1/x I am glad this piece is out in the world. One additional friendly amendment: the usage of the phrase “judicial supremacy” here is kind of slippery. Better to use the academically built out terms, “juristocracy” and “judicial aggrandizement.”

I'll never get tired of page proofs.

Call for papers for a workshop on state public law here in Boulder on August 13-14! Abstracts due May 31. More info below!

As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with this book is that I can’t read it NOW.

After years of research, Daphna Renan & I are thrilled to announce preorders of SUPREMACY. Why is US democracy so broken? One reason is we've wrongly accepted that 9 justices have the final say over the Constitution. This book traces how that happened—& how we can reclaim power to govern ourselves.

Very happy to announce that The Chadha Presidency is now forthcoming in the @georgetownlj.bsky.social! ssrn.com/abstract=536...

So, law friends. I know that this is about #1000 on your list of concerns, but I write a lot of external evaluation letters for tenure/promotion cases in poli sci. Because of my work, I often write for folks who study law-related topics. Many publish some of their work in law reviews.

Just discovered that one of my articles was published! In it, I argue that judicial power has multiple components or dimensions, one of which is ideational. In other words, ideas and norms about courts’ proper role empower them over and above the traditional formal sources of power. Check it out!

1/ A few thoughts about @williambaude.bsky.social’s comment in yesterday’s NYT chat that, “It’s amazing how many of our problems today could be solved by a Congress that was willing and able to legislate in response to national problems.” www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...

Today is the release date for my new book The Constitution of Conflict, published by @univpressofkansas.bsky.social! The book argues that the separation of powers is better understood as a political architecture than a judicially-enforced legal doctrine. www.amazon.com/Constitution...

Call for Papers for 15th Annual Fed Courts Junior Scholars conference is now up: law.ku.edu/junior-facul.... Lots of advanced notice, hope you will consider submitting! Will work on distributing this to various listservs and blogs, but please share if you are able.

New from me! A short and sweet book review of a short and sweet book: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Not if the President can fire them all whenever they like.

NEW: 10th Cir declares that New Mexico’s 7 day waiting period for gun purchases violates the Second Amendment. Evidence shows such laws have a marked effect on firearm suicides, saving untold lives, but no matter — Bruen means history is all that counts. www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...

Junior faculty and grad students in political science, history, law, and Native American Studies, come take a class with us at the New York Historical Society (and via Zoom) on Native Peoples, American Colonialism, and the U.S. Constitution. To apply, Institute for Constitutional History: 1/2

Interesting! Worth a read!

Hey you! If you're a law school and you're hiring, you should probably just go ahead and hire Beau. He's thoughtful, thorough, and curious. He brings fresh approaches to core questions of American constitutional governance. He's a great coauthor, which suggests he'll be a great colleague, too.

Something something the least dangerous branch

They New York Times examined how much the Trump spending bill will impact New Mexico. Short answer: A lot and "few sectors of the state will be untouched"

um ...

The final version of my "Corruption and the Supreme Court" has been published in the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, and is available for download here: ssrn.com/abstract=497...

Happy FAR form submission day to all who celebrate! (Not me--I started but won't be finishing mine. Inquire inside for details.)

I'm reading a draft of a @beaubaumann.bsky.social paper and I'm reminded that he needs to be hired quickly and purposefully.

Remember when shadow docket orders weren't precedential?

Those "rogue judges" were acting under an express grant of authority provided by Congress—one explicitly permitted by Article II of the Constitution, which says Congress can give the judiciary power to appoint inferior officers.

I just posted a new paper on @ssrn.bsky.social, titled "The Chadha Presidency". Here's the link, and I'll post the abstract in the next post. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

terrific, spot-on analysis of the Court's agenda in CASA

FREE webinar July 30 — join me to learn how to become a law professor! 🎓 I’ll cover qualifications, building your profile, AALS hiring, and thriving in academia. Save your spot: j.st/5bmM #LegalAcademia #LawProf

Re-sharing this piece I wrote last week on Trump v. CASA and universal injunctions. www.yalejreg.com/nc/universal...

I wrote up some quick thoughts on last week’s Trump v. CASA decision on universal/nationwide injunctions. www.yalejreg.com/nc/universal...

I wrote up some quick thoughts on last week’s Trump v. CASA decision on universal/nationwide injunctions. www.yalejreg.com/nc/universal...

Really good @leedrutman.bsky.social piece on why the Republicans are comfortable passing such an unpopular bill. I hope his prediction is wrong, but his analysis is important anyway. leedrutman.substack.com/p/one-big-be...

I am begging Supreme Court commentators and pundits to offer a coherent definition of an “institutionalist” before asserting that some justice is such an institutionalist.

the president may not like the idea of spending $7 billion on after school programs, but it IS NOT UP TO HIM. what this administration asserts, again and again, is that the president has sovereign authority over nation

i'm not going to post anything more about Trump v. CASA because it is not the most important thing in the world, but I respectfully submit that this paragraph alone justifies all the derision directed at the Court and Justice Barrett

I wonder which NFL team will pick up this guy

The Trump v. CASA decision comes on a preliminary posture and holds that universal injunctions "likely" exceed judges' equitable (statutory) authority, it would be *very funny* if the Court later decides that actually universal injunctions don't violate judges' equitable authority.

For all the time that the Court's decision in the universal injunction case spends on the history of equitable remedies, the decision is not one about the power of the federal judiciary. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

And while the Court's ruling theoretically checks some of the lawless injunctions being issued by Trump district judges, its overall effect is to consolidate power in a Supreme Court where right-wing control is firmly entrenched.

Yes. This is the correct reading of Trump v. CASA. The Kavanaugh concurrence is evidence of this reading.

the president does not actually have the power to fire a university president or a museum director, but if elites simply roll over under pressure, then effectively he does

The Justices believe they're undoing the "imperial judiciary" with this ruling but it's out of their hands. Judicial aggrandizement can't be undone with a single ruling. This just changes the form of the legal fights. We'll get more duplicative litigation across districts and more class actions.