It’s never great when Justices pull a Bradwell and start talking about “the nature of things.” Tends to age poorly.

If you think for a second, it's pretty wild that we all agree to be governed by a Court where everything turns on what Lyman Trumbull said or how Calvin's Case was decided. Originialism insists that we quibble over the dead hands rather than govern with our own. open.substack.com/pub/postcard...

Jackson's concurrence is really excellent both in substance and style. She's become a heroic voice amdist our modern Six Horsemen SCOTUS.

Very excited to be part of putting this together. Let us know if you want to come to Banff to talk about the history/theory of radical legal advocacy. (Space is limited, but we’ll do our best to include as many as are interested.)

I mean, Bolling is clearly wrong as a matter of originalism. But that says more about originalism…

Governance by Skynard.

Just to be very clear, SFFA did not overrule the line of cases that allow for policies like this or the 10% plan in Texas. The DOJ is free to argue whatever it wants, and god knows that SCOTUS could well accept DOJ's arguments. But this interpretation of SFFA is entrepenurial (and also very bad).

It's not real until it's on the blog of record. legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2026/06/farb...

Watching the OG tip in highlights is bringing this very painful moment into my brain a lot. youtube.com/shorts/Wewro...

Having loved the Knicks as a kid, and having fallen hard out of love with them since the departure of Anthony Mason, I was seduced and started watching in game 3. At halftime yesterday I became convinced that me watching was the problem so I went to bed. Seems I was right.

It's become common for (Parents Involved, SFFA) the conservative justices wax sanctimonious about how colorblindness is the true meaning of Brown...and how their opponents are making segregationist arguments. And yet, the actual neo-segregationists keep winning. Whoops?

"Political parties are colorblind" is a wild thing to say (and a wilder thing to believe) in the context of...all of American history.

Towns and Counties Great stuff from @danfarbman.bsky.social bit.ly/43u6ld9

If you want to read about the difference between town and county visions of localism check out my latest: Towns or Counties, hot of the pdf press at the Indiana Law Review. Come for the cool old maps, stay for the local government law history. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Everything is so crazy, but when I read the NYT article about Ahmadinejad, my first thought was this video. Which made me smile. youtu.be/zoS8DrrlnTQ?...

Robert Cover told us that judges and legal elites were "priests not prophets." This remains depressingly true. open.substack.com/pub/postcard...

MAKE TAXATION THEFT AGAIN!!!

Great TV. youtu.be/eBKWKu2Rqxc?...

Very strong Redemption vibes from the former Confederacy...day by day. www.newspapers.com/article/the-...

Redemption Localism. Example #29875 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Friendly reminder that white supremacy was itself a partisan political strategy wielded opportunistically by the former planter “Bourbon” elite during Redemption to consolidate political power against the multiracial coalition created by Reconstruction.

"The difference between yes and no votes is less than .000000001% of the number of plankton in the Indian Ocean...so, MATH!"

Town meeting democracy at its finest.

One reason Roberts might think the Court is not “political” is that SCOTUS has been dominated by conservatives for so long, that most of the decisive interpretive battles have been intra-conservative battles. These are still political! But it’s a special kind of echo chamber/ivory tower.

MAKE JEROME FRANK GREAT AGAIN!!!

I think he believes in this cult of neutrality fantasy that he's peddling. In a way I wish he were just a cynic. At least that would mean he was self-aware. The self-deception makes the politics harder to stomach. And the preachiness in service of the self-deception is both sad and infuriating.

Always read @hashtagblevin.bsky.social. Especially on our very occasional joint newsletter. substack.com/@benjaminlev...

I am once again begging the world to stop making my research into some of the worst moments in American history relevant in the present. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Redemption was a STRUGGLE between multiracial democracy and white supremacy. It's easy to see Jim Crow at the end of that struggle and despair in this 2nd Redemption. But the outcome of struggle is not foreordained. The work of building a pro-democracy mass politics remains urgent and essential.

This is basically right, though you could narrow the window from 1968 (Green) to 1973 (Rodriguez).

It is worth, I think, emphasizing that in trampling congressional attempts to protect the rights of Black people, the Court is basically doing what it has always done, with the exception of a couple decades in the mid-20th century when it often worked with Congress to protect the rights of Black ppl

Colorblindness means that existing inequalities and the policies which support them are constitutional, but race-conscious efforts to fix those inequalities are unconstitutional. The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is, apparently, to pretend that racial inequality does not exist.

Redemption 2, Electric Boogaloo.

In the compromise between radicals and moderates that led to the 14th Amendment, the radicals sacrificed land reform and redistribution for the thin reed of suffrage. Since then, white supremacists have tried to exclude non-whites from voting. Multiracial democracy is a struggle, not a promise.

MAKE CLEVER LAW EXAM ACRONYMS GREAT AGAIN!

Gerrymandering is a reminder that all jurisdictional boundaries are political choices. We frequently adjust congressional districts, but we treat school districts and suburbs as naturally occurring and inviolate. Obviously there are real differences, but it's all politically contingent and chosen.

This is perfect internet content.

It's a loser's move to complain about the umpires (conservative academics mad about reporting leaks) while the rest of us are watching what's happening on the field (John Roberts is a movement conservative and has always been).

To be fair, would watch and enjoy an actual horse race between Pope Leo and Trump.

MAKE THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH GREAT AGAIN!!

Mild take: disbarment is actually a very limited punishment for seeking to subvert the project of multiracial democracy through lies, subversion, and bad faith.

Something, something, "diet coke into wine."

Did Vance convert just so he could claim he invented Protestantism?

Most originalists will argue loudly that Dred Scott is not “good” originalism. (Which, of course Taney did not know about “fixation” or whatever.) But little by little these goons seem committed to rebuilding Taney’s vision of the Constitution.

The angels appear to be ICE Agents? Amazing. Real 1850s white baptists arguing that slavery was a divine institution vibes... www.google.com/books/editio...

Kittens are great, cats suck. Puppies suck, dogs are great.

This is the truth. And everything about it explains basically all of America, Con Law, etc.

This from Philip Hamburger seems slightly more careful and measured than other originalist salvos against birthright citizenship. That said, it reveals the extent to which originalism is a quibblers game--and a truly unappealing way to think about our fundamental law. lawliberty.org/allegiance-b...

The Red Sox are abject. What a bummer.

This is characteristically thoughtful and wise. Two gentle quibbles: 1)Steve seems to accept that GOOD history might give us better answers, but I think folks like Jonathan Gienapp have shown us that good history shows us that good history shows us that originalism asks bad questions.