Appreciate this letter from MN State Sen Jim Abler (R-Anoka) to POTUS

The Xinis order from yesterday gives two independent grounds for releasing Abrego Garcia--not just the technical error of lacking a removal order but also that he can't be validly detained while the government is not sufficiently trying to remove him. Even a valid order doesn't cure the second issue

SCOTUSblog has always been like this (it was founded by Supreme Court practitioners who have reasons to not alienate the justices) but I'd believe it's gotten worse. And I find the liveblogs intolerable now

so, this right here? this is one of the absolutely most lawless, brazenly unconstitutional impeachable offenses ever committed by any president other than trump in the history of our country. like, this is an open and shut case. and it's a case which targeted *republicans.*

Nina Varsava (@ninavarsava.bsky.social) and I just posted our paper "Originalism's General-Law Turn" to SSRN. The paper is still a work in progress, and comments and criticisms are very welcome. papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=...

I am sincerely curious about the story behind the Heritage Action tweet. - Did Trump actually say this? - Who made the decision to say this publicly? - What were they thinking? Did they think this would work?

When Article II says "the executive power" is vested in the president, it means *all* the executive power--including the powers of all the state executives

I keep worrying that Jared Polis is going to pardon Tina Peters in the name of National Reconciliation or to keep Trump from making his life harder or something and that's probably the real purpose of all this stuff

NYC is the best place on earth lol

"Legal experts say" lol

The health care providers here are in no-win situations but it should be emphasized that what Trump is doing here is completely 100% lawless, there is no statutory authorization for this, they are terrorizing providers with baseless investigations and threats

I thought we had a Supreme Court case about this in 2012

Doesn't he need to find some countries willing to join the ISF first

The bottom line from Amnesty's new report. None of this justifies Israel's crimes. None of Israel's crimes justify this.

I don't think impeachment is radioactive poison but you have to understand it as a messaging tool rather than an actual measure of legal accountability. And as a messaging tool, does it work or not? We have very recent examples--do we feel good about those?

Die Metaphysik der Sitten

The closest I've ever come to being hit by a car as a pedestrian involved me crossing a street in Manhattan with the light and in the crosswalk and a car whose driver thought he could turn while pretending I didn't exist

Has anyone polled restoring a national ban on sports betting?

It's very banal but I think the right synthesis here is: 1. moderation has electoral benefits 2. other things also have electoral benefits (incl. getting policy calls right, anticipating shifts in public opinion, generating shifts in public opinion) 3. sometimes there are tradeoffs between 1 and 2

1. Brad Lander is going to crush Dan Goldman like a bug.* 2. He pronounces "comptroller" like it's spelled rather than "controller" *Not literally--Dan Goldman will be fine and will continue his successful career as an attorney outside of Congress

To be fair, I *am* a lawyerly, whiny, effeminate weasel

The discourse about Heated Rivalry is already exhausting

You can say whatever you want about trans people in the course of crafting a discriminatory policy targeting them--you just have to paper it up with a pretext and the federal courts will bless it. Neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent matters

To distinguish the Fed, I think you'd need to say: 1. There are government officials who wield power that is not executive, legislative, or judicial 2. "Executive power" is distinctly about inherently sovereign functions (like law enforcement) that can bind private parties without their consent

This, by the way, shows why "it's useless, they will just go to SCOTUS on the emergency docket on everything" is wrong. These district court orders have been meaningful and durable.

After posing an extistential threat to the legal profession earlier in 2025, it is amazing watching DOJ slow walking into oblivion the the law firm executive orders appeals. The latest: A motion for a 45-day extension of time to file a motion regarding the appellate briefing format and schedule.

What does this mean. What does the Federal Reserve Board of Governors exercise if not "executive power"--legislative power? Judicial power? I thought the whole point of the critique of Humphrey's Executor is that we don't do that anymore

Is there anyone who thinks (1) a unitary executive is a very bad idea but (2) the vesting clause can't reasonably be interpreted any other way? This view is defensible (it's not mine but I am not very formalistic about this sort of question) but it's clearly not the view of any of the justices

I am making my way through the (prolix) Sandie Peggie decision and it's wild how poorly the claimant's lawyers treated the trans woman respondent. The court placidly recounts it and occasionally is mildly scolding

FIRE is a center-right org, nobody should think otherwise, and so people on the left will naturally disagree with its calls and it's reasonable to criticize it on that ground. At the same time though it's shown a lot of principled consistency in standing up for free speech by its own lights

What’s going on here is that DOJ only has statutory authority to intervene to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause, so they are just…

For-cause removal protection for multi-member commissions heading agencies: grave threat to liberty, gotta overthrow a hundred years of constitutional practice Drawing districts to diminish the voting power of the opposition party's supporters: ordinary politics, who cares

I did not know what Gorsuch meant by "is the water warm" and I do not think Sauer did either

What was amazing about this in today's oral argument is that they're doing both 1 and 2 simultaneously: previous decisions that distinguished Humphreys made Humphreys a dessicated husk, but also we don't have to worry about the Fed or Article I courts

This is the heart of the matter. Even after years of this behavior, part of me still finds it bewildering, and deeply distressing. It was this generation of conservatives who taught me to take judicial restraint seriously. Just, how could you?

Supreme Court oral argument this morning, in sum Sotomayor: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (derogatory) Gorsuch: you're asking us to destroy the foundation of government (complimentary)

One of the things the vesting clause argument implies at least as a semantic matter is that the president actually should be able to do this rulemaking directly--it's "executive power" "vested" in the president

Sometimes, it's difficult to predict how #SCOTUS is going to rule based solely on how the oral argument goes. And sometimes ... it's not.

The Federal Reserve *Board of Governors* (which is where the removal question is) is *not* quasi-private--at all. It is wholly public!

I think this GVR is reasonable and it doesn't clearly indicate how the Court will regard this issue. The Second Circuit relied on Smith and Mahmoud v. Taylor carves out a(nother) hole in Smith for children and education

Unfortunately this argument proves too much. Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896, the Civil Rights Cases in 1883, the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873 (!)

One of the things about this discourse that I'm still not 100% sure I understand is that several centuries ago in 2016 the Theresa May government proposed reforming the GRA to institute self-id and the *opponents* of this proposal argued that it would affect the Equality Act exceptions

Being pro-immigrant is fundamental to the American narrative in a way that I don't think really has a parallel in Europe. There was never a moment where America was (or even be imagined as) a mono-ethnic polity

If the Supreme Court repeals birthright citizenship, the Statue of Liberty should be torn down. It's not in keeping with the new regime anyway--"the brazen giant of Greek fame" seems more consistent with their philosophy

Ed Feser: for when you think John Finnis isn't homophobic enough

1. I don't think the Supreme Court will rule for Trump on birthright citizenship 2. If the Supreme Court did rule for Trump on birthright citizenship, it would be a catastrophe, both practically and jurisprudentially 3. Given 2., I am not happy with my level of confidence in 1.

I understand, as well as anyone, why folks are cynical about #SCOTUS. But even from the conservative justices' perspective, the birthright citizenship case is easy. And the Justice Department knows it, too; as I wrote in September, its bevavior in these cases has just been going through the motions:

"The Complaint and Petition for Rehearing En Banc both refer to these children as experiencing “gender confusion” or “gender dysphoria.” Consistent with the plaintiffs’ pleadings and the motion-to-dismiss stage of this case, this dissent adopts that terminology."

21!

The "Congress" the Court is empowering is not actual Congress (which it often derides) but a particular fantasy of Congress popular in the conservative constitutional imagination