Thanks to Adam Liptak for mentioning First Amendment Inversion static.nytimes.com/email-conten... @texaslawreview @adamliptak.bsky.social

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....

An ill wind. My clinic, working with my colleague @nelsontebbe.bsky.social and Prof. Sager at UT-Austin Law, has filed multiple amicus briefs supporting CO in the Tenth Circuit in this case and a related case. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/20/u...

Tebbe on First Amendment Inversion Nelson Tebbe (Cornell Law School) has posted First Amendment Inversion (Texas Law Review, Vol. 104:509) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: First Amendment politics have inverted in key areas of speech law. Positions previously associated with legal conservatism have…

My friend & colleague @nelsontebbe.bsky.social has an Article on "First Amendment Inversion," just recently published by the Texas Law Review. It documents a fascinating and important shift in how different political groups have conceptualized free speech: texaslawreview.org/first-amendm...

University of Michigan: On Friday, come participate in a day-long conference discussing/criticizing my new book *The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power.* With Profs. Jack Balkin (Yale), Maggie Blackhawk (NYU), Sam Erman (Michigan), Jonathan Gienapp (Stanford)… (1/4)

The Supreme Court signaling that Mahmoud may extend beyond curricular opt-outs. We anticipated this move in the vaccine context in our recent comment, @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13....

The Supreme Court had three religious freedom cases last Term. With @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, our latest comments on them, extending our analysis of religious preferentialism under the First Amendment. harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...

Also exceedingly rare for a court to cite Schragger, Schwartzman, and Tebbe, but lo and behold.

Some thoughts on Mahmoud v. Taylor, where parents are seeking to exempt their kids from elements of the public school curriculum that teach acceptance of LGBTQ people. (This interview was conducted before yesterday's oral argument.) time.com/7279370/mahm...

Along with fellow Religion Clause scholars, I filed an amicus brief yesterday arguing that the Establishment Clause would prohibit such an establishment (and also prohibit the state's sponsorship and funding of the religious school). www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

My fellow amici are @bjessiehill.bsky.social, Bill Marshall, @micahschwartzman.bsky.social, @richschragger.bsky.social, and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social. Don Verrilli is the Counsel of Record. [3]

In this brief in Mahmoud, Larry Sager and I argue that Tandon, property understood, requires equal value toward religious groups. Nothing in Mahmoud indicates devaluing, all things considered. Outstanding work by Becca Hansen, Rachel Miller-Ziegler, and Helen White of Munger Tolles.

Here's our amicus brief in Drummond, where the Court is considering whether Oklahoma must fund a religious charter school. Our distinctive argument is that the answer is no, regardless of whether the school is public or private. Thanks to Marty Lederman for drafting, and to Don Verrilli as counsel.

This "immediate cancellation" violates the law. If the Admin thinks Columbia has violated Title VI by being deliberately indifferent to antisemitic harassment, it has to give Columbia a chance for a hearing first, make findings on the record, & wait 30 days. www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03...

Congrats to the Texas A&M Law Review for hosting a fantastic symposium today on Jack Balkin's book "Memory and Authority." What a treat to talk constitutional interpretation with these great scholars! ⬇️

Will always be a sucker for the hard copy.

In addition to general constitutional objections to Trump’s impoundment, religious recipients of federal grants/aid would seem to have free exercise claims under Fulton/Sherbert, given that this order creates a system of discretionary exemptions and individualized assessments. Relevant text below:

Starting off 2025 with the publication of Reestablishing Religion, co-authored with @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social. lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv...

For the political economy of this case, and predictions about it, I’m (again, I know) re-upping my article, Reestablishing Religion, with @nelsontebbe.bsky.social and @richschragger.bsky.social: lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv...