The 5th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity for a Child-Snatching Texas Cop Who Falsely Alleged Abandonment
Alexandra Weaver argued that she could not reasonably have been expected to know her actions were unconstitutional.

Around 10 a.m. on a Friday in October 2018, 14-year-old Jade McMurry was confronted by two police officers, Kevin Brunner and Alexandra Weaver, at the door to the apartment in Midland, Texas, that she shared with her parents and her 12-year-old brother. Jade, who was homeschooled and in the midst of her online studies, did not understand what the officers, both of whom worked for the Midland Independent School District, were doing there. But within a minute, they had decided she needed to be rescued.
Brunner told Jade to put on warmer clothing so she could leave the apartment. As Jade began to follow Brunner's instructions, body camera video showed, he asked her, "Do you mind if she [Weaver] comes in the house with you?" Jade's response was ambiguous: "Mm-hmm." Then she burst into tears, saying, "I'm scared."
Taking that as an invitation, Weaver entered the apartment and began poking around. She inspected the living room and the kitchen, opening the pantry, the refrigerator, and the freezer. Her search found no evidence that Jade was in any danger. She and Brunner nevertheless removed Jade from her home, grilled her, prevented her from communicating with her parents, and took her to Abell Junior High School. Jade was detained until that afternoon, when the cops finally let her go after Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) concluded there was no evidence of abuse or neglect.
That bizarre episode, Jade's parents argued in a federal civil rights lawsuit they filed in October 2020, violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. Megan and Adam McMurry also cited the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process, which they said the officers had violated by snatching Jade without notifying her parents or giving them an opportunity to contest that intervention. But Weaver argued that she could not reasonably have been expected to know her actions were unconstitutional—a claim that an appeals court panel unanimously rejected last Friday.
That ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is the latest development in a case that began after Megan McMurry, who was then employed as a special education teacher at Abell Junior High School, left on a five-day trip to Kuwait. Her husband had been deployed to Kuwait with the National Guard, and she was looking into a potential job that would have allowed the family to relocate there. Weaver, who worked at Abell, knew about the trip because McMurry had emailed all of the school's employees about it.
McMurry's colleagues also knew she had asked a neighbor, Vanessa Vallejos, to keep an eye on Jade and her younger brother, Connor, during the trip. Vallejos and her husband knew Jade well because she would often babysit their 6-year-old son. McMurry had also arranged for co-workers to transport Connor, a student at Abell, to and from school. But on October 26, 2018, Abell's guidance counselor, who had agreed to bring Connor to school, was unable to do so because she was sick. So she texted Weaver, who lived in the neighborhood, asking if she could give Connor a ride. Although another Abell employee ended up bringing Connor to school, Weaver's involvement did not end there.
Weaver somehow got it into her head that Jade had been "abandoned" and was in urgent need of a "welfare check." Brunner, her supervisor, agreed, which is how they both ended up at the McMurrys' apartment that morning. Although Jade reiterated that Vallejos was checking in on her and Connor, offering to put the officers in touch with her, they were unfazed. They had already filed a CPS complaint, and they were determined to act on their unfounded suspicions.
Brunner and Weaver were so sure of themselves, in fact, that they pursued criminal charges against McMurry even after CPS decided there was no case to be made. In January 2020, a jury, after deliberating for five minutes, acquitted McMurry of abandoning or endangering her children.
That prompt acquittal suggested the jurors did not think Weaver and Brunner's avowed concern for Jade's welfare was reasonable. Nor did U.S. District Judge David Counts, who in September 2021 rejected the officers' motion to dismiss the McMurrys' lawsuit.
Weaver and Brunner argued that they were shielded by qualified immunity, a doctrine that bars federal civil rights lawsuits unless they allege misconduct that violated "clearly established" law. After Counts rejected that claim, Brunner appealed to the 5th Circuit, which affirmed Counts' decision in December 2022.
"The facts here are particularly egregious," Judge Andrew Oldham noted in a concurring opinion. He elaborated:
Weaver performed an illegal search in front of her supervisor (Brunner). And instead of settling for one constitutional violation (the search), Brunner went on to commit two more (unlawfully seizing [Jade] and violating the McMurrys' due-process rights). And after taking custody of [Jade], Brunner prevented [her] from talking to her father and the Vallejos for a significant amount of time. All while [Jade] was crying and confused. Then CPS told Brunner that his safety concerns were baseless. And still, inexplicably, Brunner persisted and pushed for criminal charges against Mrs. McMurry. Like CPS, a jury of Mrs. McMurry's peers squarely rejected Brunner's charges. But the damage was already done: Mrs. McMurry was already fired, was already prevented from teaching again, and had already spent 19 hours in jail.
After that resounding defeat, Brunner unsuccessfully asked the 5th Circuit to reconsider the case and unsuccessfully sought Supreme Court review. Then Brunner and Weaver filed motions for summary judgment with the district court, reasserting their qualified immunity claims. Unsurprisingly, Counts was no more impressed by their arguments the second time around.
The 5th Circuit "has already held in this case that [Jade] was unlawfully seized 'in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a reasonable fourteen-year-old would not have believed she was free to leave when an officer removed [her] from her home for questioning while instructing her not to respond to calls from her father,'" Counts noted in June 2024. "Defendants' motions even confirm the facts underlying that holding. So no, this was not 'a consensual act of transportation'; [Jade] was unlawfully seized in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights."
Were those rights "clearly established"? As Counts noted, the 5th Circuit had already said they were "under these exact facts."
As for the due process claim, Jade "was following her parents' instruction to continue her homeschooling in the family apartment during school hours," Counts wrote. "Defendants then overruled that parental instruction by unlawfully removing [Jade] without a court order or exigent circumstances. Thus, Defendants 'obviously deprived the McMurrys of their liberty interest' in the care, custody, and management of their child."
The McMurrys "did not receive the process they were due," Oldham had noted. "In fact, they received no process whatsoever. No ex parte court order, no warrant, no notice, no hearing. Nothing. Surely, the McMurrys had a right to at least some predeprivation process before their child was snatched from their home."
You might think those unambiguous decisions would clear the way for the McMurrys to finally present their claims to a jury. But after Counts reiterated that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity, she appealed that ruling to the 5th Circuit, which upheld it last week.
"The parties do not dispute that Weaver searched the refrigerator without a court order or consent," Judge Carolyn King writes in an opinion joined by the two other members of the 5th Circuit panel. "To comply with the Fourth Amendment, the search must be justified by exigent circumstances. But Weaver does not argue that there were exigent circumstances, and the district court found that there were none. Instead, Weaver relies on a 'special needs' or 'community caretaking' exception to the warrant requirement. Neither applies here."
A warrant "may not be required where there is a 'special need' that is 'divorced from the State's general interest in law enforcement,'" King notes. Likewise "when the police perform 'community caretaking functions' that are 'totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.'" But the search in this case was obviously related to a criminal investigation, as confirmed by the charges that McMurry later faced.
Was Weaver on notice that her search was unconstitutional? King thinks so, noting that the 5th Circuit, in a case decided a decade before Weaver perused the McMurrys' kitchen, had "held that government officials conducting home visits 'to investigate possible child abuse' must satisfy 'the typical Fourth Amendment standards of a court order, consent, or exigent circumstances.'"
That precedent, Gates v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, also established that "the government may not seize a child from his or her parents absent a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances," King notes. "Again, Weaver does not argue there were exigent circumstances, and a jury could find that Weaver did not have reasonable cause to believe that fourteen-year old [Jade] faced any 'immediate danger' at home alone in a gated apartment complex in the middle of the day."
The due process claim against Weaver "is premised on [Jade's] Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure," King adds. "Accordingly, the McMurrys have established a constitutional violation sufficient to survive summary judgment for the same reasons: [Jade] was seized without a court order or exigent circumstances."
In a concurring opinion, Judge James Ho highlights one of the arguments offered by Weaver's appellate lawyer. Because Jade was studying at home, the lawyer suggested during oral argument in February, the apartment may have qualified as a school, a setting in which Fourth Amendment requirements are relaxed. "Was she taken from an apartment or was she taken from her school?" he said. "There's no case law whatsoever that establishes that an apartment stays an apartment when you're going to school."
