If this is already happening in April, it's going to get so much worse as we approach the election.

Somehow "Make America Smart Again" presents as the insult to America that "Make America Great Again" should have but didn't.

I'd put $100 on him saying something audible on the recording.

Maybe it's just me, but I think a legal system that is constantly teetering on the edge of fundamental disruption whenever someone can concoct a farfetched argument out of some marginal ambiguities is not really a legal system in any meaningful sense.

America needs to get healthy again, and that starts by mainlining smoked meats. The beginning of a heart attack you feel after eating it is just the smoked meats working out your heart.

The lack of policy literacy in the American electorate is a slow-burning crisis. There has to be a better way to get people the information they need to make very simple evaluations like this one.

“Mike Johnson, House Republican extremists, and Donald Trump are why people missed their flights on Saturday.”

really can't be said enough that this case was decided by the same court that decided plessy v. ferguson. if they could have found a plausible rationale to limit birthright citizenship they would have done it. but there is none! the text is as clear as constitutional language can be.

It strikes me that the UET debate is a much better example than birthright citizenship of normalization of authoritarianism by scholars engaging on legalistic terms. Debates about what words meant in 1789 have sidelined the much more important point that the UET is a template for authoritarianism.

Seriously foolish to think that this campaign of censorship will do anything but make people more curious about what this administration is trying to hide.

NYT giving the president exactly what he wants. IT doesn't matter if this is legal or if it works. The point is the story. "The President Tried to Pay the TSA, but Congress Wouldn't Let Him"

New V-Dem data release dropped yesterday. For the first time, V-Dem identifies Trump-era United States as an autocratization episode. Here are 3 of V-Dem's indices for the full scope of U.S. constitutional history. Description of these indices in alt text.

Today I have a review out on @jotwell.bsky.social of Adam Samaha's "Rubber Stamps," which should be of interest to those who are concerned about generative AI, DOGE-like entities, the unitary executive, and more. adlaw.jotwell.com/rubber-stamp...

Late posting this here, but glad to have my @nyulawreview.bsky.social piece “Anti-Domination and Administration” out in print! The paper charts the new state this regime is forging, and offers an account of what a reimagined future state should look like. 🧵 (1/5) nyulawreview.org/issues/volum...

I can only imagine the activity on the Ninth Circuit judge's email list leading up to this.

Another instance of AI (probably) creating *more* work for people - here, for journal editors and peer reviewers

Our constitutional democracy really does seem to rely on 1) the assumption that presidents will understand their own limitations and seek to build bridges before just acting; and 2) the assumption that if presidents don't do that, there will be legal pushback. www.nytimes.com/2026/03/13/o...

In 1996 Clinton won 48% of rural counties. In 2024 Trump won 93%. "Rural Versus Urban: The Growing Divide That Threatens Democracy" explains why & what's to be done to heal the divide. I interviewed lead author @smettler.bsky.social for @barnraiser.bsky.social 1/ barnraisingmedia.com/a-strategy-t...

The fundamental mistake that the conservative legal movement made in looking at the Warren Court was assuming that it was all power and zero parts persuasion, so all they had to do was capture the institution. They were, I think, half right, but that other half is very important.

Reporting like this--establishing a direct casual line between managerial decisions and avoidable catastrophes--is so essential to tracking the concrete costs of this administration's assault on government capacity. Thanks to @propublica.org for this work.

No, it's not. But it is becoming the new normal, as I discuss here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Expect an epidemic of PTSD from veterans in about 5 years. The rules of engagement exist in part to protect soldiers from situations that rob them of their humanity and shatter their world.

In the end, like her dog Cricket, she was taken out back and shot when she was no longer useful.

Knew it.

A unitary executive doesn't have to ask. I was told this was one of the principal benefits of UET.

Preference falsification being slowly unraveled as they think they're safe.

The Republicans are lost souls and you can literally hear it in their voice as they try to hide their own realization that their defenses of this war make absolutely no sense and will convince nobody.

I was redirected from my usual polling place to another one. Poll workers said barely anybody had showed up. By about 3pm, I was voter 32. If it could happen to me, it could happen to anybody. I'm a high-information voter and this totally caught me flat footed.

I don't know, this seems like the kind of point you'd tout if you intentionally set up your organization to evade attribution of responsibility. Like when you ensure that the mob boss never personally does anything.

And it works. What a shambles our democracy is.

"How can you oppose war when Khamenei was evil?" Simple. If you killed Donald Trump by nuking Washington DC, I would not mourn Trump but I'd still say you're an evil war criminal who belongs in the Hague. It's really not hard.

I just re-read W.H. Auden's "September 1, 1939" and got chills: poets.org/poem/septemb...

Good news, if we die in a preventable mid-air collision, it'll be for the national security.

Public opinion is sometimes slow to adjust, but it responds sensibly to the information it's presented with (Page and Shapiro 1992). IOW; in the 'smart voter vs dumb voter' debate, the 'dumb voter' side is taking Ls

Yuck. I'm no fan of juristocratic rhetoric, but I'm also not a fan of mobster rhetoric directed towards judges (or anyone). Nobody owes you loyalty.

Hilariously, Gorsuch and Barrett have a side-battle over the major questions doctrine, with Gorsuch writing a 46-page solo concurrence saying it's a substantive canon and Barrett saying it's a mere tool of statutory interpretation. So these two can't even agree on what the "doctrine" actually means.

If I'm reading this correctly at first glance, this is one of the juiciest vote breakdowns I can remember. Six agree the tariffs are unlawful, but only three would rely on the major questions doctrine. The remaining three who would approve are some of the biggest boosters of nondelegation and MQD.

I think this is increasingly something all reform projects need to be thinking about deeply. Having worked closely with grassroots organizations for the past several years I believe it is only by working alongside them does real reform stand a chance. People power means engaging with people!

My two cents: this pathology (which is very real) is fueled by what we might call a "control fetish," which is the idea that legitimation crises can be resolved by bringing top-down political control to institutions. In our polarized society, this does not work--it just deepens distrust.

Today, along with my @progressivereform.bsky.social colleagues, we released an update to our 2024 Communities Left Behind project, addressing the intersection of renewable development restrictions at the local level, energy burden, and socioeconomic indicators progressivereform.org/publications...

Before we rebuild, we need to diagnose. You could do a lot worse than this (as depressing as it is).

This is what we call "enshittification."

Very happy to announce that The Chadha Presidency is now forthcoming in the @georgetownlj.bsky.social! ssrn.com/abstract=536...

Check out the latest from the SSRN #blog which includes a selection of #research on law & political economy. Read more: spkl.io/63323AQOn3#blog#research#LawSky #AcademicChatter #OpenAccess

Bringing new meaning to "bargaining in the shadow of the law."

Not once does this story mention that the Supreme Court in 2007 rebuked the argument that EPA lacks authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Let's not let SCOTUS off the hook here: it will need to decide whether to change course, because otherwise this is likely dead in the water.

The new Washington Post should start a reader poll for what other ideological opinions they want the Trump administration to spoonfeed the Post’s editorial board.

Impossible for me to fathom how a publication like the @washingtonpost.com could survive the revelation that propagandists in the administration literally feed it the stories and opinions they want it to print--and the Post just does it.

I see we're back to being concerned about clear legal authorization for major agency action. I wonder what could explain that.

Taxpayers are going to keep the dirty, dying coal industry alive for a bit longer.