The without prejudice part is in the article:

The DOJ had asked Ho to toss the case “without prejudice,” which would have allowed charges to be refiled against the mayor in the future.

As for why that could be bad:

Ho, in his order on Wednesday, wrote that dismissing the case without prejudice “would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration.

The judge also said it would create the perception that Adams, who is seeking re-election this year, “might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents.”

“That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice,” Ho wrote.

Their environmental policies have shown that they’re not worried about their children’s future.

Legal analysts predict challenges, citing potential overreach and conflict with congressional authority.

So a standard Trump executive order then.

ABC already settled one lawsuit from Trump since the election, maybe this will teach them settling won’t stop the harassment.

The title of the post matches the title of the article, this isn’t a case of a poster editorializing.

Let’s see if Mitch McConnell will effectively represent his state on this one…

Didn’t the funding bill a couple of weeks ago give Trump more tariff power? Why didn’t this guy speak up sooner?

According to this non-paywalled coverage, there are times when the filibuster doesn’t apply to repealing laws:

The 1996 CRA gives Congress a 60-day window to repeal federal regulations with a simple majority vote in each chamber and the president’s signature. The clock resets in a new session of Congress for rules finalized toward the end of the previous congressional session.

Republican lawmakers are also eyeing CRA measures to repeal the CFPB’s larger participant rule for digital payment companies and its ban on the use of medical debt in consumer credit reports.

Oh they’ll do something: They’ll try harder not to get caught.

But the court’s six conservative justices all appeared much more skeptical of the district. They attacked it on a variety of grounds, including questioning whether the initial case striking down the map was correctly decided and whether Louisiana was obligated to draw a new map if they believed the courts were wrong.

“What if the Robinson decision were plainly wrong?” justice Samuel Alito asked, referring to the original decision ordering Louisiana to add a second majority-Black district. “Would you still have a good reason to follow it?” Alito later all but said he believed the Robinson decision was wrong.

J Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general and former Alito clerk, said repeatedly that even though Louisiana believed the court’s original decision was wrong, it still had an obligation to follow court rulings.

Even Republicans on the Supreme Court are getting on board with ignoring rulings you think are wrong. Do these dumbasses understand that they’re going to put themselves out of a job?