Let’s crack this open. @unlawfulentries.bsky.social

One last thing about why Wurman’s insufferable schtick. When @evanbernick.bsky.social, @gowder.io, and I wrote our Cornell piece, the Dunning School warning was about the public perception being altered by malignant actors. That’s continuing to happen. This was identified as a worry from the start.

Now we’re talking.

That’s a shame.

On my complaint about Ilan Wurman, bad histories, and AI. To wit:

Something that really unnerves me about these bad historical narratives is that you can almost be certain they’re creeping into LLMs and a couple of people in positions of relative influence can do real damage.

If only the South Carolina of 1868-1876 was allowed to blossom.

"Academics write for only 5 other people" but the stakes could be incredibly high, and thats why it matters

Look at the proliferation of historical misinformation spewing from one solitary man at the U. The damage he continues to inflict on the national public’s memory is not small. And it cannot be ignored.

She was on our town Board of Health. I’d say so!

Did you know that 100% of my maternal grandmas agreed my common law paper draft was “beautifully written?” 1 grandmother > 6 law professors. I don’t make the rules. Sorry.

I cannot say this often enough. The entire position of people like Wurman is that the undocumented immigrant has no rights which the citizen need respect. That's the direct implication of their absurd notion that "jurisdiction" means the "protection" of the sovereign which may be withheld at will.

Episcopalians: Wherever there’s four, there’s a fifth. Law professors: Wherever there’s six prominents, there’s a seventh.

Bless it.

All of this. It doesn't matter how many hacks sign on to this bad faith effort, the underlying argument is still ahistorical nonsense

also it's no surprise that Hamburger would join the side of the arbitrary power crowd. He already dropped a batshit insane ssrn arguing that people in deportation processes literally are outlaws without rights. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Wurman gets reposted by United States senators and prominent members of the federal government. They spread his impoverished work to thousands of people. This is a disgrace. And it is exactly what he wants.

If we get enough law professors to make up things, those things will become true!

Under the common law, if a jury of six dudes agrees with you, you are a natural-born genius.

Ilan Wurman is apparently a very recent convert to the idea that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says

ultimately all wurman has to fall back on is an appeal to authority and to credentials. it is demonstrative of how *he* does not care about the facts as such, and is in this game as a way to burnish himself and raise his profile

brb getting lunch with six other prominent friends

funniest part if wurman’s post is “me”

Hey, @jvagle.me.

When you’re Einstein, they just let you do it.

Y’all. I would die before I ever called myself a prominent professor in public, no matter how true I might think it.

An entire literature that went from John Eastman (1990s)… … to Ilan Wurman (2025)… … to a grand total of seven. An “entire literature?”

“At least seven prominent law professors.” As I suggested on Monday, this is just like Justice Gorsuch’s “battle of law reviews.” It’s not about the frickin’ scoreboard: www.stevevladeck.com/p/219-drunks...

I’m gonna just start a talk show with @evanbernick.bsky.social where we charge people $5/month to hear us crack jokes and talk about England and dogs. We’ll call it Heightened Review. Because yolo. Nothing matters.

Pick me. Pick me.

Happened again.

My New One at MS Now: “Three ways the Supreme Court could upend the midterm elections” — A Call for Court To Take Timing into Account in Callais, NRSC, and Watson @msnownews.bsky.social www.ms.now/opinion/supr...

Hamburger Epstein Barnett Lash Estreicher Who am I missing?

If you say “the history of the common law meant X,” and you don’t specify what time you are talking about between 1154 and the Year of Our Lord 2026, you have no credibility in my eyes.

Sending some draft materials off to Irish historians today because, well, I want to be accurate and not like a Minnesota law professor we all know and love.

I have not done the work of you, Evan, and others on this, but "subject to the jurisdiction" seems obviously meant to exclude those who refuse to be bound fully by our laws & whose refusal we accept, either because we choose to or because we must....

And the laundering of bad history through the magic of being a “prominent professor” to save Ilan Wurman from himself continues apace.

This was a banger. open.spotify.com/track/1jX3kB...

What if I just left for Scotland all summer and ignored America….

So happy to be in Chicago talking with @northwesternlaw.bsky.social students about The Pain Brokers today! Up next: @barbarasbookstore.bsky.social tomorrow, April 10, at 5:00 PM (Macy's location) with the fabulous Myram Gilles. Hope y'all can join us!

Hang it in The Louvre.

Every time someone from a T20 law school writes something ahistorical about birthright citizenship...

Another day, deeply disappointed that people in high places in the legal academy get to just *gestures* say things.

Philip Hamburger is out with a new piece that is somewhat correct in places but mostly absurd on birthright citizenship. He is correct about there being varying degrees of allegiance in the common law based on birth. This... You cannot dismiss the law's function on the basis of the language alone!

It’s hard to overstate how much of this moment is driven by people who got a taste of accountability and were very, very mad about it.

Today's writing agenda. 🇮🇪 ⚖️

All this, when books exist.

Ten years ago today, in April 2016, the Boston Globe printed a satirical front page imagining a future Trump administration. The page was called "alarmist," "hyperbolic," "dystopian." But we’ve put up with so much since then it now looks like . . . a slow Thursday?

In 1660, judges couldn't agree on which regnal year to use in the indictment against the regicides, as the crime of killing Charles I occurred on the last regnal day of Charles I's reign but also the first of Charles II's. So they just went with "30 Jan 1649" [from Sir John Kelyng's Reports]