👇

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will be the first state high court to resolve if addictive social media platforms are a “nuisance“ and whether such claims are consistent with the First Amendment and federal law— with me, @alahav.bsky.social, and Teddy Rave. urldefense.com/v3/__https:/...

I'm revising the Wright & Miller treatise right now on this very topic and there is no case I can find in which the litigants' assessment that an order was plainly illegal could be violated without contempt. The closest is a case of prior restraint of a newspaper and there the court said...

Just now reading about the radical leftist judge who supported the dismissal of both James Comey’s & Letitia James’ indictments. www.nytimes.com/interactive/...

I was proud to join a very distinguished group of constitutional law professors organized by @dorfonlaw.bsky.social to file this SCOTUS brief in support of trans rights. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

Here’s mine!

Purdue’s lawyers told the Supreme Court this Opioid deal would never happen—unless, that is, plaintiffs were forced to give up their separate claims against the Sackler family. They were wrong. In nearly all mass tort settlements, when there’s a will, there’s a way. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/h...

160 faculty from all 5 UC law schools signed this open letter detailing why the Trump demands to UCLA are unlawful, unconstitutional, and wrong: sites.google.com/view/uclawfa... Great to work with @fishkin.bsky.social @blakeprof.bsky.social @seanashiffrin.bsky.social on this statement.

Oral argument today in Bowe v US presents one of the most profound constitutional questions: Just how much power does Article III's Exceptions Clause give Congress to strip SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction? I offer some history and context in my latest column for @justiaverdict.bsky.social 👇

I wonder if this new effort opens up opportunities for a Rule 23(b)(2) nationwide class. There are ripeness Qs, but they could be overcome in the 1A context. And the logic of mandatory class action is also about overcoming just such collective action problems. review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...

Please help me get the word out about the new websites for Legal Theory Blog and the Legal Theory Lexicon. Reposting here and on other social media sites is great. It would be especially helpful if law school faculty members could send an email to their colleagues with the new addresses.

I spoke to @bloomberg.com about a new SEC proposal that would gut securities class actions by sending securities cases into mandatory arbitration. TLDR: States would have to go along--and even then--it could backfire--sparking costly forms of mass arbitration. news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/s...

1. Word to the wise: Don't tell your nemesis about when you hold your class. He may zoom-bomb you and try to serve your Civil Procedure class with a frivolous lawsuit from Texas in the chat! A 🧵on the hurdles to service via Zoom-bombing.

1. My 9-11 story. On September 11, I was clerking for Judge Jack B.Weinstein—a legendary jurist, scholar and person—who also happened to have an unobstructed view of the World Trade Center from the Brooklyn federal courthouse.

I've been thinking a lot about Judge Sutton's decision in Thomas Moore v Obama in connection with what the district courts are faced with today. He was right then to follow what the law was, and the district judges are right now. See below for a good take: www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/09/what...

There is something to SCOTUS acting like a "Supreme District Court." District courts are supposed to be our fact-finders and emergency decisionmakers, while our apex courts clarify legal principles, through detached "review, not first view." SCOTUS has flipped that script entirely.

I give up. Which is it?

Yes!

This is my favorite. Nora Engstrom’s “Plaintiff’s Lawyer.” She’s taught these materials at Stanford for over a decade. It’s more interesting than other ethics casebooks. And by focusing on plaintiff lawyers, rectifies an imbalance in our legal instruction. faculty.westacademic.com/Book/Detail?...

Another read is not that SCOTUS is shy about confronting Trump but that they're basically on board with his project but would be embarrassed about the legal arguments they'd have to make if they upheld his actions on the merits, so they find procedural means to let him get his way.

1. Earlier, I said SCOTUS was ducking confrontations with Trump by "channeling" them to less effective places. Maybe better words are "fragmenting" them. Curbing nationwide injunctions. Scattering Alien Enemy Act cases to all 94 districts. Dividing funding challenges... bsky.app/profile/stev...

I've posted a draft article on the Supreme Court's Skrmetti decision on SSRN. I argue that this harmful decision represents the worst sort of legal formalism, but does not predetermine the results in other transgender rights cases or eviscerate sex discrimination law. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

My take on how courts can stop the government in USA Today. For 25 years, courts have had no problem using class actions to enjoin blanket gov't policies. And APA relief remains alive & well. But the next high stakes cases to reach SCOTUS may screw up all of that. www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...

