) The term “crime of violence” has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18.

(3) The term “law enforcement officer” means any employee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 8401(17) of title 5 and any special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State.

(4) The term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18.

(5) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, United States territories and insular possessions, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18).

(6) The term “State court” includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United States territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.

28 U.S. Code § 1455 - Procedure for removal of criminal prosecutions

(a) Notice of Removal.—

A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any criminal prosecution from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such prosecution is pending a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.

(b) Requirements.—

(1) A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall be filed not later than 30 days after the arraignment in the State court, or at any time before trial, whichever is earlier, except that for good cause shown the United States district court may enter an order granting the defendant or defendants leave to file the notice at a later time.

(2) A notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall include all grounds for such removal. A failure to state grounds that exist at the time of the filing of the notice shall constitute a waiver of such grounds, and a second notice may be filed only on grounds not existing at the time of the original notice. For good cause shown, the United States district court may grant relief from the limitations of this paragraph.

(3) The filing of a notice of removal of a criminal prosecution shall not prevent the State court in which such prosecution is pending from proceeding further, except that a judgment of conviction shall not be entered unless the prosecution is first remanded.

(4) The United States district court in which such notice is filed shall examine the notice promptly. If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.

(5) If the United States district court does not order the summary remand of such prosecution, it shall order an evidentiary hearing to be held promptly and, after such hearing, shall make such disposition of the prosecution as justice shall require. If the United States district court determines that removal shall be permitted, it shall so notify the State court in which prosecution is pending, which shall proceed no further.

(c) Writ of Habeas Corpus.—

If the defendant or defendants are in actual custody on process issued by the State court, the district court shall issue its writ of habeas corpus, and the marshal shall thereupon take such defendant or defendants into the marshal’s custody and deliver a copy of the writ to the clerk of such State court.

Moving Space Force HQ From Colorado To Alabama Is Stupid

Trump is about to renew his efforts to move the headquarters of the Space Force, a fifth military service that he created, from Colorado (where the headquarters of the part of the Air Force bureaucracy that was transferred to the separate Space Force service was located before he created the Space Force), to Alabama. He tried to do so during his first term, but the moved got bogged down in Department of Defense red tape, and the Department of Defense reversed that decision during the Biden Administration. 

UPDATE:

President Trump said one of the main considerations for moving Space Command out of Colorado Springs is because Colorado voters largely vote by mail. 

“I will say I want to thank Colorado,” Trump said. “The problem I have with Colorado… they do mail-in voting, they went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections." 

Trump has long criticized voting by mail, and has cited the practice as a major reason he lost the 2020 election to Biden though he has not provided evidence of fraud emanating from mail-in ballots." . . . 

The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce estimates that Space Command supports nearly 1,400 jobs and has a $1 billion impact on the Colorado Springs economy. Colorado has a significant Space Force presence, hosting half the bases with its major operations, including Peterson as well as Schriever Space Force Base in the Colorado Springs area and Buckley Space Force Base in Aurora. Nationally, the branch has more than 14,000 military and civilian members, who are called Guardians. 

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Tuesday said his office was prepared to challenge in court Trump’s decision to move the command, though he did not elaborate the legal rationale for a lawsuit. . . . 

Huntsville, nicknamed Rocket City, has long been home to Redstone and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. The Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command is also located in Huntsville, which drew its nickname because of its role in building the first rockets for the U.S. space program.

This is almost certainly not a legitimate reason for executive branch action under the Administrative Procedure Act. It is also an outrageously false claim.

Colorado Pols has more details.

END UPDATE

This is very on brand for Trump. He is making a call that places partisan politics above what is best for national security and wastes federal dollars.

Alabama is less attractive than Colorado to the civilian employees and contractors (who have a choice unlike active duty service members), so it won't attract the same quality work force. And, if one was going to move it away from Colorado one could have justified an HQ in Florida or Texas, which are also GOP strongholds, but like Colorado and Washington State, actually have a space industry (but see the material in the update above about Huntsville). Charitably, the best that can be said for it is that it provides economic development assistance to an underdeveloped part of the U.S.A. that supports him politically. Less charitably, it can be seen as a political payoff to Senator Tommy Tuberville who was getting in the way of Trump's Defense Department agenda. Less charitably still, it is a way for Trump to try to take action solely attributable to him that will become part of a military service's legacy once the bad decisions that went into that choice are long forgotten.

Tearing down old infrastructure to move it somewhere else is also just wasteful, while providing no benefits to national security. It is will probably require a billion or so dollars of unnecessary defense spending.

Of course, creating the "Space Force" was a bone headed idea in the first place. It undermines interservice cooperation, and honestly, it would have been better to be truly conservative and roll the Air Force back into the Army, rather than further dividing the Air Force. There might be a time when a Space Force makes sense, but that time is far in future.

