I don’t know, last I checked, that’s very wrong. But, what do I know; I just do law 🤷🏼‍♂️

OR. And this might be wild. Don’t use chatGPT for research? Or work? Or trust it to store all of your research? Because, uhhh…. This is a problem of your own making.

Since we've changed the Department of Defence to the Department of War... Are we changing the Department of Justice to the Department of Injustice? Department of Authorising Kidnappings? Department of Unlawfulness? Department of Unconstitutional Actions? I'm open to suggestions here.

His name is Liam Ramos, and he is 5. He was abducted from Minneapolis and trafficked to a detention camp in Texas.

It’s like she’s never seen the film Minority Report. Or perhaps she’s confused and didn’t realize that it was a dystopian film, not a goal.

Unhinged

Everyday the news is some new horror. I’ve had enough of my 2026 free trial. I’d like to return it, thanks.

Citing to originalist sources is disingenuous here, since modern 1A is fundamentally unoriginalist. Even worse, forms of dress and expressive conduct ARE protected under 1A. The Court saying that this isn’t expressive conduct is simply wrong on the law.

Abstract accepted for presentation at SLSA on Wicked and American authoritarianism. Somehow I’ve convinced people talking about musicals is academic discourse about authoritarianism. 🥴 See you all there!

This. Fascism is ALL about aesthetics. Remember: the Nazis had uniforms by Boss; cars by Mercedes. Propaganda is used to project a very particular imagery of power, masculinity, control, etc. that is supposed to look like competence and success.

Originalists have long been criticized for their inconsistency in not applying originalism to the First Amendment. So, now they’re doing that. Also, please don’t. 😬

Not on my 2026 bingo card: Kidnapping the leader of a foreign country with no legal authority whatsoever. So, that’s fun.

Am I...am I understanding correctly that while we were sleeping the Trump administration attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president and is saying Venezuela's president (and *not the US president, never that, no) is going to stand trial for crimes

I don't know how you can put your name to a plainly wrong statement like "unlawfully present people don't have access to courts" as a constitutional law professor unless you don't know what you're talking about or have a reckless disregard for the truth. It is inexplicable to me.

This. And it’s evident especially — to my mind, anyway — in First Amendment speech; originalists are not demanding the reversal of Brandenburg to a pre-20th century understanding. Most of their free speech demands are fundamentally anti-originalist. Originalism for me, not for thee.

Easy: yes.

I get the basic idea. I’m sympathetic to the notion that reasoned empathetic engagement can be persuasive. But, when it’s a “you (because you’re LGBTQ+, an immigrant, etc.) don’t deserve human rights” or “I’m okay with genocide” conversation…. It’s more than acceptable to get up and walk away.

Seems like the first attempt to use the case against the Northumbria Police earlier this year, which ruled that participation in pride was contrary to impartiality, and apply it elsewhere. The problem, of course, remains that this logic demands public services refrain from articulating 1/

Airport travel reading for the day, @leahlitman.bsky.social Does it make airport travel less stressful? No. Does it make me feel better about the state of the Court? No. Am I nonetheless enjoying reading it? Absolutely.

“When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of ‘gold standard’ reputation for a single week of political quiet.” www.nytimes.com/2025/12/21/b...

“No one was interviewing me because I didn’t complete the job application. So unfair! Discrimination!”

This. Super this. Just because the administration is seemingly unbothered does not mean that law no longer exists or applies; or that they can be held to account for its violation.

How many times do we need to point this out? By appeasing the far right, you do not weaken it. You strengthen it. While weakening your own position. There's a vast amount of academic research showing this. But Labour will not listen. www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec...

“We can save human rights and fend off the far-right by abandoning human rights. No. See, you’re not getting it. They want to get rid of human rights; yes, we want to do that too, but we’re *different*. Why aren’t you getting how different we are?” 🙃 Since Labour still isn’t getting it: 1/

*English common law enters the room*

District Court: The Court has considered an entire record of evidence and renders a conclusion based on that rigorous examination of facts. Supreme Court: But you didn’t theoretically presume good faith!

