Looking forward to attending the First Amendment Law Review's 2025 Symposium tomorrow (and moderating a panel on Mahmoud v. Taylor)! medialaw.unc.edu/events/first...

Amazing

The final version of "Civic Duties and Cultural Change" is now live on @califlrev.bsky.social's website! californialawreview.org/s/4-Rice.pdf

Unless I'm missing something, this seems pretty straightforwardly unconstitutional.

Thread

this is a tacit admission that the administration is not confident in the legal arguments it would have to make in order to detain them, which should also cast into question the legality of the operation in the first place

When your toddler watches Mr. Rogers for the first time and immediately says, ‘’it’s an ad!’’

Very glad to see that former SG Prelogar and her team are handling this one. Nothing other than summary reversal is warranted here, but I’d settle for a cert grant.

This is not the most important part about Dobbs, but there’s (still) a typo on p. 6:

If the Court eventually grants cert here, I look forward to its "careful analysis" of the relevant history. Was there, in fact, a positive-law right to obtain information from the government about the gender-identity choices of one's children?

The sequence appears to be: (1) "All flag burners should be incarcerated"; (2) EO prioritizing the prosecution of flag burners who cause noncommunicative harms (because doctrine); and (3) "No, I'm actually demanding that literally everyone who burns a flag be imprisoned."

new frontiers in compelled speech

A series of short posts from leading scholars about the constraints the First Amendment imposes on the government's authority to impose conditions on federal funding. Seems relevant! This is a @knightcolumbia.org series from earlier this year. knightcolumbia.org/research/fed...

Nice.

Toddler’s first no-nap day. Help.

This man is ignorant. Wounded Knee was a massacre, not a battle.

Not many basketball camps come with a disclaimer of state action!

Nothing is more central to a free society than the right to criticize one’s government. Nothing.

Thread

Looking forward to attending this symposium in February! prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/...

Here's to hoping for a Gobitis —> Barnette mood shift. Too bad it'll likely require extraordinary suffering.

Sincerely wondering: what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations by federal immigration officials?

This strike is outright murder even if you accept all the legal arguments the Obama admin made in support of its drone strikes, which you shouldn’t. www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal...

‘’The Supreme Court’s Two Bodies’’

Wow!

Great post!

My dad is retiring today after over 30 years as a USPS letter carrier (with other jobs before that). For years, he also worked nights and weekends as a baseball umpire when our family needed more money. His good cheer amidst endless sacrifices will always inspire me.

The honesty is refreshing

"The Future of Press Freedom," a book co-edited by @sonjawest.bsky.social & @randersenjones.bsky.social & produced in conjunction with @knightcolumbia.org, with chapters by a stellar line-up of 1st Amendment scholars (& also me), is available via open access here: www.cambridge.org/core/books/f...

New paper! Along with my co-authors, Prof. Susan Appleton and Hannah Keidan, I have posted a short symposium foreword, "The Curiously Minor Role of Minor v. Happersett," on SSRN. Anyone interested in legal history, election law, or women's rights should check it out: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Interesting to see a Justice acknowledge that the Court might "narrow" one of its precedents. Usually, a majority just "declines to extend" an earlier decision, which is code for narrowing. Didn't realize they felt free to call this spade a spade!

Last fall, the editors of the Harvard Law Review invited me to write the Foreword for this year's Supreme Court issue. My working draft is below, and comments are most welcome. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

"drink higher": finish your OJ so I can go play "tiny tunnels": Cheerios "goobelies": blueberries "dobbelies": strawberries "hold you": hold me "f**k": fork "pooky pooky": I just heard thunder (which is spooky) "not this kind": switch songs! "I wanna stretch a legs": I'm done with this bath/car ride

Thank you, anonymous Con Law course evaluator.

Little known fact about Dick Fallon: he fulfilled the fantasy of many law professors and published a mystery novel (available on Amazon for $1900--even more expensive than Hart & Wechsler!): www.amazon.com/Stubborn-Mul...

Very glad he's leaving us one more book: www.cambridge.org/core/books/c...

This interview is so fascinating. Con Law folks – consider teaching these cases when you cover equal protection! www.buzzsprout.com/1227113/epis...

But this is absurd and inconsistent with, e.g., Congress having the constitutional power to regulate foreign commerce!

Apache Stronghold would like a word!

Am I doing this right?

W&M Bill of Rights Journal's Symposium Issue on Memory and Authority is available at HeinOnline, Lexis, EBSCO, Westlaw, and the W&M Repository. Check it out today! scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol33...

Today’s unsigned, unexplained #SCOTUS ruling clearing the way for removals of migrants to third countries without any additional process is a disaster—not just on the merits, but because of the government misbehavior that it not only refuses to punish, but effectively rewards. Me, via “One First”:

To find a new protected class, Justice Barrett would require a "legacy" or "longstanding history" of de jure "discrimination." But whether a lengthy history of legal classifications amounts to "discrimination" is a normative judgment made in the present. (1/)

Very much agree with this prediction. Not saying it's inevitable, but it's hard to think of a modern case better situated to be viewed retrospectively as another Plessy, Buck v. Bell, etc. Wish the dissenters had gone there! wustllawreview.org/2023/09/25/j...

Striving to canonize Geduldig is... a choice. My impression is that today's law students—even those who support Dobbs—overwhelmingly find Geduldig's reasoning to be indefensible (whether logically, morally, or both).

Sometimes you feel like you need to decide a case a certain way because the law requires it even if it harms people. Fine. But writing separately to say how much more you would harm people if you had the votes seems to me something one can and should avoid.

Excited to share a draft of my most recent work, “The Moral Complacency of Federal Indian law” (forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review): papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....