Space Force's military role remains ill-defined and it remains a work in progress that is currently creating more confusion rather than a stronger U.S. military. Do we really need a new Space Force academy? Do we really need Space Force reserves? How is it doing anything that the Air Force did better? How many people are even in the Space Force? According to Google AI it apparently has 9,400 active duty "guardians" and about 4,600 civilians, making it far smaller than even the Coast Guard.

Trump's other wasteful symbolic military acts

Trump's other symbolic military initiatives are similarly dubious. His military birthday parade in the District of Columbia on June 14, that the Army aptly converted to a boring historical display from the third-world dictatorship show of force that he wanted in an act of malicious compliance, it was a wasteful and expensive flop.

The idea he has floated to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War (as it was called during and before World War II), were also wastes of money, but at least are basically harmless. Indeed, the calling it the Department of War is also more honest.

Trump's intent to reassign Confederate names to U.S. military bases is fundamentally endorsing treason and insurrection and is patently un-American.

Trump's inappropriate domestic uses of the military

Trump's deployment of military force, mostly but not entirely, national guard troops, on the other hand, in addition to being a waste of money, are grossly improper, manufactured crises that threaten democracy, undermine federalism, are inappropriate for immigration enforcement, and are illegal.

The Courts rejected his efforts to criminalize illegal immigration by calling a large swath of the border a military base, and have rejected his characterization of illegal immigration as an "invasion" of the United States for constitutional purposes. Courts have also held that deportation flights he had the military make in violation of court orders were illegal.

Courts have shut down his military deployments to Los Angeles. As the New York Times explains:

A federal judge in California said President Trump broke the law by deploying roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to immigration protests. The judge said on Tuesday that Mr. Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Defense Department had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military to enforce domestic law. The judge barred them from using the troops for any law-enforcement purpose, but put the order on hold for 10 days. The administration is expected to appeal. . . . 

The ruling was the latest in a series of judicial battles over claims of expansive unilateral powers by the administration. Mr. Trump and administration officials have deported people without due process, imposed widespread and unpopular tariffs and rolled back energy regulations, citing wartime and emergency powers that have been disputed in federal court. 

The president also declared crime in Washington, D.C., to be an emergency in order to send federal troops there in August, although crime rates in the nation’s capital have actually been falling and local officials said the deployment was not needed. Since then, Mr. Trump has publicly mused about sending the National Guard into other Democratic-led cities. Federal law gives the White House more latitude to conduct local law enforcement in the District of Columbia than in the states. . . .

The ruling places strict limits on the what the troops can do and applies only in California, although the judge noted that Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth “have stated their intention” to use Guard troops as a “national police force with the president as its chief.” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California praised the decision, saying Mr. Trump’s efforts were “illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

Other bad defense department decisions.

These aren't the only bad defense department decisions he's made. He's banned books at the military academies (eventually rescinding all but a few of those bans). 

He wiped all mention of women and minorities who contributed to the U.S. military on government websites (another decision he has mostly backed down from in the face of court action and bad P.R.). 

He's systemically fired or removed from command women and minorities whom he has called "DEI hires" while putting in place less qualified individuals chosen for political loyalty. 

He's baselessly fired transgender troops contrary to their civil rights and denied them their legitimate benefits for being laid off and having served with distinction.

He's purged the ranks of generals and admirals and national intelligence officials to replace them with political loyalists. Trump's major appointments in the defense and national intelligence sectors have involved woefully unqualified people who have made major public blunders.

His openly revenge oriented revocations of security clearances and security details for various officials has been disgraceful.

The mixed bag of Trump's military deployments and threats abroad.

Trump's deployment of U.S. forces have been a mixed bag at best.

Trump wasn't wrong to continue Biden's policy of militarily engaging the Iranian backed Houthi rebels in Yemen who have been using advanced anti-ship missiles from Iran to interrupt maritime commerce in acts of piracy that they claim are in support of Gaza but really have nothing to do with it. But then, he just lost interest and ended U.S. involvement.

Trump wasn't wrong to provide some extra military support to Israel's raids on Iran to thwart its nuclear capabilities, although the B-2 bomber strikes he made were less effective than might have been hoped. And, of course, this is a problem of his own making created when he pulled the U.S. out of President Obama's deal with Iran to end its nuclear weapons program.

Trump, in his first term, set up Biden for failure, and the Afghan government installed by the U.S. and its allies for collapse, by negotiating with the Taliban for a U.S. withdrawal that left the Afghan government out of the loop and left Biden holding the bag when he took office, just a month or so before the scheduled pull out date. And, in his second term, Trump has broken faith with Afghan citizens who served U.S. forces in Afghanistan at great risk to their own lives by trying to revoke the immigration protections that the Biden Administration and his own administration in his first term provided to them.

Trump has been indecisive, has wrecked our alliances, has taken absurd and counterfactual positions, and has played into Russia's hand with respect to the Ukraine War, even though with immense bipartisan political pressure from Congress and from the Defense Department, he hasn't entirely abandoned it.

