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.

great 🧵 identifying yet another textual problem with the unitary executive. Per Justice Thomas, 18c dictionaries had a verb meaning “to assign for EXCLUSIVE use”—ie, the exact thing imperial presidency fans wish the vesting clause said. But that verb was NOT “to vest.” It was “to appropriate.” 🤔

Tbc this is a brand new argument. I’ve been reading UET stuff for a long time and I’ve never seen this move made. In all seriousness, it should immediately be added to the standard repertoire in the litany of problems with UET

I just published a blog post on the terrific Yale JREG Blog that draws an interesting--and potentially important--connection between Congress's power to "appropriate" and the three "Vesting" clauses in the Constitution. www.yalejreg.com/nc/vesting-v...

In today's Medina decision, Justice Gorsuch for the Court writes that if Article I, Section 8, clause i gave Congress a power to regulate, the enumeration of powers elsewhere in Article I "would be rendered largely pointless." That's a thoroughly orthodox view. It's also wrong. (1/7)

Roismann & Tamir on Administrative Law Teaching Materials, buff.ly/AuhHlOM - halev Gad Roisman (University of Arizona Law) & Oren Tamir (University of Arizona Law) have posted Pictures of a Revolution: Administrative Law in a Time of Change (123 Michigan Law Review 1105 (2025)( in SSRN.

very interesting paper!

/1 Just realized that my latest article with @yalelawjournal.bsky.social just dropped! This is obviously a huge honor. I really appreciate the editors taking a chance on a young, no-name scholar with an idiosyncratic story to tell. www.yalelawjournal.org/article/resu...

Thank you to @lsolum.bsky.social for recommending the piece. And, as always, for the tremendous service of running the Legal Theory Blog.

Really happy to see my new piece, Ancillary Rights, is now live in the Penn Law Review! Thread incoming in the next few days, but I couldn't wait to post it. pennlawreview.com/2025/05/22/a...

Always read Bec!

“The courts and Congress have given the president extraordinary powers in war. Granting him absolute discretion to decide when those powers are triggered makes them limitless.” My latest:

Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day—the anniversary, on the Hebrew calendar, of the start of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943. To mark the day, here’s a story. It’s about my grandfather. (1)

I'm up with a new piece on @lawfaremedia.org about the problems the Supreme Court would face trying to repeal Humphrey's Executor while preserving Federal Reserve independence. A thread: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/repe...

Final edits! @shalevroisman.bsky.social

Excited to have the opportunity to present Statutory Liquidation at the Harvard/Yale/Stanford Junior Faculty Forum in June! Check the paper out here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Is there anyone on here who is teaching a designated class or seminar on the 1st amendment--free speech and the establishment clause--who is willing to share their syllabus? I'd love to take a look! Thx

My interview (taped Monday) w/ Ross Douthat on the Trump administration's legal strategy against Congress, courts, and institutions, how the courts will and should respond, and what it means for executive power generally, in this presidency and the next. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/o...

Pleased to share that my next book is now under contract with Yale University Press. Tentatively entitled: THE DEPARTMENTS OF DEMOCRACY: HOW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROTECTS THE PEOPLE.

This from the Abrego Garcia case is the sort of thing I highlight in the piece below. The Admin is using the Court's own language to claim that when something falls in the President's "exclusive" power zone, no one--not even the judiciary--can regulate what POTUS wants to do.

My colleague @shalevroisman.bsky.social has an important piece in the HLR blog out today. Among its important claims is that there's a powerful way courts must constrain President Trump *even if* one sees presidential power (as the Court has) as increasingly "exclusive." Read it NOW!

I hope the piece might be of interest to among others, @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @becingber.bsky.social @debpearlstein.bsky.social @joshuamacey.bsky.social @blakeprof.bsky.social @narosenblum.bsky.social @jdmortenson.bsky.social @jedshug.bsky.social @dandeacon.bsky.social @curtbradley.bsky.social

I have an essay out in the @HarvLRev blog on "President Trump in the Era of Exclusive Powers." The basic claim is that we can understand Trump 2.0 as an exercise in taking the Supreme Court's recent separation of powers jurisprudence at its word. harvardlawreview.org/blog/2025/04...

The @nyulawreview.bsky.social and @policyintegrity.bsky.social have organized a terrific administrative law symposium today. My @umichlaw.bsky.social colleague @jdmortenson.bsky.social is here to talk about history, and I'm on a panel that is charged with ignoring history. 🤓

Great piece!

Thanks to @lsolum.bsky.social for the "Download it while it's hot!" recommendation for "Statutory Liquidation." Do as the man says! lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/...

Can’t wait for this!

Looking forward to my first one of these!

Amazing looking agenda for the National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars which is happening here at the end of the month

I have a new paper (forthcoming in the Administrative Law Review) on the Supreme Court's use of agency practice to settle statutory meaning. I may do a longer thread later, but here is the SSRN link and abstract. Comments welcome! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....