Cristian Farias

@cristianfarias.com

20053 Followers 640 Following

Legal journalist and beachgoer. I write and talk about courts, the law, and the politics shaping them in a number of places. Working on a new thing. Signal: cristianfarias.33

Text of footnote: There is an error in the Supreme Court's analysis in Loper Bright. Much of the Court's reasoning (and a part of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence) is devoted to criticizing the Chevron opinion for ignoring section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. See, e.g., 603 U.S. at 397-400, 411-12; id. at 428 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). The Court's critique is unfounded. It is unfounded because section 706 of the APA did not apply to judicial review of the EPA rule at issue in Chevron. Section 706 did not apply because Chevron was not an APA review case. The Clean Air Act superseded the APA: "The provisions of section 553 through 557 and section 706 of Title 5 [the APA] shall not, except as expressly provided in this subsection, apply to actions to which this subsection applies." 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(1). The problem the Court identified in Loper Bright was not with Chevron itself, but with courts, including the Supreme Court, indiscriminately adopting the Chevron formula in later cases in which section 706 of the APA did apply.
A modified bench press: Just like a regular bench press, except with the feet up in the air at about 160 degrees instead of planted on the floor. (Belted khaki shorts optional.)
Screenshot from ruling, which reads in part: Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation. That is so even when the regulations are passed with the intention of reducing gun violence.
Cristian shooting a vertical video in downtown Manhattan. He’s wearing 5-inch shorts.
Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein share an embrace at the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
A Gmail home screen icon with 150,000 unread emails.
An angry Lindsey Graham during the Senate confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh.
Cristian at the beach. He’s holding a towel and wearing a blue baseball cap, a navy tank top, light 5-inch shorts, white socks, and suede Birkenstock clogs.
Two book jackets side by side: The Second Founding, by Eric Foner; and The Second Founding, by Ilan Wurman.
Screenshot from New York Magazine article, which reads: And yet, in a broader sense, the prospect of a president politicizing crises and agency decision-making is not at all academic. The future of the CFPB matters because expertise and policy solutions without political interference have always mattered. As if to inject an added dose of reality to the proceedings, Clement during his argument raised the specter of a president intent on politicizing a public-health emergency, and the dire consequences that would flow from that. “In the current situation, you see people are trying to make a political football out of dealing with a pandemic disease,” Clement said in a not-so-veiled reference to the government’s fumbled response to the coronavirus. “So maybe Congress decides: You know what makes sense? Let’s have the head of CDC be protected by for-cause removal because that’ll make sure people get good advice and it doesn’t become political.” Such legal protections simply don’t exist at the moment, which means Trump could handily, and constitutionally, act on the recent calls to #FireFauci that have emerged on the right. Similarly, at least one health expert who was removed from his post after resisting Trump’s unproven pharmaceutical fixations has already raised alarms. Doctors like him deserve protections too. Kavanaugh and other conservative legal activists may think congressional limits on the president’s removal authority, even in the realm of public health, are bad for the presidency overall. But what’s bad for the presidency may be precisely what the nation needs right now.
Cristian holding a 135lb barbell in between his legs splayed wide. He’s making a face.
An entry featuring images of pregnant Katie Miller, Usha Vance, and Karoline Leavitt, with the subheadline and text: Pregnant Women in the Trump Sphere It's a potent image for an administration that has made clear its position that women should be having more children. These three women - Usha Vance, Katie Miller and Karoline Leavitt — create a portrait of idealized femininity, the counterpart to the masculine bravado put forth by the men of White House.
A Substack post by Jack Goldsmith, titled: The Powerful, Resilient, Independent Supreme Court The vindication of its authority is remarkable
A SCOTUSblog case screenshot, which reads: Roybal v. Griffith PENDING PETITION DOCKET NO. 25-442 OP. BELOW 10th Cir. Issue (1) Whether a transgender inmate's challenge to sex-based prison policies is subject to heightened scrutiny under United States v. Virginia, or subject to the deferential standard of "reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests" under Turner v. Safley; and (2) whether a rule prohibiting cross-identified-gender strip searches in prisons is contrary to the flexible and deferential rule adopted in Bell v. Wolfish and reaffirmed in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington.
Screenshot of court opinion, which reads, in part: Haitians are “eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].” 2 App. 802; see id., at 644. And: Haitians are also eating “other things too that they’re not supposed to be.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitians in the United States “probably have AIDS.” Id., at 698. And: Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.” Id., at 698. And: Haitians, along with some others, are “poisoning the blood” of our country. Id., at 698. And: “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?” Id., at 699. The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not “overtly racial,” ante, at 21, but it is hard to know what that means. Haitians are Black. (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.) The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community. No very “sensitive inquiry,” of the kind Arlington Heights compels, is needed to see them for what they are, 429 U. S., at 266; judges, as we often say, are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,” Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 785. The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.