Trump's utter abandonment of Africa, ending U.S. Aid in a way that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and will kill millions, planning to close all U.S. embassies there, and imposing tariffs upon it, has basically ceded the entire continent to China.

Trump has been less firm than he might have been in the Philippines-China clashes in the South China Sea caused by Chinese Coast Guard harassment of Filipino military and civilian shipping in places that international law has declared to be international waters.

Trump's response to the situation in Israel with Gaza has ranged from rudderless to absurd with his call to vacate Gaza and turn it into a Trump owned beach resort. By floating the proposal without even consulting his advisors, he has undermined U.S. credibility on the issue.

Trump's deployment of naval forces towards Venezuela seems to be an attempt to manufacture a war. His early threats to invade Greenland and Panama and Mexico, contrary to the sovereignty of a NATO member, to treaty obligations, and to international law, and to annex Canada, have likewise been toddler level moves that have undermined U.S. credibility in foreign affairs and turned us into a global menace.

The mixed bag of Trump's procurement decisions

Trump's military procurement decisions have also been a mixed bag.

The cancelation of the M10 Booker light tank (that the Army refused to call a tank) was a good move. Cancelling the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle for the Army (one of the best procurement decisions that the Army and Marine Corps have made for ages), while keeping the Army's buy of the obviously bad Infantry Squad Vehicle that ignores all of the lessons the Army learned in Iraq and Afghanistan was a very bad move.

Cancelling the Army's successor to the M113 was mostly a good move, but leaves the Army without a next generation medical transport and field hospital vehicle, even though other parts of that buy were unwise. Progress on an Osprey-like tilt wing successor to the Blackhawk helicopter in the Army is positive. Upgrading Army small arms makes sense.

The decision to boost purchases of the B-21 Raider and the F-47 Air Force fighter (to replace the F-35A) aren't horrible decisions, nor is the decision to continue the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (a.k.a. Loyal Wingman drone) program. Looking at ways to use cargo aircraft as bombers or missile launching platforms also makes sense. This administration's continued failure to recognize the need to have a close air support aircraft (shared with past administrations), however, even if the A-10 is just too old, wasn't wise. Trump's absurd attempt to play aerospace engineer and claim that the F-47 really needs twin engines, however, is more toddler level governance.

A focus on improving U.S. air defenses in a program known as the Golden Dome (playing on Israel's Iron Dome), on ramping up U.S. drone production, and on rushing to get drone defense resources fielded aren't wrong. Developing hypersonic missiles also makes sense. 

Developing new anti-ship tactical nuclear missiles, however, is a bad call and doesn't meet a real military need since existing anti-ship missiles are more than adequate to sink any ship in existence.

The decision to fund development of Elon Musk's SpaceX Rocket Cargo program which is technologically challenging, doesn't have a proven track record of quality control, and doesn't meet an urgent need, is less wise. This contract is just political payback.

It is honestly still hard to tell, more than seven months into the administration, what it's naval policy is. The Navy is appropriately looking at a major increase in unmanned ships and submarines, and at containerized anti-ship missiles for ships that wouldn't ordinarily have any missiles. Is the successor to the F-35C on or off? Is the Constellation class frigate on or off? Where is the Littoral Combat Ship program? Do we really need more old model Arleigh Burke destroyers? Does spending big bucks on maintaining a large scale amphibious attack capability really make sense?

Trump has talked big about using the U.S. military against cartels in Latin America, but the Department of Defense has apparently done nothing to prepare for this historically law enforcement and Coast Guard mission.

A Non-Constitutional Revolution

The Founders in their ignorance, made the U.S. Constitution extremely hard to amend. This post is a quick recap of some of the more transformative way our constitutional and political order could be remade without constitutional amendments.

Disposition Of U.S. Territory Outside U.S. States

* Admit the District of Columbia, which has a population of roughly 679,000, as a U.S. state (once this was done, repealing the 23rd amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gives the District of Columbia three electoral votes would be easily passed).

* Require Puerto Rico, which has a population of roughly 3.2 million, to choose between independence and becoming a U.S. state. Deprived of an option to continue its current Commonwealth status, it would choose statehood.

* Grant statehood to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has a population of approximately 104,000.

* Return the Guantanamo Naval Base to Cuba.

* Admit Guam and the Northern Mariana Island as a single new U.S. state (they are basically contiguous) with a population of approximately 221,000.

* Transfer American Samoa with a population of 44,000 to the adjacent sovereign country of Samoa, if it will accept it. Anyone dissatisfied with this could migrate to the United States and retain their citizenship.

* Collectively, this would mean that there would be 108 seats in the U.S. Senate (excluding the U.S. Vice-President's role as a tie breaker) and that there are no permanently inhabited U.S. territories that are not within U.S. states.

