I'm late to this, but I really did not like Alito's questioning in Chatrie v US at all. His point about it being advisory was not illuminating, it didn't help get to the heart of the case and it looked bad in light of Vullo. The question about where's the outrage was strange too.

Of course, couched in language that was utmost clear as to the precise things being referred to.

So glad to be inducted into the American lawyer class. Thank you for the honour. However, as to the merits not sure how you can possibly interpret this class as back slapping when the near universal reaction has been condemnatory, especially among professors.

At a certain point, say in a year, there won’t be any SSRN links posted to this site, because it will all be lengthy threads providing literary and ‘scholarly’ criticism of Randy Barnett, Illan Wurman, Kurt Lash and Ilya Shapiro screenshotted tweets, accompanied by mandatory yikes’, oofs and wows.

At a certain point, say in a year, there won’t be any SSRN links posted to this site, because it will all be lengthy threads providing literary and ‘scholarly’ criticism of Randy Barnett, Illan Wurman, Kurt Lash and Ilya Shapiro screenshotted tweets, accompanied by mandatory yikes’, oofs and wows.

Alright let’s talk about the recent 5th Circuit Ten Commandments case. Disclaimer, I haven’t read the full decision, only the lead majority and dissent. So keep in mind this really about critiquing the majority, not traversing every jot and tittle including standing doctrine.

Twas the night before SCOTUS opinions and all through the house. Not a creature was stirring, not even Sam Alito’s spouse.

Lawprofblawg discovers the Church of England and its near 500+ years of history.

Leftie-engagementmaxxing Mark Joseph Stern experienced a massive cortisol spike after being brutally mogged by illiterate poasters.

Someone (other than me) needs to tell Evan that he’s being hysterical. Nobody outside of a tiny sliver of the American legal academy has read or cares about Moyn’s blog post including the Court, and very few people care about his seethes on social media. Seriously, academics need a dose of reality.

Once again the faintest pretension of crim justice reform on bluesky will fall like the drop of a hat when the person in the crosshairs is an individual they do not like. The implication that because he initially pleaded guilty that should be the end of it shows a serious lack of critical thinking.

I did that. Repeatedly. On the arguments you made including detailed reasons why you were wrong on various procedural points including the balance of equities analysis. You blocked me.

Another good guy with a gun stops an antisemitic terrorist attack on a Temple in Michigan, preventing a horrific tragedy. People will still argue that carry in houses of worship shouldn't be allowed giving these attackers free reign before the cops show up to inflict as much carnage as they can.

1. He needs to explain what those other circumstances are. 2. The injunctive relief the Court effectively grants (via vacating a stay of said injunction) already takes into account the potential harms to children by exempting from the injunction abusive situations.

I'm sorry but the arrest of Andrew isn't a win for the rule of law. It was clearly a politicised event coinciding on his birthday so they could serve up some cosmic justice in the form of a back seat de facto perp walk photo on his b'day to a British public baying for it.

Atlanta has a homicide rate that’s comparable to Colombia. Yep extremely successful stuff here!

SCOTUS deserves better haters. To be clear, Steve is on the better end, but still, a peruse of common law rules around competitions (105m dash hypo) and common law rules around companies - directors don't sue for violations of company rights, companies do - would answer all of these objections.

@williambaude.bsky.social TransUnion can be squared with Bost because TransUnion says for Art III standing there must be some interest traditionally protected at common law. The common law itself has dealt with competitive injury in a closed competitive system, i.e. elections.

Another day, another badly reasoned KBJ opinion in a standing case case which I am sure will get plaudits on this site. Not quite as bad as Diamond Alternative, but that really isn't a high bar.

The US actions in Venezuela are unconstitutional. In my view, they are also bad policy and a likely path to instability within Venezuela. They aren't bad because of some appeal to muh international law which nobody really actually cares about. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

You are conflating Plato with Socrates.

Particularly bad day to be Samuel Moyn and Ryan Doerfler.

This is at the heart of a lot of this. Progressives have the view that when they are in power they should be free to rework the Constitutional order like clay, and then the conservative response should always be to reinforce that new settlement. No, actually, that's quite ludicrous thinking on it!

Don't look now, but there's a scrumptious Chevron case that's going to be argued tomorrow and the anti Chevron side benefits the asylum seeker.

Not sure if the restore the rule of law bros realise that overtly politicised prosecutions of people settling cases isn't a good sign for the rule of law. I mean the pitch right now seems to be criminalising normal legal process.

