Very, um, *interesting* choice of the SG to lead with the Slaughterhouse Cases in his birthright citizenship cert. petition--in particular, w/the statement (which the SG italicizes!) that the Citizenship Clause excludes "citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States"-- ... [1]

Six Justices conclude it's likely the Impoundment Control precludes an otherwise valid APA claim to require expenditure of obligated funds. This argument, which turns the ICA on its head, is so absurd that the Trump DOJ itself wisely disclaimed it a month ago. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

On why there's no legal obstacle to the decision of the UK, Canada, Australia, France and Portugal to recognize a Palestinian state. www.justsecurity.org/118655/react... @justsecurity.org

On why there's no legal obstacle to the decision of the UK, Canada, Australia, France and Portugal to recognize a Palestinian state. www.justsecurity.org/118655/react... @justsecurity.org

An important piece.

Re: the Trump Administration's emergency #SCOTUS application to allow it to misgender transgender persons on passports immediately (rather than at the end of the litigation), I have a fundamental preliminary question: Why do states care in the first place? [1] www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

Wait--does this mean that I'm an A.I. program rather than a real-life human being? www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/m... #can'tlivewithouttheemdash

Things are ... decidedly not good when the @nytimes.com needs to begin a paragraph, in a story about targeting civilians, with "As a matter of legal reality, ..." www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/u... @charliesavage.bsky.social In case "legal reality" still matters ... [1]

@stevevladeck.bsky.social is right: The nomenclature debate is a distraction from much more important concerns. That said, "shadow," "emergency" and "interim" are all imprecise--both over- and underinclusive. It's the "stay/enjoin" docket. @williambaude.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/u...

Has anyone yet remarked on the fact that the Solicitor General of the United States actually submitted this letter in support of a motion to the SCOTUS for expedited consideration of the tariff case? www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

When you've gotten to the point that it's big news that Executive Branch officials are complying with federal court orders.

See also this post by Geoff Corn, who likewise focuses on the mystery of what could be happening among military lawyers and those they're supposed to be advising. www.thecipherbrief.com/a-dangerous-...

An attempt to untangle all the legal questions concerning the deeply troubling September 2 strike in the Caribbean, and to identify the most serious breach of all, which is of the longstanding DoD commitment not to target civilians. www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-...

Part III in a series on the birthright citizenship cases: On (i) why DOJ's "domicile" argument doesn't work; and (ii) DOJ's conspicuous failure to defend the Trump order w/r/t children of unauthorized foreign nationals. Co-written w/@johnmikhail.bsky.social. www.justsecurity.org/120152/birth...

Part 3 of 4. This one I wrote with my colleague @johnmikhail.bsky.social. It's about DOJ's principal affirmative argument in the birthright citizenship cases--viz., that the Citizenship Clause only applies to persons who were *domiciled* in the U.S. when born here. Short version: That's incorrect.

Katie Crutchfield raved about it and, not surprisingly, she's right that it's quite the earworm. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqgK...

This is an extremely important post, fully warranting its length. Thanks, Joey.

Not something you see every day. Wordle 1,535 3/6* ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Probably having Bruce Springsteen ask where I was (by name) on stage at the opening show of The River tour, when I was but 19. Either that or discussing Russell Hoban's novel Riddley Walker with Joe Strummer backstage after a Clash show in Grand Rapids.

This was an extraordinarily shrewd *and* principled resolution by the en banc court, in a case in which the various arguments in the trial court and on appeal were *almost* hopelessly entangled and hard to parse. Of greatest importance are two things: [1]

"The White House has terminated Monarez from her position with the C.D.C.” The White House is an inanimate building. It doesn't have the capacity to "terminate" anyone or anything. And as a legal matter, only the President has the authority to remove Monarez. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/h...

Ask and ye shall ... balkin.blogspot.com/2025/08/what...

What are the legal questions raised by Trump's purported removal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board? A user's guide: balkin.blogspot.com/2025/08/what... @charliesavage.bsky.social @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social

Sorry to keep harping on this--I realize it's a bit deep in the weeds and legalistic, but this truly is a case of life or death for many (it involves USAID funding) and, unless I'm missing something, what the Solicitor General has just done is very alarming and difficult to defend. [1]

OK, so now the SG has gone into the SCOTUS and is arguing--contrary to DOJ's previous view--that the panel was *right* to hold that the ICA precludes APA actions challenging arbitrary refusals to expend in accord with appropriations statutes. Go figure. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Everyone's all Humphrey's and Myers and Wilcox and Seila Law today but ... mark my words, by tomorrow--Wednesday latest--everyone will be a self-professed expert on Shurtleff and Reagan.

