If you’re a law professor thinking about reposting the claim that the Unite the Right rally was staged or faked, I’d encourage you to read the transcripts from Sines v Kessler. I know they run several thousand pages of testimony from the organizers, but they’re easily accessible and linked below.

"Measles Took My Daughter. This Is What I Want Everyone to Know." SSPE is only caused by the wild measles virus. It's always fatal. The risk of it is higher the younger the age of the child when they get measles. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/o...

Bat signal received:

Here's a "hallmark" of a religious establishment: the state acting for the purpose of saving souls. And when the state claims it has secular reasons for declaring religious truth, Madison answered this "was an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." constitutioncenter.org/the-constitu...

CA5 rules that there is no secular purpose requirement under the Establishment Clause. So when individuals act for religious reasons, their actions are treated as religious, triggering exemption claims; but when the state acts for religious reasons, its actions are ... well, nothing to see here ...

There’s about to be lots of doctrinal analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s 10 Commandments case. But the outcome was easily predictable, for reasons that @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social laid out in our paper on Reestablishing Religion: lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv....

To understand how we got to this point in the breakdown of separation of church and state — in which the Court requires funding of religious schools and then gives them special exemptions from rules that apply to all other schools — it helps to have some history: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

These outbreaks result from religious exemptions leading to significant breaches of herd immunity. States should repeal those exemptions that are being exercised irresponsibly. Meanwhile the Supreme Court is flirting with constitutionalizing them.

Bosses should not impose religion on employees: virginialawreview.org/articles/cor...

So much for the etiquette of animus.

With lots of sparks flying, this post by @bradwendel.bsky.social provides a helpful overview and a thoughtful discussion of the First Amendment issues that are (and aren't) at stake in this case. bradwendel.substack.com/p/some-thoug...

The Supreme Court has allowed lower courts to turn religious liberty into license on vaccinations. But Judge Wilkinson holds the line in CA4 — tells the Court it’s time to get serious. @zalmanr.bsky.social with the run down.

The cope is strong with this one.

Nothing in our principles commits us to humoring the disorders of antisemitic ultramontists.

A few moments later.

When I wrote this paper with Jo Wilson in 2019, most readers had never heard of Catholic integralism. “Postliberalism” wasn’t a thing yet. And too many law professors were taken in by the idea that “common good” constitutionalism was something other than a … /1 digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol56/i...

Something about disestablishment, if you can keep it.

Courts are struggling to apply Groff in novel religious accommodation disputes. It helps to have some principles: yalelawjournal.org/article/dise... news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-...

For the latest in first amendment Lochnerism:

I know legal scholars are supposed to stop making legal arguments and just make moral/political ones, but can I get an exception here?

I found the main premise of this piece unpersuasive — that liberals misunderstand the moral ambitions of illiberal states/social movements. It also downplays state coercion, even while describing the attack on CEU. It sounds like the audience mentioned in the intro knew better.

Some pointed questions in an excellent post by @gowder.io on the role of legal argument in the controversy over birthright citizenship. balkin.blogspot.com/2026/03/poli...

Pretty sure I got blocked (maybe ostracized is the word now?, casssunstein.substack.com/p/ostracism) on Twitter for asking a version of this question. Still a fair one. thepointmag.com/criticism/li...

Schwartzman on Asymmetry of Religious Motivation in Religion Clauses Cases Micah Schwartzman (University of Virginia School of Law) has posted The Asymmetry of Religious Motivation (135 Y.L.J.F. 467 (2025)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The Supreme Court’s current approach to religious freedom…

I almost attended IU Maurer, and Prof. Almendares was very generous with his time and advice, even after I’d decided to enroll elsewhere. In sum, also recommended as a person, by me.

Jotwell: Meeting the Challenge of Civic Education in Hyperpolarized Times - Family Law family.jotwell.com/meeting-the-...

Almendares on Unitary Enforcement Nicholas Almendares (Indiana University Maurer School of Law) has posted Unitary Enforcement on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Enforcement is an essential part of law. Yet, increasingly Congress has no say over it. A full-throated embrace of the unitary executive…

John Rawls would have turned 105 today. Here he is at his best...

If they post the 10 Commandments in Hebrew, then no one can read them, and so the case is obviously not ripe.