Someone please tell law professors that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their paying clients including to act in their best interests, and not the bluesky peanut gallery. The gent from Georgia hasn't obviously even done a legal ethics course at his own University.

Someone please inform him that it is legal to block people without having to find a pretext.

The docket for 2025-26 should be called the freedom docket with the number of cases which will probably result in expanded or reinforced freedoms.

The Progressive case for the Enabling Act.

Bluesky commentariat when SCOTUS allows govt to close churches during COVID (ok, religious people are conservative and icky and don't really deserve 1A rights) vs when SCOTUS allows the Pres to control the branch of govt he represents via sacking pointy heads (Constitutional crisis, end of days).

Two quick and interrelated thoughts. 1.) I know* the Court isn't relying on this rationale, but it seems to me there's a strong argument that violations of individual rights should mean the balance of equities generally favours the P. i.e. a shutdown of a church or protest, there's irreparable harm.

SCOTUS has just cleared the way for Trump to fire members of the CPSC, hot on the heels of the Colbert Report being cancelled. America has fallen. This is what FULL FASCISM looks like. I'm so upset by the above two things I'm moving to Canada.

Considering @williambaude.bsky.social 's take on Diamond Alternative. Surely the intuitive point @epps.bsky.social was trying to reach to distinguish Allen v Wright was attenuation in causation. It's not clear if tax status actually would have any net impact on school segregation. Further, I think

What's struck me about the end of term wrap ups is how little attention has been paid to Vanderstok v Bondi. Gorsuch wrote a stinker imo, but regardless, buried there is a case that may have huge consequences for challenging regulation validity, and it's been buried because it was months ago.

It would be a little bit fun if the Paramount Executives got prosecuted by a revanchist Democratic administration only for their convictions to be reversed by the Roberts Court.

Worst opinion of the day, KBJ's dissent in CASA, said absolutely nothing useful and all interesting points were made by Sotomayor. Second worst, Kavanaugh in FCC. My goodness, this opinion almost convinced me these anti juristocracy people are right based on the level of cringe.

Today is where I get a bit edgy and tell Americans that a Constitutional monarch is preferable to a "normal" Presidency. Now, I agree in principle against monarchy if you could create a non-monarch head mimicking an ideal Constitutional monarch, but since that's not the Presidency,no Kings is silly.

Anti anti juristocracy porn bots step forward.

Bluesky commentariat when SCOTUS allows govt to close churches during COVID (ok, religious people are conservative and icky and don't really deserve 1A rights) vs when SCOTUS allows the Pres to control the branch of govt he represents via sacking pointy heads (Constitutional crisis, end of days).

Incredible overreactions on bluesky today and loving it.

>Fleeing felon with a gun in hand >Unless he presented a threat to someone’s safety. Yeah maybe think a bit harder how those two thoughts operate together.

Has anyone in the "Roberts Court is Presidentialist" camp reconciled this view with the robust appointments clause jurisprudence that is evident in cases such as Lucia, Arthrex and the conservative position in Noel Canning?

Listening to an excellent Fedsoc presentation on remedies in Pres removal cases. What is striking to me is that if these people who are sacked by Trump refuse to leave, they are fixing the remedial problem in Collins v Yellen for the private parties.

Everyone seems to be frothing Jonathan Gienapp's new book and yet listening to strict scrutiny episode with him it seems Originalism is still very safe.

Blocked by 94 people thus far, the vast majority of whom I have not interacted with. Incredible.

Because of recent events I have thoroughly changed my mind on Ho. He should not get a nomination for SCOTUS.

For once leftie blue sky isn’t exaggerating. The attack on birthright citizenship when the US Constitution is very explicit on this, and the January 6 pardons which are far too overbroad are very very bad and disturbing.

Now we've decided that just because the Pres runs on a platform pre-election doesn't mean they just get to implement it if it isn't lawful regardless (looking at Biden student loans here), aren't we also awfully glad SCOTUS hasn't been totally delegitimised so it can protect birthright citizenship.

Cannot precisely put my finger on it, but I think the commentary I've seen on here and Twitter straight after Tom Goldstein was indicted that was along the lines of his op-ed must have been motivated by a personal desire to obtain a pardon from Trump seems quite gross to me.

RIP Jimmy Carter, one of the greatest men to ever be US President.