Congress

* Expand the U.S. House from 435 seats plus six non-voting delegates to a fixed 991 seats with no non-voting delegates. This would mean that there would be roughly 340,000 people per average seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (compared to a current average of about 790,000 people per seat), so only the Virgin Islands would have more house seats than the number it would be entitled to without a minimum of one seat per state rule, and even then, only by about a factor of three less than the average. This would also increase the size of the Electoral College to 999 electors (with the four new U.S. states), would greatly reducing the risk of a tie vote in the Electoral College (since it is an odd number), and would roughly cut in half the benefit that small states have relative to large states in the Electoral College. The number of U.S. House seats would not be changed if a state were allowed to split into more than one state or was merged with another state.

* Enact a statute requiring U.S. states with more than one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to elect those seats in a party list proportional representation system (with each party's list determined in primary elections held in advance of the election). States with 50 seats or more would be required divide themselves into two or more regions with a number of seats proportional to the region's population of at least 20 seats and not more than 50 seats each. Currently, those states would be California (98 seats) with 2 to 4 regions, Texas (90 seats) with 2 to 4 regions, Florida (67 seats) with 2 to 3 regions, and New York (57 seats) with 2 regions. Smaller population states would be "at large". This would end gerrymandering of all kinds and would make the federal government a multi-party democracy. Doing this for Congressional delegations on a state by state level rather than nationally, would eliminate the need for a constitutional amendment, would de facto create a minimum threshold that would be much higher than it would be in a national proportional representation election, and would keep the states in charge of election administration.

* Enact a statute requiring candidates for U.S. House in states with just one representative (probably only the Virgin Islands and Guam), and for U.S. Senate, to win a majority of the vote to be elected in a general election and to hold a runoff election of the two two candidates if no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round. This would largely end spoiler effects as the shift in the House to what would become a multi-party system would increase the likelihood non-majority first round results.

* End the filibuster and Senatorial holds in the U.S. Senate.

Presidential Elections and Disability

* Require states to allocate their electoral votes proportionately to each candidate's popular vote, rather than by a winner take all method for a whole state, or by Congressional district.

* Pass a law implementing Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution (concerning Presidential disability), to create a Presidential disability commission in connection with the language giving "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers or the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may be law provide" the authority to determine that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and to keep that determination in force pending a Congressional determination of the question if the President disputes it. This commission might be made up the active judges, collectively, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and would have subpoena power in connection with carrying out its duties in this capacity, and would act on the Petition of the Vice President delivered under seal to the clerk of that court.

Qualifications For Public Office

* Enact a law implementing the insurgency disqualification from office in the 14th Amendment (or on any other ground) allowing any court or tribunal with jurisdiction over election administration to determine this by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil action, and allowing states courts and U.S. District Courts from a state where the official was elected to determine this after an election or appointment. For the President and Vice President, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would have exclusive jurisdiction after they were elected (and even before they were sworn in). For federal appointed officials, the U.S. District Court with jurisdiction over the place where the official's primary office address is located would have exclusive jurisdiction. For state and local appointed officials, the state courts of general jurisdiction and U.S. District Courts with jurisdiction over the place where the official's primary office address is located would have exclusive jurisdiction.

Election Administration 

* Restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act expanding the protections historically applied only in places with a history of discrimination to the entire country.

* Create a right to have a state ID issued free of charge at some government office within their county at least every five years, with replacement costs limited to the actual direct cost of preparing a new ID between times. Automatically register anyone who is a citizens with a state ID or driver's license to vote. 

* Allow citizenship for voting purpose to be proven by means including any record of a previous voter registration, a passport, an expired passport, a birth certificate, a naturalization document, a tribal membership, a Social Security number, a marriage certificate to a U.S. citizen, or an affidavit establishing facts necessary to prove U.S. citizenship.

* Establish a right to an absentee ballot without proof of need for any registered voter, if a mail-in ballot is not otherwise made available to them.

* Encourage states to reduce the voting age in federal elections to sixteen years old.

* Classify people who are incarcerated as residents of their domicile immediately prior to their incarceration for purposes of state and local redistricting and for census purposes.

* Allow U.S. citizens who have no previous domicile in any U.S. state as residents of the U.S. state of their choice for purposes of federal elections.

* Prohibit election administration by elected officials (partisan or not), and also by partisan political appointees for whom one party controls the highest governing body of the election administration agency.

Courts

* Pack the court. Add another seven justices to the U.S. Supreme Court to end the distortions arising from having a 6-3 ultraconservative and hyper-conservative majority there. This should be done before any of the rest of this agenda is enacted.

* Establish criminal penalties that include disqualification from office for ethics violations by U.S. Supreme Court judges and other judges, with special venue provisions.

* Repeal the general federal diversity jurisdiction statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As a result, federal court diversity jurisdiction would be allowed only in very specialized cases like class actions and cases where the parties claim ownership of land under the laws of two different states.

* Repeal the general federal question statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This would end federal court jurisdiction over most lawsuits arising under federal law between private parties outside some very specific circumstances such as civil rights, election laws, intellectual property, and bankruptcy cases. The biggest impact of this would be to limit employment discrimination lawsuits to state court.

