The Brennan Center’s Tom Wolf and historian Jane Manners discuss Trump v. Cook. Part 2:

You don't need to take if from me... bsky.app/profile/beau...

"We have to consider the consequences of your argument for the structure of government." (paraphrase) And with that, Kavanaugh (ironically) has ID'd the problem with many Trump's presidential power arguments: If you spool out their consequences, there's no rule of law. Black Hole Constitutionalism

Check out my @brennancenter.org interview with the historian behind the amicus brief that Justice Jackson asked the Solicitor General to respond to in today's Cook v. Trump argument...

Tomorrow, SCOTUS is hearing Trump v. Cook, a case involving President Trump’s attempts to remove Lisa Cook from the Fed. It’s a glaring example of the admin's coercive approach to power. And it could pose BIG problems, even if SCOTUS ultimately rules for Cook. Walk with me...🧵⬇️@brennancenter.org

SCOTUS is hearing argument today about gun laws. And, once again, SCOTUS is trying to resolve questions with big implications for public safety by looking to the laws of the 1700s. What's up with SCOTUS's history fixation? And how can lawyers push back? www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Still staggered by how much of what @errollouis.bsky.social and I talked about after SCOTUS’s presidential immunity opinion dropped in July ‘24 is now a reality… @brennancenter.org ny1.com/nyc/all-boro...

At a time of conspiracy theories & stress on elections, SCOTUS just opened the floodgates to candidates challenging election rules, regardless of whether those rules will impact their races. The Bost decision could unleash frivolous suits to undermine election confidence or disrupt results.

Your regular reminder that the Supreme Court’s opinion giving presidents criminal immunity is not a serious decision for a serious democracy. @brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

For Con Law profs looking for a last minute syllabus addition…

For Con Law profs looking for a last minute syllabus addition…

Courts are using originalist arguments to expand executive power, weaken long-standing rights and protections, and entrench inequality. It’s crucial that lawyers push back. Our new guide shows you how. bit.ly/4iQ1v0B

A late stocking stuffer for professors looking for some last-minute additions to their spring syllabi!

In his own way, Wurman's making the case for birthright citizenship. He tries so hard and yet comes up with nothing. If there was a there there, it seems he would have found it by now.

Give yourself the Christmas gift of learning how to fight back against originalism!

The Supreme Court has announced that it’s going to hear arguments on President Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship. The text and history ought to make this an open-and-shut case. bit.ly/40oplbc

Do you want to learn how to spot originalist arguments, understand how they work, and respond effectively? Then we’ve got the guide for you: Countering Originalism. It’s written for lawyers, but it can help scholars, teachers, students, journalists, and commentators, too. bit.ly/4iQ1v0B

With the aid of historians—

NEW amicus from @earlymodjustice.bsky.social et al. has a very important interlude discussing the difficulties of historical analysis for originalist litigation that, in turn, emphasizes the need for courts to look more to principles than to analogues... www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

Great choice! Was grateful to have Dean Rodriguez join us on this panel on the unitary executive this past summer: m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qvx...

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority applies originalism to interpret the Constitution. Our new guide shows lawyers how to defeat shoddy historical arguments in court. bit.ly/44yksPF

Even starting from the (quite valid) assumption that originalism is not practiced in good faith, there are still many moves litigators can make to stop originalism's creep in court. Read our report for some tactics: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority applies originalism to interpret the Constitution. Our new guide shows lawyers how to defeat shoddy historical arguments in court. bit.ly/44yksPF

Replacing originalism requires an inside game and an outside game. You can’t do one without the other.

The lawyers on the front lines protecting our democracy are busy, to say the least. So, our new handbook gives them a battery of bite-size tips to counter originalism, supported with extensive citations to case law, scholarly literature, and court filings. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

For litigators, historians, law profs, students…check it out!

