One of your best, Alfred. "What’s striking about these quoted passages is that these aren’t thesis statements but lapidary gestures, remarks of secondary importance, *asides*. He needs no elaboration because the Charlottesville audience knew exactly what he was signaling."

"Life is a complete dumpster fire, but I am reminded that I am not alone, that I am in this with many others.” May her work and tenacity inspire many others still. www.nytimes.com/2025/11/15/u...

Former UVA president Jim Ryan, who resigned over the summer due to pressure from the Trump Administration, just shared this 12-page letter with the Faculty Senate, detailing his experience with the Board of Visitors and DOJ. It's a surreal--and troubling--read. drive.google.com/file/d/1Is6x...

As expected in light of the new legislation, the SG has withdrawn his application to the SCOTUS for a stay of the Rhode Island injunction requiring SNAP payments. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

The apotheosis of the "judiciary must defer to the POTUS" argument (?): In the case involving the National Guard in Chicago, I've argued--and now Illinois/Chicago do, too--that b/c "the regular forces" in 10 USC 12406 means the standing armed forces (esp. the Army), ... [1] @justsecurity.org

A postmortem of the IEEPA/tariffs oral argument, with my GULC colleagues Kathleen Clausen and Peter Harrell, hosted by Scott Anderson. I have an uncredited cameo--you know, like Matt Damon in Interstellar or Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder (sans the vitriol). www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...

The judge's firm-but-gentle response: "The Court has received the government's filing regarding discovery .... The [court's] Order on the parties' jointly recommended discovery plan governs discovery in this case. To the extent any discovery dispute arises, the parties may address it in a motion."

Questions about food metaphors in SCOTUS oral arguments: If tariffs aren't a "hole" in the IEEPA donut, what other sort of pastry are they? (NOTE: "Cronut" is *not* a valid answer.) Or might they possibly be *both* an IEEPA donut hole *and* a very different pastry? Cf. #NewShimmer.

Because this part of the thread appears to be getting lost, here it is again: Thomas now doing the same, with the hostage hypo. Katyal doesn't give ground, which seems right to me. [12]

"breaking the fourth fall" sounds like a line from the 17-minute version of "All Too Well"

FWIW, I can't recall a case in which I was as uncertain of the outcome heading into oral argument as I am of the tariffs/IEEPA case (in which the possible outcomes include the Court upholding the fentanyl tariffs but not the others b/c of Section 122). Let's see if that changes during argument ...

From an actual filing by the U.S. DOJ: The court erred in requiring us to produce discovery. Therefore, instead of asking the court to reconsider its order, or appealing it, we're simply going to disregard it. "Respectfully submitted, Lindsey Halligan." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Has anyone mentioned that if only Kiner-Falefa had run through the plate rather than sliding--which presumably is what he's been taught to do--the Blue Jays would be world champions? Astonishing blunder--much worse than Buckner. And heartbreaking.

Between these developments and Gaza, I fear that my 13-week seminar next semester on the Law of the Use of Military Force will have to be reduced to 20 minutes or so. Either that or I add "The History of" at the start of the course heading.

Deeply grateful for @jodyfreeman.bsky.social's very generous words. I fear, however, that it'll take something considerably more than an amicus brief on the stay docket to "save the Republic." I'm only trying to do my humble best to shed some light on a statute! ;-) www.linkedin.com/posts/jody-f...

[Updating thread from last night.] The patently unlawful murders continue apace, but no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other nations) appears much to care. And now ... [1] @justsecurity.org @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @charliesavage.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...

Was that really an intentional balk?

The patently unlawful murders continue apace, and no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other states) appears much to care. And now it's been over 60 days since the military was deployed in anticipation of such strikes--which means ... [1] @justsecurity.org www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...

576 pitches in ... Hope this ends before I have to teach Bivens in the morning.

As Jack notes, I don't think operational personnel will, or (probably--depending on the facts) should be prosecuted for following presidential orders here. Indeed, I doubt even higher-level political appointees will be prosecuted, even though the conduct is patently unlawful. [1] @justsecurity.org

Another essential piece--a perfect complement to @charliesavage.bsky.social's story yesterday about the broader evisceration of procedural checks when it comes to assessing legality in the Trump Administration. Kudos to @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social.

Anyone recall another case in which an attorney filed a SCOTUS amicus brief on behalf of his or her parent(s)? ;-) @rickhills.bsky.social

A very, very important piece by @charliesavage.bsky.social about how Trump, et al. are--quite literally--getting away with murder. [1] www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/u...

How to grab attention in a law review article about ERISA: "All nine members of the Supreme Court agreed. I promise that I am not making this up."

