NEW EPISODE: "The Marshal and the Margarine" We catch up on Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state criminal jurisdiction over federal officers, and some recent online discourse. dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/the...

When you’re waiting for huge opinions, never, ever underestimate the Court’s ability to disappoint you.

The entire thread is worth your time. The portion around and including this post gets at a point I tried to make in my book - the less common ground within the profession about what the rule of law entails, the less likely we are to be able to sustain the rule of law.

Regardless of one's view of politics, is it a better world if courts declare—even in ordinary breach-of-contract cases—that "Plaintiff wins because he's a Dem" (or R based on who appointed the judge)? Even if you dislike judicial review, we need courts for ordinary disputes. We need law for those.

Pretty sure I'm one of the folks Mark's subtweeting. While I don’t feel compelled to respond, this actually provides a beautiful lesson for how academics and other serious observers might think about engaging with the Court and law. (thread)

I was not tagged so did not see my thread was screenshot-ported here from X until now. I'd add that I don't think profs (or any lawyers) should advance arguments they believe to be dishonest. But I also think. . . .

I'm quoted in this @wsj.com story about what to call SCOTUS's interim/shadow/emergency/whatever docket: www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...

A follow-up on Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Trump v. IL over at @scotusblog.com: www.scotusblog.com/interim-dock...

Quick reactions to the National Guard ruling at the @SCOTUSblog Interim Docket blog: www.scotusblog.com/interim-dock...

This is not a remotely fair characterization of what I or Jack said. Fact-free caricatures are good for RTs and clicks from co-partisans, but critics of the Court (of which I am often one!) do their cause no service when they don't even pretend to engage on the merits with different views.

Paging @stephenesachs.bsky.social

Steve, can clarify whom specifically you are accusing of "deliberately misleading" people?

Today seems as good a time as any to note my extended discussion of SCOTUS expansion here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... Also, @epps.bsky.social and @ganeshsitaraman.bsky.social specifically propose a lottery along @mmasnick.bsky.social's lines here: yalelawjournal.org/pdf/EppsSita...

In case anyone is curious: even if this dismissal becomes final/upheld on appeal, because the dismissal is w/o prejudice, the government will have 6 months to reindict even though the statute of limitations would have otherwise run. Statute:

NEW EPISODE: "Counter-Counter-Counter-Designations" Live from Wilkinson Stekloff's attorney retreat, we dive into the legal (and ethical?) issues in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton before revisiting last Term's DIG'd case LabCorp v. Davis. dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/cou...

I'm quoted in this @nytimes.com piece by @jodikantor.bsky.social about the quandaries faced by the liberal SCOTUS justices today. (link below).

I'm quoted in this @nytimes.com piece by @jodikantor.bsky.social about the quandaries faced by the liberal SCOTUS justices today. (link below).

Just got my copy of Justice Kennedy’s memoir, LIFE, LAW & LIBERTY. I was grateful to have been asked to perform an unusual bit of empirical research while he was writing it.

This @rollingstone.com piece by @andrewlseidel.bsky.social is embarrassing. A judge must recuse from any case in which he actually participated, not from all cases involving *legal issues* on which he ever took a position as an attorney on behalf of a client.

Losing my ever-loving-mind watching the same people who were just clutching their pearls claiming censorship over mean emails from WH staffers to Twitter about COVID misinfo are now HAVING THE FCC CHAIR openly threaten broadcast licenses over a joke about the president AND THE BROADCASTERS CENSOR IT

I'm thrilled to have been named the Howard and Caroline Cayne Distinguished Professor of law here at WashU Law! I'm very grateful to the Law School, the University, and my Dean for their support.

www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty... The free speech crusade will continue until complete conformity and submission are achieved.

Case Viewer, my quirky side project of building my ideal legal search & reading app, has come a long way. With lots of help, it's grown into the best way to find & read cases on a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. Check it out or download on the App Store below. And follow @CaseViewerApp for updates!

I filed an amicus brief in Callais, this fall's blockbuster voting rights case. I make three arguments. First, the Fifteenth Amendment is the constitutional provision that bans racial discrimination in voting. Second, Shaw should be overturned. Finally, Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional.

The Divided Argument podcast had me on to talk about my new book *The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power.* Very much enjoyed the conversation. Listen here: www.dividedargument.com/episodes/bed... @dividedargument.bsky.social @williambaude.bsky.social‬ @epps.bsky.social‬

NEW PAPER: "Justifying the Fourth Amendment," forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review, now up on @ssrn.bsky.social: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

NEW EPISODE: "Originalism Hulk" It's fraud day as we dig into Kousis v. US and Thompson v. US! dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/ori...