* Abolish the federal Article I immigration courts and give the U.S. District Courts exclusive jurisdiction over all immigration cases.

* Create a specialized national U.S. District Court for Indian Country which would have jurisdictions from multiple venues in cases where the U.S. District Courts currently have jurisdiction (i.e. felonies committed in Indian territory) and over other civil matters of Indian law, from which appeals would be taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

* Statutorily end qualified immunity to lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

* End a law parallel to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of civil rights under color of federal law, thus codifying and expanding the scope of Bivens actions.

* Establish vicarious liability for the employers of government officials or contractors held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or its new federal counterpart.

* Enact a federal law entitling someone to relief in the form of compensatory money damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief from governmental entities that deprive someone of a constitutional or federal statutory right, even in the absence of fault or an intent to do so, including any deprivation of liberty arising from pre-conviction or post-conviction incarceration from someone who was wrongfully convicted, either due to procedural violations giving rise to the conviction or due to their innocence of the charges giving rise to their conviction.

* Enact a law creating a private right of action to seek injunctive relief enforcing the Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits the use of the federal military to enforce laws domestically) in the appropriate U.S. District Court, to any person impacted by it or to any governmental entity within whose territory military personnel are used for this purpose, with expedited proceedings.

* Prohibit the activation and deployment of national guard troops in a state without the permission of its Governor, absent a notice to the Governor that troops will be deployed at least twenty-four hours in advance and a showing that law and order have collapsed to a point where civilian efforts are insufficient, or that an insurgency is in progress, or that the state is defying federal court orders. If a Governor contests this within twenty-four hours in the relevant U.S. District Court, this activation and deployment shall be stayed until an expedited hearing on the merits can be held to determine if the President has the authority to do so.

* Give U.S. District Court judges broad statutory authority to impose national injunctions against the U.S. federal government.

* Establish a judicial process required to claim the state secrets doctrine in an adversarial proceeding with a specially qualified bar of people having national security clearance at the time of their admission.

* Require an adversarial proceeding affording a personal with national security clearance with due process to revoke a national security clearance for more than five weeks (if this is not done, the temporary revocation would automatically expire).

* A U.S. District Court should be granted the authority to place any federal government agency whose senior officer has defied a court order to place that agency under court receivership, and to remove that government official from office, until a replacement who acknowledges the authority of the court and personally commits to obey that court order can be appointed. 

* Prohibit "bounty" laws that allow someone who would otherwise have no standing to bring a civil action to sue someone for a fine that enforces a state law (which are designed to circumvent judicial review of such laws).

Immigration Laws

* Immediately and automatically grant U.S. citizenship to all legal permanent residents of the U.S. (i.e. green card holders) and to all U.S. nationals who are not U.S. citizens. Allow anyone qualified to get a green card now to immediately get U.S. citizenship.

* Immediately and automatically grant U.S. citizenship to the spouse of any U.S. citizen.

* Grant automatic U.S. citizenship to any member of any recognized Native American tribe, regardless of place of birth, in accordance with the membership rules of the tribe.

* Grant citizenship at birth to a child anyone who is a U.S. citizen, or is serving in the U.S. military at the time of conception or birth. Proof of paternity may be established from the DNA records of the U.S. military kept for people serving in the U.S. military for post-humous identification purposes without the consent of the service member alleged to be a parent (or from a comparison to the DNA of all U.S. service members if the identity of the service member is not known).

* Establish a ten year statute of limitations from first entry into the U.S. (even if interrupted by period abroad of less than one year at a time) on deportations, and allow anyone for whom the statute of limitations has passed to apply for U.S. citizenship on that basis without any civics and English language test.

* Make a passport available free of charge a first time and every time it expires to every U.S. citizen.

* Eliminate authority to denaturalize someone for fraud in the immigration process for any reason, and replace that with criminal penalties for doing so that do not deprive someone of their U.S. citizenship.

* Allow a visa to be revoked after clearing an immigration checkpoint upon entry to the U.S. only with a civil action filed by the United States government in a U.S. District Court at which a valid legal basis to do so, that is not unduly vague and does not violate constitutional rights such as the right to free speech, is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

* Allow someone with a valid visa who is denied entry to the U.S. at an immigration checkpoint to obtain an award of money damages and injunctive relief if the denial of entry is without probable cause to do so, and to obtain injunctive relief reinstating the visa with no right of immigration officials to deny entry if entry is denied with probable cause but the articulated probable cause concern is later overcome. A person with a valid visa who is denied entry could elect to litigate the matter either from a temporary detention center near the place of entry, or from a U.S. embassy in another country such as the country from which they arrived.

* Prohibit deportation of someone, even when valid grounds exist to deport them, to a country where the person is not a national without their consent.

* Establish by statute (regardless of any constitutionally permissible alternatives) that probable cause that someone is deportable is requires to detain someone for immigration violations and that no one may be deported for any reason without notice and a hearing in an Article III court.