That position is "obviously wrong as a matter of rudimentary constitutional principle," Ho writes. "The Fourth Amendment expressly assures every one of us—including families who homeschool—that '[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' To justify intrusions on this bedrock liberty based on the educational choices parents make for their children does not evade the constitutional objection—it exacerbates it."
Ho also takes the opportunity to reiterate his dismay at the 5th Circuit's repeated rejection of the First Amendment lawsuit that Priscilla Villarreal, an independent journalist in Laredo, filed after she was arrested for asking a police officer questions about a public suicide and a fatal car crash. Villarreal cited Supreme Court decisions recognizing that qualified immunity does not require highly fact-specific precedents in cases involving conduct that is "obviously unconstitutional." But the appeals court "waved away those decisions on the ground that they're 'Eighth Amendment cases,'" Ho writes, "and that they establish only a 'narrow[] obviousness exception' that should not apply to obvious violations of the First Amendment."
Ho thinks that decision, along with a 2011 5th Circuit precedent involving religious freedom, may have encouraged Weaver's lawyers to argue that she deserved qualified immunity even though her conduct was plainly outrageous. "It seems absurd to suggest that the most egregious constitutional violations imaginable are somehow immune from liability precisely because they're so egregious," he writes. "It would make a mockery of our rights to grant qualified immunity just because no one in government has yet to be abusive enough to commit that particular violation—and then stubborn enough to litigate it, not only before a district court, but also in the court of appeals."
Although "I'm of course duty bound to follow en banc precedent," Ho adds, "I'm not obliged to extend it….I will not make things worse by extending this mistaken body of precedent and refusing to protect citizens from obvious violations of the Fourth Amendment as well as the First."
Ho also questions the application of qualified immunity to cases that do not involve "split-second" decisions. "It's one thing to grant qualified immunity when it comes to police officers who are forced to make split-second judgment calls in life-and-death situations," he says. "It's quite another thing to immunize public officials who make a deliberate and calculated decision to violate one's constitutional rights."
Although the McMurrys so far have beaten back every challenge to their lawsuit, their case illustrates how difficult in can be to vindicate your constitutional rights. "A lot of cops, like these two, think they can do whatever they want and search whatever they want and make up their own rules because they believe nobody will hold them accountable," Megan McMurry told me last year. "It has been almost six years [now almost seven], but I want to change that narrative. Our system is broken. Our rights were violated and our lives have been constantly trampled through as we have fought to defend those rights."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Didn't someone say something once about "justice delayed is justice denied"?
There is no rational excuse for such slow plodding casework. This is the kind of dispute that should have been settled that very day, or at least when the mother got back from Kuwait.
Q. "Why did you think that child was in imminent danger?"
A. *nothing intelligent*
Q. "If that's your justification, then you are by your own admission too stupid to be a police officer with powers to arrest. You're fired! And off to jail you go."
Yeah, something something right to a speedy trial something.
Of course, the courts seem to read that as only criminal cases should move quickly. Not that they succeed in those cases either, of course, but apparently the criminal case against her was decided pretty quick at least.
Megan McMurry, who was then employed as a special education teacher at Abell Junior High School, left on a five-day trip to Kuwait.
...
Weaver, who worked at Abell, knew about the trip because McMurry had emailed all of the school's employees about it.
So this Weaver woman was a school officer? That's the only way that makes sense.
Guess they really don't assign their best or brightest to guarding the youth of America. She's totally unaware of the constitution, perhaps she should be enrolled in that Junior High.
It's enough to make one wonder if this woman and her child were specifically targeted by these officers considering the only reason they were aware of this trip was because of their employment with the school. That sounds about right, because who is more petty than a low level bureaucratic enforcer.
Ah, grasshopper, you must learn to read between the lines. "Special education teacher" means McMurry taught the dimwits, the dull knives. Weaver is obviously not much in the brightness department. Therefore I submit that Weaver was once McMurry's student, and her brain functioned just well enough to see an opportunity for revenge.
That is possible since I believe at least some people have been denied admission to a police academy based on higher than preferred cognitive test results.