Justice Sotomayor thinks that Justices have "earned" their seats, so even a constitutional amendment can't limit their tenure. Justiceships are guaranteed by pre-constitutional meta-due process? Surprisingly dumb view... (via @rickpildes.bsky.social) electionlawblog.org?p=151478

This paper provides a detailed analysis of how the U.S. Executive Branch interprets and practices constitutional #law. spkl.io/63323AHGX1#law@epps.bsky.social @conorclarke.bsky.social #LawSky

Spotted in the air above Salisbury beach, MA. This is not going away.

NEW ARTICLE on SSRN: "The Practice of Executive Constitutionalism," by me and @conorclarke.bsky.social, forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review. Check it out! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Last fall, the editors of the Harvard Law Review invited me to write the Foreword for this year's Supreme Court issue. My working draft is below, and comments are most welcome. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

10 year old has had an Apple watch for about 24 hours and has already mastered the art of the passive aggressive text

I’m very sad about the death of Richard Fallon, an amazing scholar, teacher, and person. He was my fed courts prof—one of my favorite classes ever. An unsolicited email from him complimenting my harmless error piece is one of the academic honors of which I’m proudest. A big loss.

I’m quoted in this @adamliptak.bsky.social @nytimes.com piece on unexplained SCOTUS orders (🎁 link): www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/u...

"Divided Argument" with @epps.bsky.social and @williambaude.bsky.social is always a must-listen for SCOTUS nerds, and I thought this latest episode—focusing on Mahmoud and Paxton—was particularly interesting. Good stuff. dividedargument.com/episodes/did...

Law professors like to complain about grading exams and say it's the worst part of the job. This is incorrect. Grading is not that bad. The most painful part, by far, is having to revise your own papers.

Join me at @scotusblog.com, where I'll be live-blogging today's opinion hand-down starting in about 30 minutes! www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/anno...

I’m sure some of Trump’s judicial nominees believe Trump’s lies about election fraud. But many know that Biden won and are just engaging in this charade to avoid having their nominations pulled by Trump. It’s shameful. No federal judgeship is worth this.

Interesting, from @jadler1969.bsky.social . My very impressionistic sense is that Barrett may be the most *persuadable* among the conservatives, which is different from “aligns with progressives most often,” and which would make her closer to a swing in the O’Connor mode rather than Kennedy.

Really fun talking about my book, Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration with @epps.bsky.social and @williambaude.bsky.social on @dividedargument.bsky.social dividedargument.com/episodes/gor...

A characteristically thoughtful response to the Supreme Court argument over nationwide injunctions in the Birthright Citizenship case by Mila Sohoni. blog.dividedargument.com/p/guest-post...

My latest on the @dividedargument.bsky.social blog: "Trump 2.0 and the Supreme Court Reform Debate" open.substack.com/pub/divideda...

Because @williambaude.bsky.social hates my SCOTUS muppets, loyal @dividedargument.bsky.social listener and muppet-fan Tony Derron made this delightful likeness of us:

I'm pleased to be quoted in this @nytimes.com piece asking 35 legal scholars about the most lawless things Trump has done in the first 100 days: www.nytimes.com/2025/04/28/o...

Executive Functions Roundup: a win for Voice of America, another injunction against Alien Enemies Act removals, more resignations flowing from the Eric Adams case, and commentary from Bob Bauer, @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social, and @epps.bsky.social. executivefunctions.substack.com/p/executive-...

My latest in the @dividedargument.bsky.social blog, riffing on a footnote in JHW's Abrego Garcia opinion: blog.dividedargument.com/p/in-the-tru...

NEW EPISODE: “Vaxxed and Relaxed” We discuss FDA v. Wages & White Lion, follow up on Abrego Garcia, respond to tough feedback, and more! dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/vax...

So… @williambaude.bsky.social and I are extending the @dividedargument.bsky.social brand to a new medium: a blog/substack with a bigger stable of contributors. My first post, with reactions to the Smith & Wesson oral argument, is up! blog.dividedargument.com/p/reactions-...

Shout out to @dividedargument.bsky.social for the Supreme Court podcast’s funniest moment ever, in which @williambaude.bsky.social and @epps.bsky.social note SCOTUS’s recent peak shadow docket opinion, in which the Court did nothing for no reason, and it was still 5-4