Is this the first test-case in 122 years for Shurtleff's (sort of) holding that notice and a hearing are an *implied* requirement for presidential "for cause" removal?

I hereby direct the Attorney General to prosecute expressive flag burning in the null set of cases in which it'd be constitutional to do so. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...

Important, sobering thread.

I'm trying hard to imagine the dynamic in the Bluebook board meetings--the marshaling of rationales pro and con; the heated arguments; longstanding friendships dashed--that preceded the decision to change the abbreviation of September from "Sept." to "Sep." in the 22d edition.

In which Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh harshly upbraid a lower court for concluding that a recent "stay/injunction docket" decision was distinguishable ... even though the Chief Justice and three other Justices likewise believe it's distinguishable. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

In a just-filed opposition to a petition for en banc review in the D.C. Circuit USAID funding case (No. 25-5097)--I'll link to it when it's online--DOJ concedes that "the APA could provide a mechanism for the district court to order compliance with a specific statutory command." [1]

I read the final sentence of this denial of an administrative stay today to be, in effect, a warning to the Trump Administration that it must begin to comply with the P.I. that's already in place. [1] storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us.... [1]

If there's a problem with how the Smithsonian deals with slavery, it's that it doesn't come anywhere close to conveying "how bad [it] was." Hard to imagine how any museum possibly could.

Thought I'd write some posts addressing, in particular, the arguments DOJ is making in support of Trump's birthplace (non)citizenship order. Here's the first of those, which deals with what appears (at least on the surface) to be the strongest aspect of the DOJ argument. [1]

Very disheartening (& gratuitously cruel) that the federal government has gone all the way from (i) Title IX requires schools to allow transgender students access to restrooms (which is correct) to (ii) Title IX prohibits schools from doing so (which ain't).[1] www.washingtonpost.com/education/20...

Once you read the majority opinion, you'll realize how ironic the NYT lede is: "A federal appeals court paved the way for the Trump administration to move ahead with plans to decimate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/u...

This is essential reading (or listening), as is virtually everything Philippe does. It's important for many reasons, but two of the most important are: (i) the understanding that the "Is it X?" questions pale in importance to the humanitarian catastrophe and its normalization within Israel; and [1]

Trump OLC translation services: "We do not depart from our past views lightly" means "We depart from our past views *heavily* (especially when abortion's at issue)." [1] #HydeAmendmentReversal www.justice.gov/olc/media/14...

Hard to imagine this is only the *second* most indefensible/disheartening court of appeals opinion from last week. media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opin...

Mekons. Tiny Desk. Say no more. www.npr.org/2025/08/12/g...

I think this is more indefensible, and frankly more depressing, on so many grounds, than anything the SCOTUS has done lately. A deeply discouraging sign of where our legal system appears to be headed. I urge you all to read Judge Pillard's opinion. media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...

The Washington Nationals bullpen--collectively--has one career save. Trying to double that now.

It's looking increasingly evident that at least some federal judges do, after all, believe they're "required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.”

There could be at least six legal problems here: i. Is it murder under the law of [Venezuela][Mexico]? A: Probably yes, but that's not a U.S. law question. ii. Does it violate the 12,333 assassination ban? A: I can't offhand imagine why it doesn't. [1] @charliesavage.bsky.social

An explainer, of sorts, concerning the current debate about whether the UK can and should recognize Palestinian statehood. @ejiltalk.bsky.social

Don't recall a previous featured NYT review of a D.C. restaurant. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/d...

We need a word for someone who is beyond perverse, sadistic, sociopathic. Blocking mRNA vaccine research means that you or someone you love will die of something you could have avoided or survived. He is intentionally killing people.

Case after case takes the same form: Trump or a Secretary virtually boasts about doing something for an unlawful purpose, but also (presumably at lawyers' urging) invokes a legitimate basis, often sounding in national security or foreign affairs ... [1] storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Everything You Always Wanted to Know (and a whole lot you probably didn't!) About Trump v. CASA--and its impact on the pending birthright citizenship litigation. Deep in the weeds ...