* State and local elected officials with immigration detention facilities located in their government's territory, and members of Congress from any state, shall have the right to enter and inspect an immigration detention facility and record by any meaning the people there, what the detainees have to say, and the conditions of the facility, and to demand responses from any person employed there to their questions about the facility, the authority for operating the facility, and the status of the people in the facility.

* The location and status of everyone detained for immigration purposes shall be available to the public.

* Immigration officials and any other private or public person working with them or on their behalf on on their authority shall have a duty to immediately release anyone detained for immigration purposes who presents to them proof that they are U.S. citizens or have a valid visa that has not been revoked by a court. 

Health Care

* Expand Medicare to everyone (without requiring any proof of eligibility), financing it with an increased Medicare payroll tax rate and an Obamacare tax on investment income at the same rate as for self-employed persons. Failure to make a required copayment would not be a basis for denying care but would give rise to an unsecured debt that could be discharged in bankruptcy. Convert VA Hospitals to non-profit independent hospitals financed with Medicare. Repeal Medicaid. End private for profit insurance Medicare providers. Reduce all employee health benefits to Medicare supplemental plans. Require Medicare supplemental plan providers to use standardized claim forms with providers and insureds to simplify provider paperwork.

* End lawsuits seeking to recover the costs of medical care paid for by Medicare brought by any party but the Medicare subrogation division in each state, which could bring subrogation lawsuits in state court to recover medical costs caused by tortious conduct when it determined that it was cost effective to do so.

* Expand Medicare to include long term nursing home care with a deductible not to exceed the median rent in the metropolitan area (or outside of metropolitan areas, in the rural area of that state), which can be paid with a federally guaranteed loan at the one year U.S. Treasury bond interest rate with no payments due until death, secured by a junior mortgage on the patient's personal residence, if any, if the patient is unable to pay.

Labor Laws

* Increase the federal minimum wage to $16 per hour ($32,000 per year for a full-time employee which is roughly the federal poverty line outside Alaska and Hawaii), index it to the consumer price index, and extend it to independent contractors who are providing personal services.

* The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth, the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement,  to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition (a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job), any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” or twenty-six work weeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the service member’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave). Extend FMLA coverage to include being seven months pregnant or more. Expend the duration to up to eight months in a two year period. Create a federal grant equivalent to full-time minimum wage to anyone taking time off under the FMLA.

* Mandate a prorated 80 hours per year of paid time off for employees working 2,000 hours per year (i.e. 1 hour per 25 hours worked).

Controlled Substances

* End the status of marijuana as a federally controlled substance.

Reproductive Rights

* Statutorily clarify that states may not prohibit someone from prescribing and mailing abortion or contraception drugs across state lines or from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion drug or contraception drug obtained from out of state.

* Clarify that federal government health care facilities (e.g. prison medical centers, military hospitals, historically veteran's hospitals) can provide abortions and other reproductive health care notwithstanding state or local law.

* Clarify that the Emergency Medical Treatment Act requires states to allow abortions as part of a medical emergency, pre-empting state law. 

Midweek Rants And Observations

* It was 101º F today in Denver. Fortunately, we have a brand new swamp cooler, so this is survivable. I'm honestly a little surprised that our power stayed on. We've had two power outs for more than an hour each on hot afternoons in the last few weeks.

* My office suite is having a potluck next week. There was a sign up sheet for names and what you are bringing. A majority of people who signed up said they were bringing "TBD". Suck it up my office neighbors. Commit to something.

* Why does it take the City of Denver weeks for a deed that is recorded and digitally processed by the Clerk & Recorder's office weeks to be reflected in the Assessor's Office records?

* A recent new report stated:

Church stands by call to execute gay people: “I will not apologize for preaching the Word of God.”: A men's night sermon said gay people should "blow yourself in the back of the head."

Just what I would expect a Baptist church in Indiana to say. The most vile people in America are Christians.

"Not all Christians are this bad" you say? Then why aren't they picketing outside the steps of this church for heresy and blasphemy? It isn't my place to do that. Not my monkeys, not my circus. But it is hard to take any Christians seriously when this isn't the instant and vigorous response of Christians who say they're wrong.

* There is a tornado warning in Washington D.C. right now. WTF?

* There are too many crazy people in this country, and not just in the White House.

A group that calls itself an anti-government militia told News 9 it’s “absolutely” targeting Oklahoma weather radars, claiming they control the weather. The warning comes just days after a vandal knocked out News 9’s live radar.

* I don't doubt for a minute that the allegations of this complaint, which was later dismissed (not on the merits), were true:

* The people who leave anti-immigration comments on social media posts and news story (and there are lots of them) are among the most vile people you'll see on the Internet. These people would have been pro-Holocaust, pro-segregation, pro-slavery, and pro-witch burning.

It is a reminder that the evil that is Donald Trump runs deep. There are there millions, if not tens of millions of these monsters in the United States.

