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
155 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 3h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Trump Bought Over $1M in Dell Stock Before Pentagon Signed $9.7B Contract with Company

Thumbnail people.com
10.2k Upvotes

r/law 5h ago

Judicial Branch The Trump admin paid a French company $1 billion to not build offshore wind farms. Blue states are suing

Thumbnail
cnn.com
3.2k Upvotes

r/law 6h ago

Legal News Trump still protected from tax enforcement, but anti-weaponization fund is dead, Blanche says

Thumbnail
cnbc.com
2.5k Upvotes

r/law 7h ago

Judicial Branch Todd Blanche says DOJ 'not moving forward' with Trump's anti-weaponization fund: ‘Period’

Thumbnail
thehill.com
2.4k Upvotes

r/law 12h ago

Other Distraught family sues to prevent hospital from declaring girl, 2, brain dead after she was found at bottom of hotel swimming pool

Thumbnail
dailymail.com
4.1k Upvotes

r/law 3h ago

Judicial Branch Supreme Court allows Alabama to use congressional map that eliminates a majority-Black district

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
582 Upvotes

r/law 14h ago

Other Judge allows group to fly '86 47' flag in DC, rejecting claim it is a threat to Trump

Thumbnail
abcnews.com
3.6k Upvotes

r/law 2h ago

Judicial Branch Supreme Court allows Alabama to use congressional map favoring Republicans in this year's elections

Thumbnail
apnews.com
434 Upvotes

r/law 13h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) 10,000 Federal Lawyers Are Gone And Trump's Response Basically Confirms Why They Left

Thumbnail
abovethelaw.com
2.5k Upvotes

r/law 12h ago

Legal News Senate Confirms Trump Judge Pick Rated Unqualified by ABA

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
1.4k Upvotes

r/law 7h ago

Legislative Branch WATCH: Sen. Murphy says lawmakers should be 'freaked out' over Mullin's comments on DHS and court orders

575 Upvotes

r/law 7h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) WATCH: Trump administration 'not moving forward' with anti-weaponization fund, Blanche testifies

543 Upvotes

From The Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Tuesday that the Trump administration was scrapping plans to create a $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate allies of the Republican president after widespread political backlash and setbacks in the courts.

"We are not moving forward with the fund, period," Blanche said in response to questions at a House hearing on the Justice Department budget.

"'Not moving forward,' ever?" asked Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.

The blunt declaration marked an extraordinary turnabout for a Trump Justice Department that just two weeks ago had pronounced the fund as essential to make up for what officials insist was weaponized law enforcement during President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. Since then, though, the idea has faced mounting pressure from Republicans who demanded reassurances that plans for the fund were off the table before they would move forward with legislation funding President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement agencies.

Blanche said the Justice Department was not abandoning an element of a settlement with the IRS that gave Trump and his family immunity from tax audits.

Read more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-blanche-testifies-in-house-hearing-as-trump-considers-dropping-anti-weaponization-fund


r/law 15h ago

Legal News Free speech settlements top $1.5M in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death

Thumbnail
usatoday.com
2.4k Upvotes

r/law 25m ago

Legal News Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin refuses to commit to following court orders

Thumbnail
yahoo.com
Upvotes

r/law 8h ago

Other White House lack of transparency in Michael Flynn investigation blasted

Thumbnail cbc.ca
329 Upvotes

r/law 7h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Blanche says Trump administration is scrapping $1.8B fund meant to compensate president's allies

Thumbnail
apnews.com
224 Upvotes

r/law 12h ago

Other Bernie Sanders pushes for 50% public ownership of American AI companies — proposes AI sovereign wealth fund that would hold direct ownership stakes in largest AI firms | Tom's Hardware

Thumbnail
tomshardware.com
393 Upvotes

What's stopping this from happening legally?


r/law 15h ago

Legal News NY Dems Move to Pass Constitutional Amendment to Redraw Congressional Maps

Thumbnail
news.bgov.com
567 Upvotes

r/law 1h ago

Executive Branch (Trump) Blanche Says Trump Admin Isn't Moving Forward With Anti-Weaponization Fund

Thumbnail
huffpost.com
Upvotes

r/law 3h ago

Legislative Branch What Congress Should Do About the President’s Sweetheart Deal in Trump v. IRS

Thumbnail
justsecurity.org
52 Upvotes

Fully unwinding the settlement and holding its architects accountable requires congressional action with at least three core components.


r/law 8h ago

Legislative Branch Democrat, Republican lawmakers team up against US-Israel military tech synergy

Thumbnail
timesofisrael.com
139 Upvotes

On-topic article covering the House version of the 2027 NDAA.


r/law 9h ago

Legal News N.J. targets prison company running immigration detention center in lawsuits over conditions

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
111 Upvotes

r/law 11h ago

Legal News A New Orleans attorney was punished for exposing a clergy abuser. Here’s what officials hid for years.

Thumbnail
theguardian.com
157 Upvotes