If it's truly more banal and less inspired than the lifeless A Complete Unknown, then boy, Deliver Me From Nowhere is (as I feared) going to be a read dud. www.theringer.com/2025/10/23/m...

To make a somewhat obvious point: Despite the *obsessive* attention to Martin v. Mott in the briefs, decisions, posts, skeets 'n' tweets, the NYT, etc., none of the SCOTUS Justices will cast their vote in the National Guard cases based upon what they think the "best" reading of Martin v. Mott is.

Having now read the transcript of the hearing in Chicago yesterday, the inexplicability is even greater: DOJ requested--and was given--an extension of the TRO not only for another two weeks, but *until final judgment,* which could be weeks or months down the line. [1] bsky.app/profile/mart...

I'm confused about the recent developments in the Illinois National Guard case. Can anyone explain? 1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today. 2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline. [1]

Unfortunately, both Judge Berzon in her dissent from the denial of en banc, and California in the oral argument today, assert that "the regular forces" in 12406 refers to *civilian law enforcement* personnel. [1] @stevevladeck.bsky.social @jnklz.bsky.social @justsecurity.org

Two noteworthy things about the SG's argument concerning deference to the POTUS in his reply brief in the Chicago/National Guard case: i. He asserts that courts must defer to any "colorable assessment" by POTUS not only about the facts but also "the law." [1] www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

ICYMI: In this amicus brief I offer an alternative (to my mind, more straightforward) way to think about why Trump lacks authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

There's a much more straightforward reason why the National Guard statute didn't give Trump authority to deploy the Guard in Chicago. My modest effort to explain it here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

The most remarkable thing about today's opinion in Oregon v. Trump is that the panel spends countless pages explaining why it's deferring to a presidential "determination" and "assessment" about the executive branch's alleged inability to execute the law in Portland with the "regular forces," ...[1]

The Brewers' offense showed steady, gradual improvement throughout the series: One run on two hits in Game One. One run on three hits in Game Two. One run on four hits in Game Three. One run on five hits in Game Four. [At this rate, how many runs and hits will the Brewers have in Game seven?]

This case turns on the proper reading of three terms in section 12406: "rebellion"; "unable"; and "regular forces." It's fairly remarkable that neither DOJ nor Illinois has addressed the leg. history that might shed light on why Congress chose those words. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

I wonder whether Oregon & Illinois are overlooking potentially the strongest arguments against Trump's use of the National Guard--i.e., that he can't do so unless it'd be lawful for the regular armed forces to act (10 USC 12405) and those regular forces were "unable" to execute federal laws (12406).

"The average listener is not under the impression that a diss track is the product of a thoughtful or disinterested investigation, conveying to the public fact-checked verifiable content." Discuss.

It’s considered impolite to use language like this, but “evil” is the best word for what these folks are doing. It’s bad enough to screw over workers to attack political enemies. But here, doing so will literally kill people and lead to avoidable disease. open.substack.com/pub/insideme...

Curious what percentage of my followers on bluesky would recognize immediately the suit in which this line in a judicial opinion appears: "[T]he final line of this passage plays on the dual meaning of minor—a person under the age of 18 and a musical scale.”

This is excellent.

Anyone know where one might find Trump's alleged Oct. 4 determination that the "regular troops" are unable to execute federal laws in Chicago and/or his activation of the National Guard for Chicago? @justsecurity.org

As if the Trump immunity decision weren't indefensible enough, @philippesands.bsky.social explains how corrosive it could be w/r/t head-of-state immunity for international law crimes, which the U.S. (Robert Jackson, in particular) worked for decades to eradicate. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

Justice Alito's line of questioning about possible-but-speculative harms in Bost, in light of his opinion for the Court in Clapper, is ... a bit rich.

The oddest thing about the Portland case to be argued in the 9th Circuit tomorrow is that DOJ doesn't cite any evidence that Trump ever determined that he was "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws," 10 U.S.C. 12406(3) ... [1]

"Harvard may be partly to blame for encouraging student absences, with a policy that allows students to enroll in two classes that meet at the same time." Partly? www.nytimes.com/2025/10/06/u...

I tend to think that what ICE is doing is more significant than whether national guard forces are deployed to Portland but, FWIW, it is noteworhthy that Judge Immergut found that Trump lacked even a "colorable basis" for his findings, and that his statements weren't "conceived in good faith."

On why Trump's determination that the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels is (i) wrong; and (ii) insufficient, in any event, to make legal the strikes against vessels in the Caribbean. www.justsecurity.org/121844/trump...

As I read this "compact," it provides that if School X *expressly* "agrees" to do everything listed--and complies to DOJ's satisfaction--then the Trump Administration *implicitly* agrees that it won't *unlawfully* withhold funding or deny grants. www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/u...