Stupid hurts people. But this level of vile goes far beyond that. They are as bad as the most culpable violent criminals in our prisons. Where do these people come from? What can we do about them?

* It just doesn't stop.

* Anti-aging, life extension drugs are a real possibility, if not in my lifetime, in the lives of my children.

A simple monthly injection allows mice to live 25% longer and free from diseases: The strategy — the injection of a simple antibody — has already begun to be tested in humans in an attempt to cure age-related illnesses.

* The Texas floods have are already the fourth most deadly floods in Texas history. There are still 161 people missing, so they could easily rise to #2, and floods in San Antonio are ongoing.

 

Most of these deaths were preventable. The part of Texas hit has consistently had the highest concentration of flood deaths in the United States since the 1930s. State and local officials rejected a proposal in 2017, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, to install flood detection devices and warning sirens but weren't willing to spend the money to do so. Trump's cuts to NOAA and the National Weather Service impaired the warning that people at risk in the flood received. Trump gutted FEMA which only started to take action to help 72 hours after the floods when it was already too late (the U.S. Coast Guard, in fairness, stepped in anyway and saved about 165 lives at the insistence of a brave rookie over the indifference and waffling of his supervisors). The Texas Governor and its top emergency response official have urged Trump to cut or eliminate FEMA.

* Gun homicides are down, but gun suicides have reached a record high.

The CDC reports 27,300 gun suicides in 2023, constituting 58% of all gun deaths, a record high. Wyoming led the nation with about 19.9 gun suicide deaths per 100,000 residents — nearly 10 times the rate of Massachusetts, which had the lowest at about 2.1 per 100,000.

Gun homicides fell for the second year in a row, dropping from 20,958 in 2021 to 19,651 in 2022 and 17,927 in 2023. Despite the decline, the 2023 total ranks as the fifth highest on record for gun homicides.

Bivens Narrowed Again

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority isn't troubled at all by denying remedies to violations of the U.S. Constitution.

Bivens is a U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed suits for money damages against federal officials who violated selected constitutional rights, something Congress has failed to do by statute.

The order list [from today] include a unanimous per curiam opinion in Goldey v. Fields, No. 24–809 (S. Ct. June 30, 2024) (also available here), which involves an effort by a federal prisoner to sue federal prison officials for an Eighth Amendment violation alleging use of excessive force. The Court rules a Bivens suit is not available in a three-page opinion that concludes this way:

This case arises in a new context, and “special factors” counsel against recognizing an implied Bivens cause of action for Eighth Amendment excessive-force violations. To begin with, Congress has actively legislated in the area of prisoner litigation but has not enacted a statutory cause of action for money damages. See Ziglar, 582 U. S., at 148– 149. In addition, extending Bivens to allow an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials and the “inordinately difficult undertaking” of running a prison. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84–85 (1987). Moreover, “an alternative remedial structure” already exists for aggrieved federal prisoners. Ziglar, 582 U.S., at 137; see Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 74 (2001). The existence of such alternative remedial procedures counsels against allowing Bivens suits even if such “procedures are ‘not as effective as an individual damages remedy.’” Egbert, 596 U.S., at 498.

For the past 45 years, this Court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts. See Egbert, 596 U.S., at 490–491. We do the same here.

Congress should extend 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to provide the same relief to violations of rights under the U.S. Constitution or federal law to violations committed under color of federal law. 

The claim that this would make it inordinately difficult to run federal prisons is at odds with the fact that an identical legal rule applies to all state and local prisons and jails, which house the lion's share of federal inmates (and a much larger share of violent criminals).

States That Should Merge

This map of proposed state mergers, which is largely self-explanatory, is pie in the sky, "king for a day" stuff. It isn't politically viable as under the current U.S. Constitution, merging states lose power in the Senate and electoral college which they would almost surely not consent to losing. 

But the suggested state mergers would largely end the imbalances in the current U.S. political system against urban blue states, in a pretty mild way that could make most of the U.S. functional. They also would merge states with similar cultures and political leanings. And, none of the combined states would have excessively large populations even post-merger (Texas and Oklahoma would be big but the two states have so much in common and the combined state would still be smaller than California in population.)

Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico would also be necessary for a just balance and representation of the people. The one majority black state-like jurisdiction, and the one Spanish speaking state-like jurisdiction, should not be denied representation in Congress and in the case of Puerto Rico, a say in Presidential elections. Even the GOP gives Puerto Rico a say in nominating its Presidential candidate.

The current U.S. Senate balance is 53R to 47D. This would remove twelve GOP leaning seats and the new states might add 2-4 Democratic seats and 0-2 GOP seats, resulting in 41-43 GOP seats and 49-51 Democratic seats. It would also reduce the number of U.S. states to 46 (adding two and removing six).

This exercise also illustrates how much overall results under our constitution depend upon what amount to gerrymandered state lines created historically, mostly in the 19th century.

