Ahead of next week's Supreme Court oral argument on birthright citizenship, get up to speed on the relevant history via this @brennancenter.org roundtable with historians @katemasur.bsky.social, @marthasjones.bsky.social, and Erika Lee (along with yours truly) www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCI...

"originalism demands that we accept its conclusions however political inconvenient!" *originalism produces a politically inconvenient conclusion* "ah, it turns out that if we use Super Originalism we find a conclusion that, only incidentally, keeps me on good terms with the people in power"

The year is 1979: We’ve got an Iranian energy crisis, a Ford that caught fire and some wonderful red and blue upholstery with wood paneling

Descartes just popped out of existence, as he was no longer allowed to think about the self.

Read it, study it, use it👇 Featuring: -Doctrinal moves to block originalist arguments -Methodological critiques of originalism -Alternative frames for using history in litigation -Practice pointers for exposing bad history @brennancenter.org

Another Supreme Court term, another year of dubious originalist history. Want to learn how to spot it? And better yet, how to counter it? Have we got the guide for you ⬇️ @brennancenter.org @cisozaki.bsky.social @sam-breidbart.bsky.social

oh come on

Yup: "Intellectual liberalism did not simply morph into neoconservatism. It split, with most liberals opposing Reaganite adventurism, and, later, the Iraq War. To assume that a single political current called “liberalism” survived intact from the Cold War into the present is reductionist."

As @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social explain in their new amicus brief, the Constitution's birthright citizenship guarantee is universalistic www.brennancenter.org/media/15301/...

Big welcome to our newest @brennancenter.org colleague, @jessewegman.bsky.social, who joins us from the NY Times. I follow him and you should, too!

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship was limited to "newly freed slaves and their children." This 🧵⬇️from @sam-breidbart.bsky.social explains how the amicus brief from @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social demolishes that argument...

Worth the read: historians in action. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Martha S. Jones (2013 ACLS Fellow) and Kate Masur (2020 Charles A. Ryskamp Research Fellow) have submitted a historians’ amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara. Learn more about scholars working to increase public understanding and inform policymakers on birthright citizenship: bit.ly/4pz9XEk

Amicus briefs aren't just court filings. The best are compact and compelling reads from leading scholars on the biggest issues of the day... and they're FREE! All of which is to say, check out the latest from @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social on birthright citizenship ⬇️...

Trump's "massive and ongoing operation" against Iran is a clear violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. In our democracy, the president does not have the kingly power to plunge the nation into war without democratic debate and sanction. /1 www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide when the nation goes to war. President Trump’s strikes on Iran are flatly unconstitutional. There’s been no deliberation, no vote, no clear justification. This is a flagrant abuse of executive power.

NEW: Profs. Martha Jones and @brennancenter.org Historians Council Member Kate Masur filed an amicus brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case involving Trump’s attempt to unconstitutionally strip birthright citizenship 🧵

« The historians’ brief — authored by Professor Martha S. Jones and Professor Kate Masur — centers on the pre–Civil War advocacy of free Black Americans for a broad and inclusive principle of birthright citizenship. » www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Always read @janemanners.bsky.social

"The framers [of the 14th Amendment] constitutionalized the universal view of birthright citizenship that free Black Americans advanced and the common law guaranteed." @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social provide a powerful history lesson in the form of a legal brief

This 100%. The brief serves as a reminder that history -- and its meaning -- need not be ceded to originalists. Non-originalist history -- history from novel sources, or which focuses less on meaning than practice, text than context -- can play both a strategic and substantive role in litigation.

Here’s the link to Martha Jones and Kate Masur’s powerful amicus brief which leaves no doubt: Trump’s assault on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional www.brennancenter.org/media/15301/...

2/Read it in full to understand how historians can develop a method in legal history that is respectful about how historians can broaden how we see and understand constitutional law.

1/ @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social have drafted a seminal brief: (a) that centers Black American beliefs on birthright citizenship and (b) uses a set of primary sources, such as speeches and Colored Conventions, fought for (and won) broad birthright citizenship for everyone.

Today @washingtonpost.com reported activists are urging Trump to declare an emergency based on claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election and use emergency powers to dramatically alter election rules. Trump has no power to run elections, even in an emergency. 🧵

Today @marthasjones.bsky.social & Historians Council Member @katemasur.bsky.social filed a brief in the SCOTUS case challenging President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Jones and Masur debunk the claim the 14th Amendment applies only to “newly freed slaves.”

NEW: Profs. Martha Jones and @brennancenter.org Historians Council Member Kate Masur filed an amicus brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case involving Trump’s attempt to unconstitutionally strip birthright citizenship 🧵

NEW: Unique features of state courts allow lawyers to go beyond arguments available in federal courts. @cisozaki.bsky.social outlines some extra tools state law gives litigators to counter originalism.

Powerful new SCOTUS brief from the lawyers defending birthright citizenship (@aclu.org @legaldefensefund.bsky.social @asianlawcaucus.org @democracydefendersfund.org) As they lay out, Trump's EO is nothing less than an attempt to rewrite the Constitution. 👀➡️ www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

In today's @nytimes.com, I explain why we should take Trump's recent threat to "take over" elections seriously and how we can fight back against his attempts to undermine democracy.

On SCOTUS: "When law is built atop myth, and adjudication proceeds from narrative rather than evidence, constitutional guarantees become contingent and fragile." Originalism is part of this dynamic, too. www.liberalcurrents.com/the-supreme-...

The really appalling part is that the supposedly “originalist” justices on the Supreme court completely ignored both the text of the constitution and the history. They stand exposed.

"Eliminate presidential immunity" needs to become as common a refrain as "eliminate Citizens United"

This is how democracy works

Historians @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social filed a critical brief on birthright citizenship in the circuit courts, showing how the story of free Black Americans' advocacy unravels the admin's lead justification for its executive order. www.brennancenter.org/media/14006/...

Birthright citizenship has been a core constitutional guarantee for ages. If you're just tuning into the discourse now, check out our panel with expert historians @marthasjones.bsky.social @katemasur.bsky.social and Erika Lee: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCI... @brennancenter.org

The Supreme Court just heard arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case involving the president’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. More broadly, this case highlights the ongoing concern about the overreach of presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies.

✅ Lives in an uneasy tension between genuine universalist moral conviction and a sort of hard-bitten realism bordering on pessimism about people

Okay fine. Lincoln as America's first Jewish president: ✅ Beard ✅ Prone to depressive jags ✅ Nonetheless loves telling jokes ✅ Talmudic interest in moral argumentation that leads to genuine growth ✅ Frequent use of Biblical imagery that is more Jeremiah than Christ (especially in the 2nd inaugural)

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.