In the words of Senator John Kennedy, “That’s why God created class actions!” www.nytimes.com/2025/07/12/u...

In the words of Senator John Kennedy, “That’s why God created class actions!” www.nytimes.com/2025/07/12/u...

Certifying a class action in the birthright citizenship litigation is consistent with decades of precedent and makes sense. A defined group, adversely hit by a blanket government policy across state lines, need not repeatedly relitigate the same legal questions. www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/u...

A lot of bad takes questioning if courts can use class actions to stop illegal government policies. The answer is a resounding “yes” in lawsuits just like the birthright citizenship case. Want proof? Dave Marcus’ surveys every appellate case in the 21st century here. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

For those looking to understand what the Supreme Court decided, didn’t decide, and what happens next after the birthright citizenship case, CASA v. Trump, there are few better people to turn to than Mila Sohoni. www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/trum...

I think this is a genuine question. Why did the Court say you have an enforceable right to notice and a hearing in this first case, five weeks ago, but not in this case, today? Is there any difference between these two cases?

1. I told @bloomberg.com why people can use class actions to stop clear, enumerated, & illegal government policies after CASA v. Trump. Challenges to stated government policies are routinely certified in injunctive relief classes, even after Wal-Mart. news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-...

1. This is great. Question and comment. First, is there case law suggesting states cannot bring class actions? The Rule says "parties," and at least fifty years ago, the Supreme Court seemed open to the idea that States could be class action plaintiffs.

1. I spoke to the @theguardian.com about the obstacles to the latest challenges to Purdue’s opioid settlement: that it violates laws designed to compensate victims of crime. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

Two more important notes on Skrmetti's limits. It does not mean that legislatures can simply frame rules enforcing sex stereotypes at a higher level of generality, i.e., requiring men and women to do jobs "consistent with their sexes," to avoid heightened scrutiny. It's limited to health care. 1/2

And Skrmetti says nothing about disability discrimination claims, like the one that prevailed in Williams v. Kincaid (4th Circuit). (Thanks to @ezrayoung.bsky.social for pointing this one out). glad-org-wpom.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/u... 2/2

An important thread on today’s Skrmetti decision from my colleague, @jessicaclarke.bsky.social—one of the leading sex discrimination scholars in the country.

For context and critique of today's Skrmetti opinion, check out my article in the Chicago Law Review, Scrutinizing Sex. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

It's almost hard to remember this recent attack on the courts follows four years of successful conservative legal challenges to greenhouse gas regulations, vaccine mandates, eviction moratoria, student debt relief, and other government policies of "vast economic and political significance."

Yes. The old bill was a shot across the bow, but this is an outright assault on our courts. Under the old bill, courts could issue injunctions, with only a nominal amount for a bond (like $1). But this would bar judges from issuing injunctions—full stop—unless parties post potentially billions.

A very textualist approach in today’s tariff opinion. The plain meaning of the word “regulate” doesn’t include “tariffs” or “duties” in IEEPA & the Constitution. The Court also calls into question more expansive readings of an earlier law: “That is no longer how we do statutory interpretation.”

Update: I took a quick look. The notice of appeal for the Federal Circuit has already been filed. I can’t tell if an appeal is already at the Supreme Court. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Curious what SCOTUS watchers think will come next. Will the SG act fast—petitioning the Fed Circuit & SCOTUS at the same time—before markets open tomorrow? (The Fed Circuit heavily leans Democratic.) Or will it risk asking for relief that could cause markets to tumble later?

If I’m reading this correctly — and I’d like to think that I am — the U.S. Court of International Trade just handed the Trump administration its biggest, most sweeping legal defeat this year. reason.com/volokh/2025/...

@zclopton.bsky.social is the very best - very happy for Northwestern! 💜

@rickhasen.bsky.social has loaned me the keys to his election law blog again this week. I'll be threading my posts for the week here. Because, I guess.

If you are interested in class actions this is some fascinating reporting. H/t @hoffprof.bsky.social www.forbes.com/sites/jeffka...

Good news from Montana--a state court has struck down a gender affirming care ban, calling the ban what it is: an ideological attack on transgender people. Many state constitutions offer more protection against gender discrimination than the federal one. www.aclumontana.org/sites/defaul...

1. When Bayer couldn’t get the Supreme Court to stop thousands lawsuits over the dangers of its Roundup pesticide, it took an unusual step. It started lobbying state legislatures to do the same, one by one. I spoke to law.com about the history behind that strategy here: www.law.com/litigationda...