if this keeps up i'm going to have to make this my new cell phone ring tone www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srwi...

Thrilled to share my latest, with @rickhills.bsky.social, in @dukelaw.bsky.social’s DLJ! Presidential Administration After Arthrex tries to work within the Supreme Court’s current Article II jurisprudence to reconcile a powerful, democratic president with competent administration. (1/3)

the Knicks are leading 60-19, which is actually higher than the scoring margin on the scoreboard in this Space Jam gag before it says "kinda one sided isn't it"

Alito also notes that Black turnout reached near parity with White turnout in 2 of the past 5 presidential elections. But which two, Justice Alito?? Oh, the LAST TWO before Shelby County? You don't say!

This 2024 post from my colleague @cisozaki.bsky.social is, sadly, even more relevant in light of today's Supreme Court ruling undermining what's left of the Voting Rights Act... www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

The Roberts Court has made American democracy much worse today. Congress has an urgent obligation to act. 2/2

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has completed its decades-long project to destroy the Voting Rights Act. It has blessed racial discrimination and further encouraged partisan gerrymandering in the Callais ruling. 1/2

This is shameful. Every American should be outraged--and saddened--at the devastation to the Voting Rights Act, to fair representation, to protections against race discrimination, to our democracy, to our history, to our country. Shame on the Roberts Court.

I'll be wearing this to my department's end of the year party today

Come work with me! @brennancenter.org is looking for an attorney to push for smarter policing and sentencing policies, more humane prison conditions, and supportive reentry programs.

Fight originalism, take on the unitary executive, rethink the relationship between law and history -- if you're excited by any and all, come work with us! @brennancenter.org

This a great gig for recent history and poli sci majors!

True — and some need to be reminded that intellectual edginess, at least in politics, is not valuable in itself.

Need to quote @tomtmwolf.bsky.social here: your daily reminder that U.S. v Trump is an abomination unworthy of our democracy.

Happy Surrender and Freedom Day! On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant and the Army of the Potomac. home.nps.gov/apco/planyou...

Your regular reminder that Trump v. United States’ grant of criminal immunity to presidents is an embarrassment and an insult… www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

"The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes... It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched." —Robert Jackson, Nuremberg

There's a reason the lawmaking power and the power of the purse go together (see 17th C Britain).

From Countering Originalism: A Guide for Litigators... www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

"We hope that this guide will help you navigate this challenging [originalist] present and start building a better future." - @sam-breidbart.bsky.social @cisozaki.bsky.social and @tomtmwolf.bsky.social www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Parmenides like

"a term popularized by Palantir" we are cooked

3/ @jamellebouie.net also collects on-point quotations from the briefs of @kewhittington.bsky.social, Akhil Amar, @katemasur.bsky.social & @marthasjones.bsky.social Read his entire essay. It is a banger.

The Court invited this spectacle. Even the originalists couldn’t manufacture historical sources to convince the justices, it seems, and the anachronism of their method was on full display.

For more on this idea, see @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social amicus brief: www.brennancenter.org/media/15301/... And @jamellebouie.net in today's NYT: www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/o...

And--CRITICALLY--we constitutionalized the rule that everyone born here is American to prevent politicians from revising it from day-to-day or administration-to-administration. Or, in other words, to stop exactly what Trump is trying to do now: Deciding for himself who is American and who isn’t.

1. SCOTUS is going to have a hard time ruling for Trump on birthright. He did himself no favors today. 2. Our birthright citizenship rule is a universal one, designed to prevent Trump from doing what he's trying to do now -- deciding who's American and who isn't. 3. SCOTUS? Still a major problem.🧵

Today—like all days, really, but especially today—I hold on to my firm belief that we will someday be free of the scourge that is originalism, and will view it the same way we view alchemy today. Today, sadly, is not that day, and the alchemists will be reveling in their alchemy. But it’ll come.

Almost everything the SG is arguing is about the expectations of the ratifiers of the 14th not the text. Wait, I thought originalism is about text and meaning not expectations. Originalism can mean anything, anytime, anywhere. Really.

Originalism got us here. It is tempting to turn away from the courts. But we can push back on originalism in the courts too. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Our history is a cautionary tale here. We know what happens when political actors get to decide citizenship (see Dred Scott, which conceived of citizenship as the result of the consent of the sovereign). Birthright was constitutionalized so that citizenship could not be denied on political whims.

Alito also misses what the real rule on citizenship is. It isn't just "everyone born here is a citizen, with a few small exceptions." It's also that we've constitutionalized this universalistic rule to prevent politicians from manipulating the definition of "citizenship." See @jamellebouie.net today

Originalism often devolves into cherry picking sources, so this is not a surprise. But originalists at least claim to be bounded in the sources they use. The government's "ctrl+F" style of finding historical sources here exposes the ultimate weakness of their arguments.

He's wrong because the 14A repudiated Dred Scott. Dred Scott constitutionalized a racial caste system -- rejecting citizenship for Black Americans whether or not they were slaves. The 14A reversed Dred Scott by establishing birthright citizenship regardless of race, regardless of parentage.

If you're actually trying to win, you should want the Solicitor General to be really locked in on the bench, responding to the Justices' words and affect in real time. You don't want the SG playing to Trump, mashing whatever rhetorical button needed to get a nod from the president.

"Will the Supreme Court protect birthright citizenship?" A reasonable question, given <gestures broadly> all this. Keep in mind as you assess how the Court behaves at tomorrow's oral argument ⬇️

With Trump relying on originalist arguments to back his EO on birthright citizenship, knowing how to counter originalism has never been more important. Thankfully, @cisozaki.bsky.social @sam-breidbart.bsky.social and I have you covered with our latest strategy guide for lawyers @brennancenter.org

The Supreme Court will hear whether the Trump administration's attempt to undermine birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: bit.ly/44Tm6Mn

Nicely done. I would add that the work of these scholars also makes it easier to delegitimize the Court--a happy outcome from Moyn's perspective--should it choose lawlessness in this case.

This is exactly it 👇

as I read this, it's jumping out at me that Dred Scott v. Sandford sought to exclude even free Black Americans from citizenship, so when Trump n em wrongly claim that the 14th Amendment was only for the babies of enslaved people, they're saying the 14th Amendment didn't actually overturn Dred Scott

Yes! Lots of good in this post. And there are indeed ways of countering originalism without entrenching originalism; recognizing the politics of conservative constitutional interpretation without replicating it. See more here: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

"However the court decides, history shows that Mr. Trump is wrong," write @marthasjones.bsky.social & Historians Council Member @katemasur.bsky.social in @nytimes.com ahead of oral arguments in the SCOTUS case challenging Pres. Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

Response to that weird Moyn thing criticizing me, @evanbernick.bsky.social @anthonymkreis.bsky.social @jedshug.bsky.social et al for being able to think that the attack on birthright citizenship is a political hack job AND that its legal arguments can be refuted balkin.blogspot.com/2026/03/poli...

For more from @katemasur.bsky.social and @marthasjones.bsky.social, check out their brief, detailing the long struggle for a broad and inclusive guarantee of birthright citizenship undertaken by free Black Americans before the Civil War. The Constitution instantiates that guarantee.

Want an explainer for commonly asked questions about birthright citizenship and the Trump administration's attacks on it? My colleagues @sam-breidbart.bsky.social and Maryjane have you covered @brennancenter.org:

2/ These actions aren't just illegal, although they are that. They aren't just unconstitutional, although they are that. They are anti-constitutional: they strike at the core of one of the principles that allows our entire constitutional order to function.

I actually lauded @katemasur.bsky.social and @marthasjones.bsky.social’s brief on the day it was filed for making this precise argument.