Cristian in beachwear taking a mirror selfie in a hotel room, leaning against a bed.
A handmade coaster with a kid drawing of a dad and his kid with the inscription. “I ❤️ dad.” The dad looks tan and looks just like Cristian, except for the stick arms and legs, and is wearing a blue shirt with green shorts. The kid has long hair is wearing a pink dress. The kid says, “I ❤️ you,” to which the dad responds, “Thank you!”
A screenshot showing Cristian sitting behinda desk with a bookshelf behind him. He’s wearing a light blue blazer, a lighter blue shirt, and a white pocket square with a purple trim. The words “Cristian Farias, legal journalist” appear on screen.
A TikTok QR code for Cristian, who can be found @cristian..farias
Screenshot of dissenting opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, which reads: My views about the proper use of legislative history in statutory interpretation fall someplace in between the majority's and the principal dissent's. The one-sentence version is: Reliance on legislative history may be appropriate when statutory text in context remains, after careful re-view, stubbornly ambiguous. I do not find Section 47(b) to exhibit such a lack of clarity. For the reasons JUSTICE JACKSON gives in Parts I and II of her dissenting opinion, the text, structure, and statutory history of Section 47(b) support recognition of a private right of action. I therefore gladly join those parts of JUSTICE JACKSON's dissent, while abstaining from the opinions' further debate about the meaning of the House and Senate Reports.
A Mexican breakfast in León, Guanajuato.
Cristian stands on a bike path, surrounded by greenery and some electric power lines, and points to a turtle on the path. He’s in bike gear with a bike behind him.
An AI-created illustration of all nine Supreme Court justices in colorful, sequined dresses and party wear, smiling and surrounded by farm animals. A barn and a U.S. flag is seen in the background.
An excerpt from an article in NYMag: The falsehood at the center of Callais has little to do with law. It's instead a narrative device — the familiar redemption story a historically anti-Black Supreme Court has told for generations: that the Reconstruction amendments, chief among them the 14th Amendment, are colorblind and don't tolerate any actions to remedy the effects of centuries of Black subjugation. This narrative arc, many thought, culminated in 2023 with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended the use of affirmative action in higher education. Yet that ruling rears its head early on in Callais to advance the idea that consciously remedying a history of racism is itself racist and that judges are empowered to police when the remedies go too far for their liking.
Excerpt from Supreme Court order, which reads, in part: In Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U. S. ___ (2026), to resolve the tension between vote-dilution claims under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and our colorblind Constitution, we updated the standards for §2 liability established by Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986).
Bill Pulte
An edited video in which Cristian demonstrates various mobility, flexibility, and inversion drills, all tied together in a yoga-like flow consisting of upward and downward facing dog, hip and posterior chain stretches, culminating with a headstand exploring various lower-body variations. Original video was about three minutes long.
A parking sign that reads: “Customer With Child Parking,” which includes a picture of a shopping cart with a toddler sitting on it.
A push notification with an image of a bodybuilder’s torso and well defined buttocks in black briefs, with the following text: The Wall Street Journal Is the Secret to Men's Longevity a Great Butt? Famous and powerful men have discovered that the key to a long, healthy life may be rock-solid glutes. now
Excerpt from ruling: In the 250th year of our great nation, will we cease to engage with the rest of the world as the United States and instead be viewed as some form of confederation of independent states?
Excerpt from brief Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent: In capital cases, we rarely intervene to preserve life. I cannot understand the Court's rush to extinguish it, much less in the circumstances of this case. With respect, I dissent.
Still images of Dolph Lundgren in 'Masters of the Universe' (1987) and Nicholas Galitzine in 'Masters of the Universe' (2026).
Abstract of William Baude paper on SSRN: The Interim Docket 94 University of Chicago Law Review (forthcoming 2027) 17 Pages Posted: 10 May 2026 William Baude University of Chicago - Law School Date Written: May 09, 2026 Abstract This article addresses the transformation of the Supreme Court's shadow docket - both in name and in substance. The Supreme Court's non-merits orders have gone from being a subject of general obscurity to a highly salient one, coupled with a rise in the number of decisions (and applications) about whether to grant a time-sensitive stay or injunction. And the Court's handling of these cases has raised many questions about both the law and the principles of discretion that should govern them. I first briefly explain the nomenclature controversy and explain why I believe "interim docket" is the best term to use now. I then describe two features that once | governed such interim relief and may be at risk of being forgotten. One is the legal principle that interim relief is supposed to be ancillary to the Court's ultimate jurisdiction over the merits. The other is the principle that the Court does not engage in routine error correction.
