Jake Charles

There was an unintentionally revealing moment in oral arguments earlier this Term in a case about a political candidate’s ability to challenge voting rules. Part of the GOP candidate’s arg relied on the notion that…Republicans typically make it harder to vote while Democrats make it easier…

Couldn’t agree more!

Shockingly the TSA lines were some of the quickest I’ve had! We did get delayed two hours on the late flight, which was due to staffing shortages.

True! I overstated things by making it seem like this was unique!

Oof just finishing up listening to the Trump tariffs oral arguments & Justice Alito is unbearably insufferable.

Woke up in the mountain time zone, traveled home to teach in the pacific time zone, and now en route to the central time zone. Lots of traveling this time of year, but I had a blast speaking at ASU yesterday & am excited to head to the annual Con Law Colloquium at Loyola Chicago. ✈️✍️📖

Great day for many reasons, including getting this in the mail! With @jacobdcharles.bsky.social.

Wow had not seen this before. Walsh’s piece aged quite well on the diagnosis axis, quite poorly on the hypocrisy one.

The defendant sure looked like he cast that thing in wrath!

I COULD SMELL THE ONIONS AND MUSTARD 💀💀

Oof, SCOTUS gonna intervene fast. Can’t say you are relying on mystical things like “trial testimony,” which get approximately 0.0 percent respect from this Court

👀

13th amendment says, whatttttttt

Tell me you’ve never shopped for groceries without telling me you’ve never shopped for groceries

This is a fantastically reported story, illuminating the sad state of affairs in the NC judiciary.

The threat below is an ironic manifestation of the whole thrust of the piece: officials’ willingness to jettison longstanding norms in the pursuit of power, all without concern for the lasting harm.

It’s coincidentally also for the people of the age who look at this post & go, “hey, I resemble that remark.”

Yeah pretty alarming

NEW: In Rahimi, the Supreme Court said the 2nd Am lets govt disarm those found to be a credible threat, but left open whether other kinds of restraining orders permit disarmament under fed law. Yesterday, the 9th Cir said yes they do, at least on the facts here.

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

Good example for those teaching legal ethics & particularly ABA Model Rule 3.3's requirement of candor to the tribunal.

Lawyers are ethically required to "correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer."

Title company gonna come searching you out now to trace the chain.

Among the many disturbing things about the Callais oral args on the Voting Rights Act, I was struck by the seeming agreement that partisan gerrymandering is fine & a legit state interest—all bc Rucho said it was non-justiciable. But non-justiciable doesn’t mean it’s ok or consistent w/ the Const!

Yeah I think an admin or other similar process is far preferable to case by case as-applied challenges in courts across the country. But agree it’s weird to raise here—prob would have biggest impact for 922g1

bsky.app/profile/josh...

That's a lot of judges joining one opinion (which is really a dissent, though not styled as such).

🧵 The Supreme Court’s decision to hear another Second Amendment case this term is significant. Along w/ Wolford on Hawaii’s law concerning guns on private property, the justices will review, in US v. Hemani, whether the Const’n permits disarming drug users: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

What the Court hasn’t done is provide any substantial guidance for resolving the category (3) cases—and that doesn’t seem to be changing in the near term.

It is, to me, notable what's missing. We often categorize gun laws into 3 big buckets—(1) laws regulating Who can have guns, (2) laws regulating Where guns can go &(3) laws regulating What weapons the 2A protects. Like Bruen, Wolford is a category (2) case. Like Rahimi, Hemani is category (1).

for the history & tradition framework & then force lower courts to apply that updated guidance to the prior set of challenges they resolved before. (Or, it could mean something else altogether, like the justices want to pretend this cases are easy under its test & hence that there's no problem.)

So why this focus? Well, it could mean the Court is either (1) not of one mind on how to resolve 922(g)(1) or assault weapon questions, (2) reluctant to wade into the most controversial questions unless forced to do so, or (3) using Wolford & Hemani to set out more guidance

the Court continues to decline review to resolve this split. It has also declined (for now) to take up perhaps one of the most contentious issues today in Second Amendment debates: the validity of bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.