That's a fancy way of saying they don't want cops to be too smart, and their argument boils down to high IQ people would be bored in law enforcement.
Or that they might try and do something foolish like uphold the law and Constitution... getting in the way of the corruption, grift, and abuse of their peers & superiors.
I'm confused, how exactly is this Trump's fault and what did JD Vance do or say that was wrong?
And no weed, Mexicans, butt sex, or trannies. This is Reason, right?
It sounds like the MAGA cult is baffled as to how to defend the cops on this one, as much as they'd like to. If Jade's family weren't white, their hatred for her, and love for the cops would be justified, but what to do, what to do??
Even the bootlickers are silent on this one.
"It's one thing to grant qualified immunity when it comes to police officers who are forced to make split-second judgment calls in life-and-death situations," he says. "It's quite another thing to immunize public officials who make a deliberate and calculated decision to violate one's constitutional rights."
Very much this. As long as QI was reserved for split second decisions it was arguably fair enough, but it's been grossly extended to include decisions taken over weeks or months, even.
This is a weird one.
If I'm reading this right, it would seem that a truancy cop came to a home and found a 14yr old and a 12yr old left to their own devices, being "checked in on" by neighbors during their parents' absence. The argument was that these kids were mature beyond their age, and had like cellphones and facetime so y'know no big deal.
So, right out of the gate, we have to question the sense of the parents on this. Yea, I'll get to the cop - but come on. What parent SERIOUSLY thinks it's a good idea to leave a 14 and 12yr old alone and jets off half a world away.
"But they were mature," you're saying. "They were responsible, studious, and knew what to do in an emergency."
Yea, but she's still only 14. And their maturity is belied by a 14yr old doing exactly what one would expect a 14yr old to do when confronted with a situation they weren't mature enough to handle: she burst into tears.
Let's not pretend that any of this is normal or acceptable. What the parents did here deserves scrutiny.
Her search found no evidence that Jade was in any danger.
Except for a total absence of parenting. I mean, let's not fool ourselves - this is WAY past a latchkey-kid type scenario.
Y'know, my parents went on trips when I was a kid. It was never "stay home alone, grandma or auntie or neighbor mom checks in now and then." It was "you're staying at grandma or auntie or neighbor mom's while we're gone."
Weaver somehow got it into her head that Jade had been "abandoned" and was in urgent need of a "welfare check."
Because in a very real way, it's definitely arguable that they kinda were. Court ultimately disagreed, but I'm not sure I fault Weaver for thinking what she did. Again, what these parents did is not a normal thing that normal people normally do.
But let's talk about the cops now.
First: woman cop. No, just - no.
Second: Brunner and Weaver were so sure of themselves, in fact, that they pursued criminal charges against McMurry even after CPS decided there was no case to be made.
Oh that's priceless. Reason - fake news narrative pimp Sullum, in particular - declaring the CPS, of ALL agencies, being one to be believed, respected, and relied upon. Just so long as it suits said narrative, right Fakey Jakey?
But the search in this case was obviously related to a criminal investigation, as confirmed by the charges that McMurry later faced.
Which is where woman cop went clearly off the rails (under supervision, no less). She would have been wholly defensible had she said, "This is weird. We should probably make some calls." But going straight to "Let's see what's in your fridge and pantry" - that was too far. Especially since, on its face (and as the court found) there was no exigency.
I'll add again though, that these weren't cop cops. These were truancy cops. They're right up there with meter maids and mall security. ...only armed.
Ho also questions the application of qualified immunity to cases that do not involve "split-second" decisions.
And the Judge is right on this point.
Although the McMurrys so far have beaten back every challenge to their lawsuit, their case illustrates how difficult in can be to vindicate your constitutional rights.
Oh shut up Jake. ACAB a little harder.
our lives have been constantly trampled
Oh shut up Megan. Victim a little harder.
===
As an aside...
Defendants then overruled that parental instruction
It would behoove the State to start taking that into consideration when it comes to the LGBT Pedo grooming. Especially in Maryland, with more states to follow.
As another aside...
Because Jade was studying at home, the lawyer suggested during oral argument in February, the apartment may have qualified as a school, a setting in which Fourth Amendment requirements are relaxed. "Was she taken from an apartment or was she taken from her school?" he said.