A television screen showing the game Bubble Bobble, which consists of two little dragons who must clear stages by trapping their enemies in bubbles and popping them.
Cristian gets into a deep squat and stays there for more than a minute while holding a 135 lb barbell, which he then moves slightly in different directions before getting it back up.
Governor Jeff Landry of Louisiana on X said, in part: The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Excerpt of Frederick Douglass speech: O for a Supreme Court of the United States which shall be as true to the claims of humanity as the Supreme Court formerly was to the demands of slavery! When that day comes, as come it will, a Civil Rights Bill will not be declared unconstitutional and void, in utter and flagrant disregard of the objects and intentions of the National legislature by which it was enacted, and of the rights plainly secured by the Constitution. This decision of the Supreme Court admits that the Fourteenth Amendment is a prohibition on the States. It admits that a State shall not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, but commits the seeming absurdity of allowing the people of a State to do what it prohibits the State itself from doing.
A screenshot of a dissenting opinion, which reads, in part: "It is time to realize that manipulating doctrines and drawing improper distinctions under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as under Congress' remedial legislation enforcing those Amendments, make this Court an accessory to the perpetuation of racial discrimination."
A young Black Baltimorean holds a black-and-white U.S. flag overhead
A bag of dark russet Cape Cod potato chips plus some displayed in a bowl.
Excerpt of oral argument transcript in TPS case, which reads, in part: The true reason for the termination of the -- for the termination is the President's racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians, in particular. The President has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically as undesirables from a "shithole country.
Tweet from Edward-Isaac Dovere: Attending the state dinner tonight for King Charles III: Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett (and their spouses). Not attending: Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Kagan or Jackson.
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute collusive suit A collusive suit (also referred to as a friendly suit) is a lawsuit where the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating to steer the court towards some agreed-upon conclusion. As seen in United States v. Johnson, collusive suits are not allowed in federal court because they are not adversarial.
A selfie from an empty beach.
A New York Times podcast headline, which reads: OPINION INTERESTING TIMES How the Supreme Court Defeated Trump A conservative court watcher explains why the president has failed to bend the judicial branch to his will. April 16, 2026, 5:05 a.m. ET
An email from Academia, which reads: "C. Farias": 1 mention in a Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy paper Dear Cristian, The name "C. Farias" was mentioned in a Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy paper uploaded to Academia. View your Mention
Selfie featuring Cristian Farias, who is mean-smirking for the camera, and Mark Joseph Stern, who is blowing an air kiss at him.
A screenshot of the unanimous Supreme Court order in favor of Kilmar Ábrego García. (Link to order in post.)
Screenshot of D.C. Circuit order, which reads: We begin by acknowledging that Anthropic will likely suffer some degree of irreparable harm absent a stay. Anthropic casts its interests partly in constitutional terms, but those interests seem primarily financial in nature. Anthropic seeks a pre-deprivation hearing under the Fifth Amendment, yet such a hearing would be valuable to the company only as a means for preserving financially beneficial contracts. Anthropic also claims ongoing harms from retaliation for its constitutionally protected speech. But Anthropic does not show that its speech has been chilled during the pendency of this litigation, so these ongoing harms are also financial effects of the Department’s actions against the company.
New York Magazine headline written by Cristian Farias: Has Brett Kavanaugh Ever Hired a Day Laborer?
Cristian flexes for the camera next to the Easter bunny.
A bendy gymgoer in front of a cable machine: He dangles from a pair of handles in a near-seated position on the floor, with his back against the machine, and then explodes upward into a standing backbend, while his hands remain on the bars he’s dangling from.
A twitter post by @nycgraceryan that reads: Gorsuch be like: first, I'd like to acknowledge that we're on stolen Nacotchtank and Piscataway land. Second, the state of Oregon's ban on throwing queer people into volcanoes is a blatant violation of the first amendment.
SUPER MARIO GALAXY movie poster.
NPR headline: Some critics of birthright citizenship say it's a fraud issue. What does that mean?
Portion of table of contents: V. Editing the Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problems in judicial writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wordiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lack of precision and clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cryptic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pomposity and humor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guidelines for good writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eliminate unnecessary words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Be succinct and direct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use plain English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of footnotes and citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Careful editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reread and revise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Put the draft aside and come back to it with a fresh perspective . Ask a new reader to criticize a draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Text from article: (The solicitor general also doesn't do itself any favors by illustrating sloppy lawyering: the government cites to page 659 of the Robertson decision, but the opinion ends on page 651 of that year's official volume in which Supreme Court decisions were published. No lawyer wants to leave it to any judge to guess about what part of a case they're referring to.)|