SCOTUS 2A oral argument starting soon on federal ban on gun possession by someone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”

Standing room only to celebrate my brilliant friend & colleague @azizaahmed.bsky.social and her new book Risk & Resistance: How Feminists Transformed the Law and Science of AIDS Buy it here because you should consume everything Aziza writes, says, thinks, intimates…. bookshop.org/p/books/risk...

This could result in a rule that rights will be defined by the "history & tradition" of a "national tradition." "National tradition" preempts property law, local custom, and even general practice within plural communities. This strikes me as strange even under the mythic view of "our federalism"

Yes, I get what the recent cases say, but the idea that the government isn't allowed to distinguish walking up to a stranger's front door with campaign literature and doing so with a firearm is complete madness.

"Unenclosed land" is not PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC how do you people listen to supreme court arguments I'm going on mute

THIS ⬇️‼️ I have tried to make this point since the day Bruen came down, that legislatures can only regulate IF there is indeed a problem to regulate so they can't etch out the scope of ANY constitutional law!!!

Petr: our national tradn is people are allowed to carry on places open to the publc. SS: this just requires permission, right? Petr: rule has always been implied right to do so. SS: not in hawaii Petr: rule is *national* tradn, not local custom

The way god and the founders and John Lott intended 🙌

"The state can't pass a law prohibiting you from bringing guns into people's private residences" is a WILDDDDDDDD hill to go up

Listening to Wolford v. Lopez Justice Jackson: “Do you agree with me that there is no Second Amendment right to carry firearms in someone’s home without their consent?” Petitioners‘ counsel: “I do not” Hannah: [eyebrows soar so high and so fast that they fly off the head]

Necessary reading for this morning is @maureenebrady.com's incisive piece--posted yesterday--about how to think through the categories of historical laws that will be the main focus of argument: old hunting laws. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

3. What hints does the Court give about the level of generality at which historical laws should be viewed, about the proper time period in which to draw from history about what changes Rahimi made to the method--and a whole host of related questions Bruen unleashed.

Big SCOTUS 2A oral argument starting. Wolford v. Lopez is about guns on private property but more importantly the first examination of tension between Bruen and Rahimi, and as a result any tension between the authors of each (Thomas and Roberts)

The overarching presumption of ANY males performing better in ALL sporting competition is insulting and objectively inaccurate Ask 4'8" Simone Biles if she'd fear some big hulking man in a wig beating her in the uneven bars, vault, beam, floor, or any gymnastics event

In trans cases, Kavanaugh makes it clear his mind is made up by asking questions unrelated to the current case. In Skrmetti, he asked about sports. Now with trans minors and sports, he's asking about cis-led suits against states allowing trans participation

This President is already trying to stifle critical comments from comedians on terrestrial tv at midnight

Can we take a moment to highlight basics of this case: we should so fear a group of consumer protection experts taking over the world through the FTC that we must give all power to the President

The conservative justices have their talking point -- what if Congress turned every department into a multimember commission -- and it is totally absurd considering that has never happened under the existing law.

Do we all have to go back to law school if SCOTUS rewrites ALL of the basics of law school training? Tuition remission will be critical in this economy

Big if true

Justice Blackmun was savagely criticized for decades for saying this about the 14th Amendment in Roe.

Jackson: Can you give us a sense of what other agencies there are with similar removal protections? Sauer: about two dozen. we've challenged four of them in this Court. Jackson: commission on civil rights, sentencing commission, nuclear regulatory commission....

KBJ: how are agencies not answerable to Congress when they can disband them and/or remove funding? Sauer: 🤫 KBJ: if Congress decides experts, not political actors, should decide certain policies, how are dangers minimized? Why is this subjugated to Presidents desire to fire ppl? Sauer: 🤡

Kavanaugh now reading his opinion from the bench! Lotta justices not even pretending they haven’t made their decisions already

Every political actor seeks to enhance its own power indeed, Justice Gorsuch.

