Policy / April 10, 2026
In this week Elijah v. UNITED STATESElie weighs in on the meaning of the election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Plus: Should you be able to claim your dog as a dependent on your tax returns?
Chris Taylor celebrates his victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 7, 2026.
(Joe Timmerman/Wisconsin Watch via Getty Images) Let’s start with a rare glimmer of good news. In Wisconsin, liberal judge Chris Taylor absolutely a boat race his Republican opponent, Maria Lazar. The victory gives Democrats a 5-2 advantage on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court and ensures that Democrats will control the court during the 2028 presidential election cycle.
People might remember the one from last year The Wisconsin Supreme Court race – the one Elon Musk tried to buy, the one that became the most expensive judicial election in history. The Republican nominee still lost, and Democrats took control of the court for the first time in 15 years.
This year, the stakes weren’t as high. Taylor and Lazar were running to replace a Republican justice, meaning that even if Lazar had won, Republicans would still have been in the minority (3-4) on the court. Additionally, Musk and all Republican-aligned PACs kept their money in their pockets, meaning Taylor was able to outspend Lazar. Participation was low.
Yet Taylor not only beat Lazar in the liberal strongholds of Milwaukee and Madison; she defeated Lazar in the Wisconsin campaign, flipping 29 counties that went for Trump in 2024. In some places, she moved those counties to the left by 33 points.
I don’t want to read too much into these results. Low-stakes, low-turnout judicial elections don’t really compare to November’s midterm elections. But it’s another example of a problem Republicans have faced throughout the Trump era: Trump voters are turning out to Asset; there are not many of them when Trump’s name is not on the ballot.
The problem with running a personality cult is that eventually the cult leader dies and his personality goes with him. The post-Trump Republican Party is, frankly, unknowable at this point. Even they don’t know what they will do once he is gone. People will fight to be “the next Trump” for the rest of their lives. And we simply have no idea what lies or nonsense Trump voters will believe next.
Current number
In the meantime, Trump’s name will be not appear on any ballot in November. If Trump actually allows us to have a normal election, that could be very bad for his party.
The bully and the ugly
The second most terrifying story this week (after Trump’s threats to wipe out an entire civilization) was that of This New York Times report about silicon sampling. No, this isn’t a story about tech enthusiasts licking sand to find more hardware for their data centers, although it would be nice if they tried that. This is a recently released poll according to which the survey responses were generated by AI. Our tech overlords are literally trying to avoid having to ask the public for their real opinion, in an opinion polland simply use AI to tell us what opinions we have. It’s downright dystopian. A group of Latino New Yorkers filed a lawsuit massive class action against ICE, alleging racial profiling. They argue that ICE targets Latinos for stops and arrests without any reasonable assessment of their citizenship status. This is precisely the scenario that alleged attempted rape suspect Brett Kavanaugh gave his blessing to in a shadow ruling last year centered on ICE’s occupation of Los Angeles. In that case, ICE’s unconstitutional racism was not the central issue, but it will be in this one when it undoubtedly comes before the Supreme Court in a few years. We learned this week that Justice Samuel Alito was briefly hospitalized two weeks ago for “dehydration”. I continue to believe that Alito will announce his retirement in June so that he can be replaced by Trump before the midterm elections. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals blocked an attempt by the State of New Jersey to regulate Kalshi and other “prediction markets”. The court essentially declared that the sites do not constitute a form of sports gambling but are in fact contractual “swaps”, meaning the only appropriate regulator is the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. You see, to me this only proves that commodity trading is also a form of play and should be regulated as such… but no, when the rich do it, it’s not “gambling”, it’s “finance”. US News and World Report released its first ranking of American law schools in 1987. Yale Law School was number one. Yale has been number one every year since law school rankings have existed, until now. This year USN rankings placed Stanford in first place, with Yale tied for second with the University of Chicago. I haven’t read the vagaries of how USN produces its rankings, so I’m just going to chalk it up to Yale finally getting blamed for producing JD Vance. Inspired Takes
Elizabeth Spiers delves deeper into the subject anti-intellectualism of the tech-bro mafia For The nation. I wrote last week, I think Trump is going to lose his birthright in the Supreme Court. But Jay Willis writes that such a loss might only be temporary, because this affair probably marks the beginning of the white people’s crusade against birthright citizenship. Since the defeat of the right Roe v. Wadehe’s looking for a new legal case to motivate voters to give them continued control over the courts, and this might just be it. Attorney David R. Lurie wrote: “A diet of idiots; A Complete Inventory of Trump’s Sidekicks”, in which he broke down all the categories of lackeys Trump has surrounded himself with. It’s a Darwin Award-level taxonomy of stupidity and incompetence. The worst argument of the week
Popular “Swipe left below to see more authors”Swipe →
One of the stooges Lurie is putting forward – in fact, the very first stooge he’s putting forward – is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blanche is a former Trump defense attorney, a man who got the job because no “good” lawyer would take it, and who has now exploited his willingness to demean himself to make Trump the top dog at the Justice Department.
Blanche summed up his personal rationale at a press conference this week when he said: “If [Trump] chooses to name someone else and asks me to go do something else, I will say, “Thank you very much. I love you, sir.’ » The attorney general is supposed to be the American people’s lawyer, not the president’s number one, but the guy who runs the bar — at least until Trump appoints his next attorney general — is weakening to the criminal in chief.
What’s incredible about Blanche’s elevation is that the woman he replaced, Pam Bondi, also demonstrated devout loyalty to Trump. She was unceremoniously dismissed last month — but not because she stood up to Trump or failed to implement a policy he favored. She was fired because these policies were downright illegal or unconstitutional, and she lost repeatedly in court.
