Am I missing something? Permitting state supreme courts to disqualify a fed candidate under Sect 3 doesn't mean states have unchecked power. State ct rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution are subject to SCOTUS review, which makes SCOTUS, not states, the ultimate decider.

Attn AALS attendees-please come to a panel that I put together- Brown, Equal Education and Democracy: Honoring the 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board. Time/date: Fri, Jan 5, 10:00-11:40 a.m. Room: Independence Salon F, Level M4, Marriott Marquis THREAD

Attn AALS attendees-please come to a panel that I put together- Brown, Equal Education and Democracy: Honoring the 70th Anniversary of Brown v. Board. Time/date: Fri, Jan 5, 10:00-11:40 a.m. Room: Independence Salon F, Level M4, Marriott Marquis THREAD

When the fetus is nonviable, there is NO “protect prenatal life” interest implicated. When that interest doesn’t apply, forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term is cruel and unusual punishment, an arbitrary and capricious invasion of bodily autonomy, and may reflect animus towards women.

The fetus has a fatal condition and has no chance of survival. So, the “protect prenatal life” interest isn’t implicated. So, what is the “legitimate” state interest for banning an abortion necessary to protect a woman’s health? How does the ban even meet rational basis review?

The fetus has a fatal condition and has no chance of survival. So, the “protect prenatal life” interest isn’t implicated. So, what is the “legitimate” state interest for banning an abortion necessary to protect a woman’s health? How does the ban even meet rational basis review?

My article, "The Anti-constitutionality of the Deeply Rooted Test in Dobbs," was just published by the CSU Law Rev. In it I argue Alito's deeply rooted test is at odds with CJ John Marshall's notion of the Integrated Constitution & should be rejected. engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/v...

Attention all Law and Humanities junior scholars- Please submit your paper for the Law and Humanities Workshop for Junior Scholars. Submissions deadline: December 15. Go to our website for the call for papers. LawandHumanitiesWorkshop.org

The call for proposals for the loveliest, warmest, most intellectually stimulating, & most fun conference of your year is now LIVE! LCH 2024 will be in Vancouver, 17-18 May 2024, about the Senses of Law. CFP here lawculturehumanities.com/event/2024-t.... Your brilliant ideas due 31 January 2024

Just voted in Ohio. Will be interesting to see how the two initiatives fare, one on abortion and one on legalizing marijuana. Wonder about the turnout of young voters.

Quite startling how Heller/Bruen transformed gun control discourse-Take #2 I remember when senseless gun violence/terrorism made gun rights supporters defensive. Now when gun violence occurs, they call for more guns, more lethal guns, more people armed w/ guns, etc.

Read some tweets about Rahimi, & it’s startling just how much Heller and Bruen have shifted the Overton Window on gun control discourse. The language of gun control has gone out the Window (pun intended) and the language of gun rights now frames all gun discourse.

I am incredibly proud of my achievement. I’m beating Wordlebot at Wordle.

Help needed: Is there anyone who can read German? I need some German writing translated into English. The writing is difficult to read, but maybe it would be easier to make out the words if the person reading it knows German. It’s only 6 sentences. Any help would be appreciated!

Question for con law profs and historians - when did the Supreme Court tradition of Justices delivering/reading their opinions from the bench begin?

I’m teaching Marbury v Madison in Con Law this afternoon. I’ve taught it multiple times before, but I’m trying something new this year to try to make it more accessible for students. I’m going to teach Marbury as a movie-a historical legal thriller. We’ll see how it goes!

I’m teaching Marbury v Madison in Con Law this afternoon. I’ve taught it multiple times before, but I’m trying something new this year to try to make it more accessible for students. I’m going to teach Marbury as a movie-a historical legal thriller. We’ll see how it goes!

Here’s a perplexing question-In the grocery store, if you have only a few items, do you go to the express checkout with many people in line, or to the regular checkout with a few people with lots of items? I've *finally* figured out the answer-go to the line with the faster checkout clerk.

And like with the Texas ban on DEI, what about challenging Florida’s elimination of gender studies on equal protection grounds, arguing that it was motivated by gender animus.

I’m a little surprised that there hasn’t been any legal challenges to Texas’ ban of DEI in its state universities. Perhaps a challenge on equal protection grounds arguing that the ban is motivated by racial animus.

Mike Pence makes opposing abortion about blocking Democrats’ “extreme gender ideology…” It’s astonishing how, after Dobbs, the “protect unborn life” theme has receded as the main argument against abortion. It may reflect the shift from law to politics. https://www.youtube.com/embed/wls4yosV5wc

“Conservative groups pivoted to LGBT politics” to avoid talking about abortion. Seems like a massive Freudian slip-by linking abortion to LGBT, those groups are acknowledging that their “pro-life” position is as much about cultural values as it is about protecting unborn life.

BREAKING: The 5th Circuit just STRUCK DOWN Mississippi's lifetime voting ban for people convicted of certain crimes—a Jim Crow-era law designed to target Black voters. It disenfranchises more people than made the difference in the 2019 governor's race.

Affirmative action is not dead. Diversity can *still* be a compelling interest to justify the use of race, and there are race neutral options for promoting racial integration. See my WA Monthly article https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/07/20/what-the-supreme-court-really-did-to-affirmative-action/

The lawsuits challenging anti-trans legislation are almost entirely brought in federal court with federal constitutional arguments. In the Brennan Center's State Court Report, I argue that state constitutions likely provide a stronger basis for challenges.

A brief history of “men being too feminine” going back to to the 1880s. Clearly Reconstruction and the “woke” Fourteenth Amendment are to blame.

Baby Yoda would make a great addition to the Bluesky community.

Better headline would be “Landmark 6-3 decisions overshadow a smattering of decisions in which liberals didn’t lose big.” The “wins” only preserved the status quo. They didn’t expand rights or equality.

I have a piece in The NYT this morning. When a Minneapolis suburb hired a Black chief and assistant chief, over half the department quit. Yet the world didn’t end. When cops would rather quit than respect the wishes of the communities they serve, maybe it’s okay to let them go.

Has there been any litigation arguing that extreme heat in prisons is a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

I’ve developed a new strand in my scholarly agenda - critiquing the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. First article in this strand will take on Roberts’ 3 opinions on race, Parents Involved, Shelby and Harvard, and critique the colorblind absolutism in those cases.