Wow! A guide to countering originalism, from the great @brennancenter.org

Seems like a good time to remind folks that @brennancenter.org just released a how-to guide for lawyers looking to counter originalism in the courtroom… www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Having read through those ratification debates when preparing our amicus brief in the immunity case, the unanimity over the question of presidential accountability was striking. No one. Not one. Not in newspapers or manuscript discussions, argued for immunity. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

Birthright citizenship has been part of our constitution for over 150 years. The Trump administration wants to change that. Here are the facts: bit.ly/44Tm6Mn

A guide for litigators - but not just for litigators! Historians, theorists, law teachers, students ... check it out!

Intrigued? Then read the full guide: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res... And share Countering Originalism with colleagues and friends!

For anyone interested in how to confront originalism, this is an invaluable and FREE resource designed by folks who have been leading the fight. Please give this important manual a read and spread the word! @tomtmwolf.bsky.social @sam-breidbart.bsky.social @cisozaki.bsky.social

Courts are using originalist arguments to expand executive power, weaken long-standing rights and protections, and entrench inequality. It’s crucial that lawyers push back.

"Originalism may be dominant now. But as a jurisprudential project it is just decades old, and only more recently has it become so consequential. It will not govern the law forever. Litigators have a key role to play in developing tools to challenge originalism’s spread..." 1/2

Originalism’s creep in the courts may seem inevitable. But litigators do have tools to push back – and for the first time, my colleagues @tomtmwolf.bsky.social, @cisozaki.bsky.social and I have collected the many moves litigators can make in a single resource: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Our new, one-of-a-kind guide for litigators, Countering Originalism, equips lawyers with the strategies, arguments, and citations they need to address the originalist arguments they encounter in their cases.

Originalism’s creep in the courts may seem inevitable. But litigators do have tools to push back – and for the first time, my colleagues @tomtmwolf.bsky.social, @cisozaki.bsky.social and I have collected the many moves litigators can make in a single resource: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

⏰NEW RESOURCE: In Countering Originalism: A Guide for Litigators, @sam-breidbart.bsky.social, @cisozaki.bsky.social, and I offer lawyers the strategies, arguments, and citations that they need to push back against originalist claims they encounter in court 🧵⬇️ www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

My colleague @sam-breidbart.bsky.social wrote about the hyperopic quality of SCOTUS's presidential immunity arguments last year... www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

(1) We have had agencies that are run by people the President cannot fire since the beginning, as @kexelchabot.bsky.social has documented in exacting detail. There is nothing anomalous about independent agencies. (2) Presidents have sometimes *supported* agency independence. (1/4)

Fixed term for the Revolutionary War Debt Commission was a limitation on at pleasure removal. Read Jane Manners!

A new article from Bloomberg Law looking at the historical problems with the unitary executive theory and Trump's attempt to take over the FTC quotes or cites 4 members of @brennancenter.org Historians Council on the Constitution... news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-...

Curious about all the historical research and historical amicus briefs that Justice Kagan referenced at the Slaughter oral arguments? @lmillerkaralunas.bsky.social has you covered with this annotated guide and links to the key historical briefs: www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Presidents can’t rescind birthright citizenship. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana... @brennancenter.org

Monday @ 10 AM: SCOTUS holds argument in Trump v. Slaughter. It’s a case about the president’s ability to remove Federal Trade Commissioners from office. It’s also a significant showdown over presidential power more broadly. A 🧵on issues to watch @brennancenter.org

President Trump continues to get the history of the 14th Amendment wrong. He says birthright citizenship was only granted to newly freed slaves. But the 14th Amendment was clearly broader than that – and everyone at the time knew it.

There's more on the way. For the latest on the work of the Historians Council, visit our project page: www.brennancenter.org/historians-c...

Over 8,700 viewers have logged into a discussion on the unitary executive theory with Council Member Jane Manners plus Yale Law’s Cristina Rodriguez, Michigan’s @jdmortenson.bsky.social, BCJ's @sam-breidbart.bsky.social and @wuc3.bsky.social www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qvx...

Council Member @alexkeyssar.bsky.social along with Carol Anderson, Vernon Burton, and Morgan Kousser, filed a brief supporting certiorari in a potentially major case involving the private right of action under the Voting Rights Act... www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...