Edith Jones

I correct? Mr.

Ensign, Edith Jones, two questions.

Number one, as a practical matter, when illegal aliens have been residing in the U.S. without having been admitted and are subject to detention under Point Rothschild, if they've been here more than one or two years, as a practical matter, haven't they lost their opportunity to claim asylum?

Yes, very typically they would have.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule that banned most uses of methylene chloride, an industrial solvent often used as a paint stripper.

In a 44-page opinion issued September 15th Judge Edith Jones wrote that the agency ignored studies that showed methylene chloride didn't cause significant adverse health effects and failed to account for the use of personal protective equipment by workers who were exposed to the substance.

Jones also noted that the agency used the smallest temporary impacts on certain body functions and then applied inflated benchmark exposure measures.

The American Chemistry Council issued a statement following the ruling, saying it reinforces that decisions under Tosca must be based on scientific evidence and real-world conditions.

But then earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit Court said that this ban on home distilling was unconstitutional.

A decision led by Justice Edith Jones.

And there's been a lot of movement in this area.

Clarence Thomas, one of the other Supreme Court justices, has been arguing for a long time, since 1997, that this idea that the federal government could regulate any part of your life that it wants to, just because hypothetically it has to do with economic activity, basically meaning anything you do is economic activity, is completely unmoored from anything in the Constitution.

Um, the Cheapside case that Mr. Ster mentioned, we would say is, uh, the model for this court to follow.

In that case, uh, penned by Judge Edith Jones out of the Fifth Circuit, she did a very, uh, robust textual analysis of the statute to determine, uh, exactly what principal injuries means in context.

And what she noted is that the quantitative part of the exception is a different element, and that's the two-thirds, uh, of the members, uh, being in the state requirement.

And so Judge Ebinger in this case below said, "I actually don't need to know the answer to that," because under the Fifth Circuit case, the question about principal injuries has to do with the qualitative nature of the injuries here.

Um, the memo was signed and probably also written in part by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliott Geiser, who is a graduate of Hillsdale College and the University of Chicago Law School.

He has also served as a law clerk to a real trifecta of winners, Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit, Naomi Rao of the DC Circuit, and [clicks tongue] Samuel Alito.

Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary in the first Trump administration, also named Geiser as the person who floated the notion that Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify Biden electors in the wake of the 2020 election.

Geiser recently served as solicitor general for Ohio before returning to federal service.

We'll get into all of this here.

However, this week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cited with industry challengers the EPA restrictions, saying the EPA agent went so far, right? At, quote, at every juncture of its scientific analysis, EPA has gone with the most extreme position said the opinion from Reagan appointees Patrick Higgins, Higginbotham, and Edith Jones, as well as George W.

Bush appointee Leslie Southwick.

Now, I'm pretty happy that they named who the judges were, because usually a lot of these articles don't do that, and it leaves it up to you guessing.

All right.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a majority opinion written by Edith Jones, Judge Edith Jones, said that the ban actually reduced tax revenue because it prevented distilling in the first place.

Okay.

Oh, so if people were allowed to distill...