Can we not use accurate descriptions to report the news anymore? No, not “legally shaky”. Almost certainly an extrajudicial killing. Accuracy matters.

This might even be considered one of the less unusual aspects of the dissent. It reads as, potentially, the most self-aggrandising and pompous dissent I've seen.

Labour bearing down on immigration will fix this any day now.

As a public/con lawyer, I endorse this message.

Really can’t emphasize this enough: This is a war crime. It’s not really up for debate. Any good lawyer would know this.

I don't know. Checking my legal theory notes, I'm pretty confident that Rome was state. I'm pretty confident some Roman welfare law existed (The Alimenta existed less than 100 years after Christ's death). And, that whole "Give unto Ceasar..." Embarrassing.

The UK has gone from "We need to enshrine the right to jury trial in a British Bill of Rights" to "We need to abolish jury trial" in the space of about 3 years. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

I am deluded. Too much reading philosophy has most certainly ruined my brain and made me deluded! 🫡

Are we all having a party? Let’s go.

I've been thinking for a while about how anti-trans feminist philosophy is fundamentally illiberal*; Stock's recent publications on both abortion and immigration suggest at least coincidence, though I suspect it is all underpinned by some core set of illiberal values. *illiberal/dominating

Labour proposals: If you're rich, we'll expedite your qualification for settled status. Earn more than £125k/yr? Then you only need to wait 3 years! If you came via small boat/on a visitor visa (because you were escaping and seeking refugee status), you'll need to wait perhaps at least *30 years*

As has become common with GOP attacks on free expression…. First Amendment, who is she?

This. Refugees make up a proportionally small population. The likelihood that the majority of people are encountering refugees in sufficiently numerous instances to form such negative opinions is probabilistically unlikely. Instead, it’s scapegoating politics 101.

Starmer’s anti-asylum policies show how utterly clueless he is about the right-wing media’s role in politics. He’s trying to fix a “problem” contrived by Farage, GB News and The Telegraph. He’ll never win, because ultimately he’s fighting a ghost – he’s fighting something that doesn’t really exist

Left-wing parties shifting to the right — maybe on issues like immigration and refugees (hey, Labour?) — does not save anyone. It legitimizes the far-right narrative. Fundamentally, it concedes the far-right argument: it agrees with their diagnosis of the purported problem. (Which is wrong).

Mahmood’s announcement certainly didn’t make me feel any better.

Writing to my MP to point out that Article 3 is an absolute right; and seizing people's possessions, including valuable jewellery and heirlooms, harkens back to a much darker period of history. Not how I wanted to be spending my time today.

In the end, we no longer operate in a marketplace of ideas. Platforms run a marketplace of feeling, where attention, not evidence, decides what rises. Emotional charge beats truth every time. Politics adapts to that logic, producing hollow performances instead of functional decisions.

An astute observation by EB White on the fascist philosophy of freedom. On their view to be free is to hold and enact their anti-liberal values, regardless of the consent or will of those over which such policy be enacted. Instead, individuals are subordinated to the state and made to serve the good

Imagine: Two refugees get here, fall in love, and have children right away; or imagine, they came pregnant. That child will have been born in the UK, spent their entire 18 year childhood in the UK, and now face deportation. Because jus sanguine applies. They will be deported to that country.

Once upon a time the Labour Party believed it should develop new progressive ideas and policies that would enthuse and inspire the public into the belief that a better world is possible even if if needs some effort now to achieve it.

Hey, Labour. Hey, Mahmood. This does not work. Chasing the far-right down their authoritarian rabbit hole will not save us. You merely legitimize their rhetoric by playing their game. Giving them control.

An excellent example of why I will not vote Labour. It is no longer a liberal party.

Then you do not deserve to be in power. If you are incapable of providing a better picture that isn’t morally objectionable, you’ve failed.