Statutes Of Limitations By State For Ordinary Car Accidents

The U.S. has considerable variation in the statute of limitations that applies to lawsuits arising from ordinary car accidents involving competent adults and no government officials or claims against the government.

Two states (ME and ND) allow you to wait six years. One state gives you five years (MO). Four states (UT, WY, NE, and OH) allow four years.

Two states (TN and LA) limit you to one year. 

The other 41 states and the District of Columbia have statutes of limitations that are two or three years. (Incidentally, while Colorado allows three years for car accidents, it allows only two years for most all other personal injury lawsuits.)

There isn't a clear partisan pattern to the state by state differences. I'm interested in finding research, if there is any, on what practical impact the different rules have on tort liability for car accidents. 

WARNING: THIS POST IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU NEED TO KNOW, TALK TO A LAWYER RETAINED TO ANALYZE YOUR INDIVIDUAL CASE.

This particular statute of limitations is a decent bellwether, because it is the single most common type of tort lawsuit, and because the date upon which it begins to run is usually very clear.

According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, around 60% of tort lawsuits are related to car accidents.

What other data on tort lawsuits is available from the same study (using 1991-1992 data)?

* The majority of cases disposed were auto torts (complaints charging damage caused by a motor vehicle). 

* Complex cases involving medical malpractice, product liability or toxic substance together made up about 10% of all tort cases. 

* About three-quarters of the cases were disposed through an agreed settlement or voluntary dismissal; 3% by a trial verdict. 

* Twenty-eight percent of the approximately 378,000 tort cases were uncontested, (the defendant did not file an answer to the complaint). 

* Half the tort cases were disposed within 14 months. 

* Auto tort cases were settled in a shorter period than all other cases. 

* Tort cases involved primarily individuals suing other individuals. 

* Half of the all tort cases involved three or more litigants. 

During a 1-year period ending in 1992, State courts of general jurisdiction in the Nation's 75 largest counties disposed of an estimated 378,000 tort cases involving 1.4 million plaintiffs and defendants. Individuals suing businesses accounted for a third of all cases. The average time courts took to dispose of a tort case was just over 11/2 years. Trial verdicts accounted for 3% of all tort cases disposed. 

These are some of the results from a study of tort cases in State courts. The basis is a representative sample of the 75 courts where nearly half of all tort cases nationwide are handled, making this the closest that exists to a tort study national in scope. 

These survey data establish a benchmark against which future tort reforms can be evaluated. Moreover, survey results provide a baseline that individual courts can use for comparison. 

The sample 

The estimated 378,000 tort cases were disposed from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, in State general jurisdiction courts. A representative sample of 18,000 tort cases was drawn from court files in 45 of the Nation's 75 largest counties. The 45 are located in 21 States. The sample excluded Federal courts, which account for about 4% of all tort cases, and State courts outside the 75 largest counties. (Federal tort case jurisdiction is limited to claims that involve more than $50,000 in damages and in which plaintiffs and defendants are from different States. About a third of tort cases disposed in Federal court in 1992 involved product liability.) Also excluded were tort cases disposed in States' limited jurisdiction court. (Limited jurisdiction courts have jurisdiction over cases where the amount at stake is below a certain threshold (typically $500 to $25,000.) 

Types of tort cases 

In tort cases, plaintiffs allege injury, loss, or damage from negligent or intentional acts of the defendants. Types of cases vary. Over the 1-year period, the two most frequent kinds disposed were from automobile accidents (60%) and premises liability cases alleging harm from inadequately maintained or dangerous property (17%). Other types of cases included those that are a primary focus of current tort reform activity: product liability (3%), toxic substance (2%), and medical malpractice cases (5%). In 92% of tort cases, the plaintiff cited personal injury as the type of harm involved. Property damage was cited in 5%, and financial loss or injury to reputation was claimed in the remaining 3%. 

The majority of tort cases involving personal injury (64%) or property damage (60%) were auto torts. 

Types of tort case dispositions 

The most common method of tort case disposition was an agreed settlement (73%) About 10% of the cases were dismissed for a lack of prosecution or failure to serve a complaint on the defendant. In the vast majority of tort cases, litigants settled the complaint without going to trial. Therefore, details of tort settlements are unknown. Little systematic data are available regarding why cases are settled or the cost of settlement for either party. 

A jury (2%) or bench (1%) trial verdict disposed relatively few cases. Medical malpractice claims (7%) were more likely than product or premises liability, auto, or toxic substance cases to be disposed by a jury or bench trial.  

Uncontested tort cases 

Most tort litigants had an attorney represent them; 3% of the involved a pro se litigant who represented himself or herself. In 28% of tort cases, the defendant failed to file an answer to the complaint. Failure to answer in a timely manner (usually within 30 to 45 days) gives the plaintiff the right to file a motion for a default judgment. Such uncontested tort cases comprised 81% of all cases disposed by default judgments. Most uncontested cases were disposed by agreed settlement (65%) or dismissed for lack of prosecution or failure to serve the complaint on the defendant (23%).