Richard Albert has created a memory wall for those who wish to share remembrances of Ran Hirschl. Please share so as many of Ran's friends see this as possible. www.online-tribute.com/RanHirschl

An amazing scholar, fabulous human being, and dear friend has left us. balkin.blogspot.com/2026/05/rip-...

We have a cover. All we need is a book.

I would obviously like to research, but we know Republicans meant insurrections in general (they said so), not just the Civil War. Tricky issues as to whether this is a pension. Seems plausible, but I would rely on no presidential power to establish this fund.

Not really. I spent a good deal of time on presidential power to use the militia, but not on this issue precisely. Say hello to Abigail.

My hidden secret is that I am not very interested in original meanings, which largely amounts to asking what people in the past would have done if they faced our problems, with our alternatives, and had our conceptual apparatus.

Surely the same principles that "justify" Trump v. US prohibit any settlement of civil or criminal liability against a sitting president.

A Vermont newspaper after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared, "To have been of those men who voted for this bill will only be less honorable than to have been a signer in the declaration of independence. 160th anniversary this year. Any law review symposia?

Suppose you think only 5-10% of the claims in Kristof's article are accurate. If you are Jewish, shouldn't your predominant reaction be, "This was done in my name and I am ashamed."

Would the Roberts Court allow South Carolina to gerrymander to maximize Democratic Representatives in 1868, if only Klan members had to wit to maintain they were engaged in a partisan rather than a racial gerrymander? Would Congress have tolerated that for an instant?

There is a long history of former confederate states asserting that the post-Civil War amendments are unconstitutional.

A graduation speaker might speak insensitively about the Middle East with respect to those that believe graduation speakers should stay clear of political topics or b) those who disagree with the speaker. But both classes are likely to include more non-Jews than Jews.

How can a graduation or related speaker make a comment about the Middle East alleged to be insensitive to Jews when a reasonable percentage of Jews in the audience agree with the comment and another reasonable percentage do not find the comment to be at all insensitive. 1/2

Remarkable and well deserved.

I think step one is winning elections in 2026 and 2028. If that does not happen, nothing else does. Then see what the world looks like when Democrats have the power to legislate and reform the court. The world often looks different by the time you get power.

Has there ever been a court in history more devoted to the electoral success of its political sponsors than the Roberts Court?

On my List. The previews are fascinating.

Andrew Johnson, Sen. Garret Davis of Kentucky, and every other person who insisted that the politics of Reconstruction privileged persons of color would be very proud of this Supreme Court.

Working on newspaper reaction to the override of the Johnson veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Amazing how often this sentence occurs when journalists describe the bill. "That all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States."

Last class as a full-time professor in 90 minutes (four more years as half-time).

Impeachment rather than 25th amendment if you must. Impeachment treats Trump as a rotten human being who has behaved corruptly in office. Seems right, if symbolic politics. 25th Amendment treats Trump as suffering from a disorder that might be alleviated with treatment or therapy. Seems wrong.

JD Vance scores high on the three axes of disgrace, He champions policies that are fundamentally indecent. He provides fatuous justifications for those policies. He advances many of those policies for the primary reason of advancing his ambitions.

The Headline Hog does Wyoming.

You cannot impeach a party or legally declare a party unfit for office under the 25th Amendment. The case for impeaching or removing Donald Trump is the case for voting the Republican Party out of office. This case must be made in the court of public opinion, not a court of law.

Israel has ceased being a Jewish state in the sense of reflecting Jewish values. Increasingly, Israel is no longer a Jewish state in protecting all Jews. Israel is increasing a Jewish state only in having a Jewish majority and a commitment to some Jews. www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_ent...

The only way we are going to remove Trump/Vance is by mobilizing for the 2026 and 2028 elections. No gadgets will do. We need a program that will not only win the next elections, but keep people involved long after Trump/Vance are bad historical memories.

Was it clear you meant "Wales," not "whales" or even "wails" or some combination therein.

Might the lead story be that Trump is a disgrace on every dimension a human being can be a disgrace. We do not need to point to every single quote, giving him the attention he craves and say, "that disgraceful."

Perhaps our focus should be at least as much on Trump's new oligarchy as on his horrible brutal and racist immigration policies.

As noted elsewhere, I think people I respect disagree and disagree strongly on this one. My preference is for people to spell out anti-Semitic slurs that have are often yelled at Jews and have violent threats attached. Others disagree.

One should note that the professor in question was using this as a clear reference to the speech of others and as speech the professor claimed should not be protected by the first amendment. Perhaps a mistake in judgment, but not, in my opinion a moral sin.

Very much looking forward to this.

The oldest synagogue in northern France. Julia and I are in Lille, where I will speak on "Militant Democracy in the United States" tomorrow.

This has become common. We now regard Reconstruction Democrats as better authorities on the post-Civil War Amendments than Republicans. Ironically, in many quarters, while Democrats who opposed are authorities, women and blacks who could not vote do not count.

Could we do a symposium, where I write on "Movement When They Press"

Will let people know as soon as Oxford tells me.

The final version of Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? II is now at Oxford University Press. The most comprehensive study of democratic decline and resilience. Thanks to Mark Tushnet, Sandy Levinson, and Antonia Baraggia. All publicity is good. TOC here. balkin.blogspot.com/2026/03/cons...

The increasingly important question is whether Israel remains a Jewish state as many of us understanding Jewish commitments or merely a state that has lots of Jews.

When scholars call for courts to declare laws unconstitutional, their political and legal preferences tend to coincide. Virtually all scholars urge judicial restraint on other matters when they oppose the law on political or philosophical grounds.

Academics who make originalist arguments no more legitimate originalism than people who pay only their legal taxes legitimate the tax code. As you note, what people were doing in 1866 is fair academic game. And if you have a client, you make the argument most likely to succeed.

Evan Bernick and Anthony Kreis make arguments about why the original meaning of the 14th amendment protects birthright citizenship. Rogers Smith and Julie Novkov makes arguments about how progressives should understand citizenship more broadly. What's wrong with this division of progressive labor?

My spouse goes to protests, sends postcards, and knocks on doors. I provide occasional advice to persons who litigate. Contrary to what you might read, my spouse has never indicated that she does not need to protest ICE because I am marginally involved in litigating against ICE.

You litigate for many reasons. You think you might win. There is a victim who deserves representation even if the case is likely to lose. Litigation will focus public attention on an issue. Any analysis that focuses on the first misses much about public interest litigation.

That's for kindness, but it comes with arthritis.

When government passes a repressive law, someone sues. That get a lawyer, often a liberal cause lawyer. Several law professors get involved. This happened with Section 3 and with birthright citizenship. Hardly means liberalism is focused on litigation to the expense of everything else.

36,000 feet in the air, and I can still sign my name. Other law professors invited. docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...

36,000 feet in the air heading to San Diego for a Friday talk about Trump and separation of powers at California Western Law School. Fly back home on Saturday. Head for Lille on Sunday to deliver a keynote on militant democracy in the United States. Ilive the hard life, but someone has to do it.

Am now up-to-date on all letters of recommendation. Going to enjoy that for 15 minutes. Then continue to panic about the 6 or so reviews that need to be done and four plus manuscripts that are due or overdue. Suspect most of you know the feeling.

Republicans in 1865-66 repeatedly declared that the 13th amendment made citizens of all emancipated persons. They noted that residents in the US were either aliens or citizens. After the 13th amendment, no other category existed. Should have a paper on this over the summer.

Looking at your work, almost certainly my loss.