Huge thanks to @lsolum.bsky.social for ‘highly recommending’ my paper on living constitutionalism now available on SSRN. That’s made my day! The paper is part of a new Research Handbook on Constitutional Interpretation out now with Edward Elgar.

As part of @yalelawjournal.bsky.social’s new online Supreme Court review, my latest focuses on Catholic Charities. I ask about the role of religious motivation in granting exemptions and in limiting state support for religion — and why it matters for one but apparently not for the other.

Attn junior admin law scholars--submit your abstracts by 2/27 for the annual new scholarship roundtable--a fantastic venue for getting feedback & making connections in the field--this year at Vanderbilt Law. Details at the link: www.yalejreg.com/nc/call-for-...

Happening tomorrow—come join us!

Friedman & Mortenson Constitutional Law is currently sold out of literally every outlet because the uptake of adoptions continues at such an astonishing rate. (2x adoptions Spring 2026 vs Spring 2025 😱) 9 out of 10 dentists agree: don't walk, run to adopt this exceptional platform next year 😇

3/ Gary Lawson and I have made a similar argument in this paper: The Constitution delegates presidential removal rules to Congress. Congress has more latitude to limit presidential removal power & set conditions, so long as the conditions are "necessary and proper": papers.ssrn.com/abstract=573...

I am happy to see this too. I agree with Rappaport's framing of the issue as one where both branches have power (POTUS to control and Congress to structure offices). This is also how I framed the issue in my "Limits of Formalism" piece below. /1 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

More major originalist movement against presidential removal power: Mike Rappaport, prominent originalist unitary theorist, admirably updated his views: Article II does not imply a removal power. He makes a case for presidential policy control instead. blog.dividedargument.com/p/guest-post...

Here's my latest paper with Jack Goldsmith, "General Law Revivalism and the Problem of 1938." Short version: Erie is incompatible with and precludes many versions of originalism but is now too foundational to eliminate. (Comments appreciated.) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Hosting JILSA in Hawai‘I continues to exceed all expectations. Most beloved scholarly community.

We have posted a new edition of Weiler, Arato, Cho, and Claussen, International Trade Law Through the Cases (2025): jeanmonnetprogram.org/resources/th... The update refreshes things throughout, and adds new units on Security Exceptions, Trade Remedies, and the “America First” trade policy.

My thoughts on the Interim Order in Trump v. Illinois open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

The Cambridge History of Rights by Samuel Moyn and Meredith Terretta A comprehensive and authoritative examination of rights-making in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 📚 https://cup.org/4pQar8Y #humanrights

This one was fun to write: did 2025 put a final stake thru the heart of the process school? Or was it maybe the beginning of a revival? (Take our course this spring for more!) @yalelawschool-yls.bsky.social @samuelmoyn.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/o...

this @jadler1969.bsky.social post is a great summary of the Frost-Eason paper’s findings reason.com/volokh/2025/...

Congratulations to @jdmortenson.bsky.social, my colleague Rebecca Aviel, and all the other newly elected members to the American Law Institute!! 👏👏👏

I've been puzzling over this thread for the last day. I even posted a thread and deleted it. My initial response was to say that I was genuinely interested to know if Ryan and Sam no longer wanted to abandon constitutionalism.

Plz join us for one or both of these interesting webinars--the first one is taking place already next week! For deets, see ads below. @narosenblum.bsky.social @nicholashandler.bsky.social @nicholasbednar.bsky.social @blakeprof.bsky.social @jedshug.bsky.social

Sam, interesting piece, but I am trying to reconcile it with your and Ryan's earlier work. The piece tries to distinguish its claim from "nihilism" about law. But you & Ryan have argued for abandoning Constitutions entirely-not just judicial supremacy regarding constitutional interpretation. /1

Presidential Factfinding

Worth notice: Andrew Coan on executive defiance of district court orders -- and the potential executive strategy of ignoring rather than appealing. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Andrew Coan, Reverse Marbury buff.ly/BZEXAio

This is a great piece!