WATCH: Following recent events in Minnesota, Profs. Rachel Harmon, @richschragger.bsky.social and @micahschwartzman.bsky.social ’05 examine legal issues with deploying federal immigration agents.

Profs. Rachel Harmon, @richschragger.bsky.social and @micahschwartzman.bsky.social ’05 will be panelists Tuesday for “The Crisis in Minnesota: Executive Power and Civil Liberties,” sponsored by #UVA’s Miller Center and #UVALaw’s Karsh Center for Law and Democracy.

This post by Joeseph Heath is wonderfully written and a concise overview of Rawls's main contributions to liberal thought (h/t @cbarzun.bsky.social). A few quibbles: (a) the persistence of his ideas is not unexpected ... /1

Trump’s SBA is targeting Planned Parenthood for accepting federal funding under PPP. This renews a threat made during the pandemic. But it can’t be constitutional to pay $3+ billion to Catholic dioceses and other religious orgs while denying funding to similarly structured secular nonprofits. /1

As part of @yalelawjournal.bsky.social’s new online Supreme Court review, my latest focuses on Catholic Charities. I ask about the role of religious motivation in granting exemptions and in limiting state support for religion — and why it matters for one but apparently not for the other.

A better title for this might be "Christian nationalism returns to federal court." Note how broad the argument is. The claim isn't that there is a secular purpose for posting the Ten Commandments in public schools. It's that in Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Court rejected a secular purpose test ... /1

Helpful thread below -- after listening to the en banc argument in Roake v. Brumley, a few more impressions: (1) it's hard to overstate how badly CA5 conservatives want to reverse the panel that invalidated laws requiring display of the 10 Commandments in public schools /1

I wandered over there to check on how things are looking from the right. I hadn’t realized we’re in the midst of a Rawls conniption. Is this displaced anxiety about going to war with Scandinavia? Or just the usual eruption?

Because I know some of you are here for the bagels. #Bodos #Migo

The best bagels in NYC are Bodos bagels that someone from Cville took up there. @profmmurray.bsky.social

Don't miss Prof. Frost at 54:27-57:55.

I had missed this CA10 decision supporting religious exemptions from a university’s vaccine requirement. The panel majority said the university was constitutionally forbidden from inquiring in any detailed way into the plaintiffs’ sincerity: /1 uploads-ssl.webflow.com/63d954d4e4ad...

Your regular reminder that prior to the Covid pandemic, no federal or state court in the history of the United States ever invalidated a vaccine requirement under the First Amendment, let alone in the midst of a pandemic that was killing thousands of people daily. coloradosun.com/2025/12/02/c...

Under this Ninth Circuit holding, which conservatives are lauding (as below), can religious hospitals fire employees who refuse to be vaccinated? What about religious health care providers that object on religious grounds to employees who invoke conscience protections, say, in emergencies?

My colleague @amandafrost.bsky.social is excellent on this panel about birthright citizenship. Her response on what sources to read to understand the issue (at ~1:14) — as compared to the other answers given — is notable. @uvalaw.bsky.social www.youtube.com/live/scYYIy9...

Dean Leslie Kendrick ’06 joined the awards ceremony recognizing Profs. @payvandahdout.bsky.social and @rachelbayefsky.bsky.social for their research in civil procedure at @theaals.bsky.social annual meeting Wednesday.

The Ninth Circuit today holds that religious organizations have a First Amendment right to discriminate based on religion in hiring/firing non-ministers. The panel grounds its decision in the “church autonomy doctrine,” which the Supreme Court recognized for the first time in 2020. /1

Religious exemptions in the workplace don’t get as much attention as they should. Good to see this coverage, especially given the flood of cases after the Court’s decision in Groff.

Not always.

Before self-denaturalizing for insufficiently enthusiastic celebration of Christmas (“nothing bad” would happen to the Jews, we’re told), maybe I’ll teach a seminar on Locke’s letter, if American citizens are still allowed to read it. Or given all this talk of family, the first treatise.

I don't think there's any understanding of the First Amendment under which this ("our Savior") is constitutional. Yet they don't care, and they've eliminated all the attorneys who would've objected. Kudos to the Goldwater and Cato Institutes for condemning it. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/25/a...