Very interesting legal question. Should be explored further.
Is there no act of tyranny perpetrated by cops that you won't defend? I was left at home with my siblings on numerous occasions as a child. I left my minor son at home for a few days as a teen on several occasions. He had plenty of people looking after him and the phone number of a lawyer to call if some Karen cop fucked with him. He knew the drill. Don't talk to cops. Tell them to talk to me and if I'm not available tell them you're calling your lawyer. Kids learn to be self sufficient when you trust them to take care of themselves. 14 is not too young. And even if you think otherwise why do cops get to decide?
Is there no act of tyranny perpetrated by cops that you won't defend?
AT always defends coercion and violence. Always.
Do I post your defense of officer Byrd as one of the good cops again?
Is there no act of tyranny perpetrated by cops that you won't defend?
... I didn't defend it. Didn't finish reading, did you.
14 is not too young.
Was for her.
Her normal reaction was to call her parents, which these uniformed kidnapers prevented. Ten years in prison sounds about right...
That came after.
Your interpretation is both interesting and contrary to law. The 5th Circuit is arguably the most conservative pro-police federal appellate court in the country, and the Midland district judge is no flaming liberal. For the 5th Circuit to affirm this case the appellate judges considered this especially egregious in that 95 percent or more of all qualified immunity court decisions favor law enforcement. Here we have a case of a cop ignoring the most basic federal search and seizure law when all the cop had to do to get a warrant was to call the court on her phone to get one. Your depiction of a 14-ywar old being unable to self-care and watch the younger sister nonsense. Many baby sitters are 14 and have been for decades.
Here we have a case of a cop ignoring the most basic federal search and seizure law when all the cop had to do to get a warrant was to call the court on her phone to get one.
Yes, I literally made that exact point. You people seriously don't read before you reflex post, do you.
Your depiction of a 14-ywar old being unable to self-care and watch the younger sister nonsense. Many baby sitters are 14 and have been for decades.
This one burst into tears because she wasn't prepared to handle the situation. It's one thing to say that your 14yr old can watch the kids for an afternoon. It's a whole other thing to say that your 14yr old can manage the household while you fly halfway around the world to do a thing in a place for several days.
Really, because she burst into tears? What an asshole take. Agents of the state were removing her from her home and she could see the writing on the wall for her parents.
And, yeah, a 14 year old with the assistance of a neighbor can certainly manage what little needs to be done for a 12 year old who had prearranged transportation.
But I guess you know best for the family from behind your keyboard.
Yes, WISIS, because she burst into tears. Call me names if you want, but that straight up belies the maturity they're claiming this girl had.
She didn't say, "My mom is away right now, but hear me out - I'm talking to my dad several times a day and my neighbors know what's up and my teachers are assisting." She burst into tears. It's a response to panic and not knowing what to do. Also known as the natural immaturity of a 14yr old girl in over her head.
But I guess you know best for the family from behind your keyboard.
In this case, yes. How do you NOT?
AT has never suffered from a lack of certainty, even when he is completely wrong.
Maybe you were still being breast-fed when you were 14, but when I was as young as 9, my parents had been leaving me home alone for hours at a time. And the same was true of my friends. A 14-year-old caring for a 12-year-old for a short time and being checked on by neighbors is not anything remotely similar to child neglect or endangerment.
"Hours at a time" ≠ "flew off to Kuwait with indeterminate return."
Your reading comprehension needs work. It was a 5-day trip.
(Also, it was just the 14yo at home. The 12yo was attending school normally.)
I don't see a problem with a 14yo and 12yo being under the supervision of a neighbor who checks in on them, but otherwise getting to stay in their own home. 13yos used to be treated as adults. That's still old enough to babysit even infants for hours on their own. You're infantilizing them beyond reason.
Were I on either jury, i would have acquitted McMurry in 5 minutes, and would find the cops liable in the same. It's outrageous.
It was a 5-day trip.
That the 14yr clearly wasn't prepared to handle on her own.
Also, it was just the 14yo at home. The 12yo was attending school normally.