High praise for UK Law Prof Jonathan David Shaub in a new JOTWELL review by Prof. Margaret Kwoka of his recent article: adlaw.jotwell.com/informationa... #UKLawProfResearch

Ahmed on Two Theories of Representative Democary Ashraf Ahmed (Columbia University - Law School) has posted The Two Faces of Representation (California Law Review, Forthcoming 2026) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: In pluralistic democracies, representation is the process that mediates difference…

Highly Recommended!

Timely and important piece on "The Appellate Void" by my colleague, Andy Coan, now up on SSRN. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Call for Papers for 15th Annual Fed Courts Junior Scholars conference is now up: law.ku.edu/junior-facul.... Lots of advanced notice, hope you will consider submitting! Will work on distributing this to various listservs and blogs, but please share if you are able.

/2 Re-upping Enforcement Lawmaking & Judicial Review, where I argued that the Supreme Court risked subverting judicial power for executive power if they curbed lower court decisionmaking. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

At NYU's Democracy Project (more on that later), Prof. Caleb Nelson has a feature essay arguing that originalism does not support the unitary executive branch theory. Caleb is one of the country's leading originalist scholars, frequently cited by the Court. democracyproject.org/posts/must-a...

My article, "Statutory Liquidation," is now in final form. Check it out on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... Or at the Administrative Law Review website: administrativelawreview.org/volume-77-is... Thank you to the many who helped improve it!

Very generous and thoughtful piece applying the framework we put forward in linked piece below. Thank you, Rodger! michiganlawreview.org/journal/pict...

Hi Folks! I wanted to share a 🧵about my JMP in @yalelawjournal.bsky.social (now on SSRN). It reconstructs the law of officeholding in early US, arguing that it is inconsistent with the unitary executive theory. (1/

This paper is a product of years of frustration with—and yet, an unrelenting commitment to—the field of international law. I hope it helps to launch a (more) productive conversation about what intl law has historically done and where the field might go from here. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Reading the court's opinion in United States v. Russell -- interbranch litigation that the Executive initiated against the District of Maryland. Some thoughts on the opinion, which reaches the right result, sometimes on the right grounds and sometimes on incorrect ones. /1

Interested in interbranch litigation? Check out these two articles: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I've just posted "The Alien Enemies Act of 1798," a draft article doing a deep dive into all aspects of the statute and background law -- what it all meant in 1798. It defines "invasion" and "predatory incursion," among other provisions. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I think this is also an example of the exclusive powers conception taking over. See Rao's op (at 12) arguing the dct erred by interfering w/ POTUS's exclusive diplomacy power. For an initial take on the exclusive powers era, see below. Full article version TK... harvardlawreview.org/blog/2025/04...

Very grateful that my pitch for the field of Judicial Administration - that is, studying courts as institutions and how they function day to day - is now out with the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities . . . papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Loper Bright's Disingenuity, with @cary-coglianese.bsky.social, is forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. We argue that the majority opinion in Loper Bright is empty and internally contradictory. It is an assertion of power rather than reason. papers.ssrn.com/abstract=537...

Excellent post by @aratojulian.bsky.social & Justina Uriburu - www.ejiltalk.org/treaty-and-c...

It seems increasingly apparent that, IF President Trump fires Jerome Powell, it will be on the basis of having ostensible factual "cause" to do so pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act, rather than by claiming that the Federal Reserve's independence is unconstitutional.

Richard Fallon, In Memoriam, buff.ly/6WxLugJ - A tribute to the great scholar and dear friend.

OLC reared its head recently to opine that Trump can abolish any national monument he wants. Here are just a few of the problems with OLC’s opinion. www.yalejreg.com/nc/olc-rears...

Getting closer and closer to the third paragraph here:

And vest is a property/trust thing, which may be transferrable

Yes, this is an important qualification. I am not drawn to these sorts of textual arguments, but they are an important feature of formalism as it is currently understood in the separation of powers. For that reason, I think this is an argument worth grappling with.