The fact that Trump thinks Blanche can do better shows that Trump fundamentally misunderstands the nature of his problem. Trump reportedly said Bondi lacked “intelligence and courage.” He’s not wrong: Bondi was not very intelligent and clearly did not have the “courage” to resist Trump’s manic shenanigans. But Blanche is no better: he is just as intellectually light as Bondi, and he seems even more stupid.
But finding an attorney general dumber and softer than Bondi isn’t going to reverse Trump’s fortunes in the lower courts. Trump loses because his orders are illegal. If he orders Blanche to do illegal things, Blanche will also lose. That’s how it happens. No matter how many times you jump off the roof, you’ll still fall and probably get hurt unless John Roberts is there to catch you.
The supposed difference between Bondi and Blanche (or whoever Trump ultimately turns to for the job — other contenders reportedly include former Rep. Lee Zeldin and former Viner Jeanine Pirro) is that Bondi hasn’t gone after Trump’s political enemies, while the next AG will. But there is simply no evidence that Bondi was not wanting going after Trump’s enemies, or that Blanche will succeed if he does.
Unlike Trump, his political enemies have committed no crimes. There’s not much a prosecutor can do to prosecute someone who hasn’t committed a crime. Judges, even those aligned with Trump, are dismissing cases against people who have committed no crimes.
Bondi was a terrible AG. Blanche will be a terrible AG. Whoever Trump chooses after getting tired of Blanche will be a terrible AG. But I guess I disagree with many Democrats who say the next one after Bondi will be “worse.” I think we’re already at the bottom of this barrel. To be worse than Bondi or Blanche, you actually have to be smarter than them. More clever. No longer able to transform Trump’s seemingly illegal desires into something resembling lawful conduct.
Trump doesn’t choose smart people. He doesn’t choose people who will redirect his worst impulses into something that can pass legally. He only wants courtiers, so courtiers will be all he gets.
What I wrote
Impeachment today, impeachment tomorrow, impeachment forever. Trump threatened genocide against the Iranian people and we must try to remove him. I wrote.
In news unrelated to the current chaos
It’s tax season. I don’t know anything about “taxes”; my wife is the mathematician of the family. I don’t know tax law either. My theory is that you can only be intellectually present for a finite number of law classes before your brain rebels out of sheer boredom and causes you to seek the dopamine rush of illicit drugs, so “taxes” was the time I let my brain fallow and play. Everquest at the law faculty.
But while scrolling through social media this week, I saw that THE Wash ington post I reposted a story from earlier this year (I no longer subscribe) about a lawyer sue the IRS to have her dog claimed as a dependent for tax purposes.
I have some thoughts on this! Not expert thoughts on tax law (again, snooooooze), but general thoughts on animal law (a seminar I paid attention to). Here is my unified theory of all things animal law: We need an entirely different category of law for animals.
I know this sounds circular, but hear me out. Currently, the law treats animals, including pets, as mere “property.” We have laws that deal with animal cruelty (laws that are woefully under-enforced, such as I have already written about) – but for the most part, animals are the property of their “owners,” who are free to do with them as they please, within reason.
This is false. Animals are not property. They are not inanimate objects. The law should not treat them like a semi-conscious rug or an office piece of furniture that occasionally poops.
The alternative most often proposed to the current state of the law is to give rights to animals and treat them as human beings who relate to children. This is also false. The animals are not people. They are not children. And every time I think about how this country is failing to protect children properly – from school shootings to Epstein to the environment – the idea of people running to me to tell me that their fucking dog deserves the same rights that we can’t even guarantee to my black children makes me angry.
Of course, I love our family dog with almost the same passion I have for my human children, so I understand where people are coming from. This is why I believe so strongly that protecting these precious beasts by analogy the things they are not do them no favors. They are not property, nor are they children: they are their own thing and must be treated as their own thing under the law.
Is a person entitled to a tax reduction for caring for their dog? No, of course not. He’s a fucking dog. Pay your taxes so human children can have roads and schools. But should a person be able to access affordable healthcare for their puppy? Of course. He’s a fucking dog, a living, breathing animal who shouldn’t have to suffer while his owner makes a choice between food and health care. (I’m focusing on dogs, because I’m allergic to cats and don’t trust them, but, you know, cats, bears, snakes, Philadelphia Phillies fans, insert whatever animal you want). Should a dog have rights that extend to it, regardless of its “owner”? Yes. Does this mean I can’t put my dog on a leash because I would never do that to my children? No. Also, don’t tempt me with child leashes.
I didn’t think all its contours and possible permutations. Like any legal canon, it would evolve over time. In my own version, I tend to make a difficult distinction between animals that are delicious and animals that are not, but I don’t know if such a distinction could or should hold up in court.
My simple point is this: animals should have rights. These rights should not be property rights and should also be different from the rights of individuals. These rights should belong to animals, not to the people who claim ownership of them.
And yes, thinking about a more robust conception of animal rights naturally leads to a much more robust conception of environmental rights for all the animals that we have fortunately not yet caged or driven to extinction. Thanks for asking.
***
If you enjoyed this episode of Elijah v. UNITED STATES., Click here to receive the newsletter in your mailbox every Friday.
Elie Mystal Elie Mystal is The nationjustice correspondent and columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: New York Times bestseller Let me respond: A Guide to the Constitution for Black Men And Bad Laws: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining Americaboth published by The New Press. You can subscribe to his Nation newsletter “Elie c. US » here.