School ends at some point during the day, and the 12yr old returns home.
You're infantilizing them beyond reason.
She burst into tears. She was NOT ready for this.
Also, why has nobody asked: why didn't mom TAKE them to Kuwait with her? Excused absence for the one kid, the other can continue doing things remotely.
i would have acquitted McMurry in 5 minutes, and would find the cops liable in the same. It's outrageous.
Showing you don't have a single clue how the Courts work. Shut up, squirrel. Don't talk about things beyond your knowledge level.
Its strange how certain you are based on her tears alone. You are an ardent law enforcement defender so I am sure you have read plenty of stories and seen plenty of videos as the rest of us have. Women and men have cried during police detention (especially one where the phone call to parents is denied) from ages 13-90.
What an extremely pointless fact to focus on.
It's a 14yr old girl.
And it wasn't "cried." It was "burst into tears."
If you don't like the framing, take it up with Fakey Jakey.
I believe she was due back in less than a week. In the meantime a neighbor was effectively put in charge. I don't find anything peculiar with this. The 14 year old was a freshman in high school. She is quite capable of looking after her 12 yr old brother especially with a neighbor on call next door.
The 14 year old was a freshman in high school. She is quite capable of looking after her 12 yr old brother especially with a neighbor on call next door.
There's a million and one things that go sideways in that scenario. 16, with a driver's license, and a couple hundred bucks left behind for what have you - sure. Mom a quick drive back - sure. Like I said - you may disagree (perhaps it's ACAB talking, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), but what these parents did is not a normal thing that normal people normally do.
But for sake of argument, at what point does it become problematic for you? 10 days? 30? A couple months? At what point does it become appropriate for someone - including law enforcement - to step in and say, "This is weird. What the heck is going on here."
People without children (like yourself) are failures.
Careful, you'll enrage the DINKs.
We all know you have no D.
True or false, neither here nor there.
Point is, the DINKs intentionally choose a childless life. Are they all failures?
Yes.
I would expect the parents of a child to understand the capabilities of said child better than some rando on the internet.
Pretending that she was incapable of looking after her brother because, when she was alone, two armed officers showed up at her door and told her to get dressed and that she was being taken from her home and could not contact her parents is idiotic, even for you. Grown women burst into tears at the thought of being taken away against their will, but that doesn't on its own make them incapable of caring for a child.
But then you top it by pretending that the parents abandoned them by leaving them at home with a known and willing neighbor nearby to check in on the and arranging transportation for the one child who was attending school.
Classic.
Your expectations are often retarded, so... yea.
Ad hominem already? I accept your surrender.
I don't think you understand what the term "ad hominem" means.
To make an ad hominem, I'd have had to entertain your post and argued against it, fallaciously.
I didn't even bother, Clown World. Your post wasn't worth anymore more than an insult. Because.... wait for it.... your expectations are often retarded.
If you want argument, scroll up. But don't come down to the bottom and potshot, and think you're going to get any serious consideration. You didn't say anything worth considering.
I already accepted your surrender. You can stop waving the white flag already.
No, you accepted your ACAB narrative - having never once been willing to consider anything to the contrary.
That's your surrender. To idiocy. Not mine.
Well I'm relieved to see that Villarreal got a mention here. As long as this brave citizen journalist remains in the crosshairs no one is safe. But to actually address the story here I would point out that we're constantly being told that social workers can replace police. Yeah a lot of cops are assholes. But I would guess that Karens In social work outnumber Karen cops by a wide margin. Who's more likely to kidnap your kid? I rest my case.
Yeah, Sullum just can't help himself.
"A lot of cops, like these two, think they can do whatever they want and search whatever they want and make up their own rules because they believe nobody will hold them accountable," Megan McMurry told me last year.
Yup. Being a cop means you can do whatever you want and other people have to do whatever you say. We live in a feudal society. Only the costumes have changed.
Sigh. Like Capitol officers shooting blindly into a crowd that you supported right?
https://reason.com/2024/02/01/bipartisan-tax-credit-bonanza/?comments=true#comment-10425139
Nice to see Sullum's Priscilla Villarreal fetish is alive and well. He should just fly down there and get it out of his system.