I thought maybe I misheard this, but nope: it’s unconstitutional under an opinion that didn’t garner even four other justices’ support” Kavanaugh doubles down by fanboying Scalia (with a “take that Sotomayor!” jab) which Sauer happily joins in deifying

Is Gorsuch reading his opinion from the bench during oral argument?

Kagan: I appreciate the formalist argument but it shouldn’t blind us to the real world consequences

Kagan gets to what to me makes so much of this discussion and technicalities superfluous: at bottom, founders didn’t want all the power in one branch, let alone one person. This is elementary basics of our govt that literal children (wherever civics is still taught) would understand

Interrupting my reactions to Trump v. Slaughter to register an independent source of dread

Kavanaugh: "Tell me how the Fed is different" Sauer: "It's different" Kavanaugh: Great! (implied.) Kagan steps in, voice near shaking with disdain/disbelief at what the Court is about to do - setting up a fight about which entities exercise enough exec power that POTUS must be able to fire them.

It’s insane and embarrassing to continuously ignore questions from Supreme Court justices by saying “give us the result we want and ignore the impact of the reasoning down the line” My public health students with no legal training other than listening to me blab know better

Landmark case up for argument at SCOTUS at 10am on the power of presidents to fire independent agency heads. Here’s my quick preview in Espresso, @economist.com’s daily app. I’ll be posting live analysis during the oral argument in this thread

KBJ often presents her questions as a request for help in understanding a key aspect of the case, as opposed to asserting her unimpeachable interpretation as other justices tend to do frequently

First Choice v. Platkin (crisis pregnancy center case) oral argument happening now

A new @jama.com report featuring insight from #BULawProf @michaelrulrich.bsky.social. Learn more ⬇️

Boston area peeps: book talk tonight 7pm for FREE Come see @irincarmon.bsky.social talk about her amazing book with my brilliant friend and colleague @azizaahmed.bsky.social tonight @harvardbookstore.bsky.social at 7pm www.harvard.com/event/irin-c...

‼️GET THIS BOOK‼️ Unbearable: 5 Women & the Perils of Pregnancy in America by @irincarmon.bsky.social Grippingly illustrates how loss of humanity & dignity accompany pregnancy whether you want to give birth or not. Propulsive, insightful, & offering hope for the future bookshop.org/p/books/unbe...

Barrett - can we just say we’re clarifying Gingles (foundational precedent on the VRA) instead of modifying it? Trump admin lawyer- sure! You do you!!! As long as we’re making it impossible to enforce the VRA! (You do have to modify Milligan in one way tho, he acknowledges .)

Kavanaugh is trying to articulate his concurrence. He's going to say that Section 2 isn't unconstitutional, just everything that Section 2 DOES is unconstitutional.

Gorsuch: we have computers now Big if true

Not to be outdone, the Trump Solicitor General says you have to overturn Thornburg v Gingles, the 1982 precedent upon which all Section 2 claims are evaluated.

One of the most embarrassing opinions in recent Supreme Court history was Clarence Thomas insisting that when the post-slavery Congress protected “freedmen” they were protecting a “formally race-neutral category”

Lol. that was it. He was up for like 15 minutes of humiliation, and now he's gone. Last up is Hashim Mooppan. Deputy SG for the Trump administration. There's no real reason for the Trump admin to be here. But there's an opportunity for racism so I guess Trump wants to be involved.

Throwing all the bits and pieces of the worst discrimination jurisprudence never applied to voting rights at this - racial stereotyping (?); congruence & proportionality; has to be time-bound. We have a Court that is game. Let’s try it!

As a baby lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts was writing memos arguing that violations of the Voting Rights Act should not be "too easy to prove." This is not just any legal issue that happens to come before him. This is his life's work. He just wants to finish what he started.

Everything about John Roberts's approach to the Voting Rights Act makes sense when you remember that John Roberts has has always been hostile to the Voting Rights Act, never believed it was appropriate, and has spent most of his 45-year legal career working to hollow it out.