Jake Charles

We won but it won’t be correct until all nine justices recognize that

I guess this means Trump read the blog post arguing that he did, in fact, actually win the tariff's case.

A major theme of yesterday's Hemani 2A arg: under Bruen can courts *ever* weigh the govt's leg judgment that certain groups (like drug users) are too dangerous to have guns. I've argued these assessments are inevitable even w/history-focused approaches...
www.wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/u...

What do Thomas Jefferson’s drinking habits, stealing your spouse’s Ambien, and the date Heroin become illegal all have in common? They were all part of yesterday’s Second Amendment insanity at the Supreme Court: www.dorfonlaw.org/2026/03/guns...

Yeah v true

New Center to Focus on Constitutional Law, Practice, Democracy - Georgia State University News - Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, College of Law, Faculty & Research, Press Releases, Pro-Bono &... The Georgia State University College of Law is home to the new Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice & Democracy. The center is named for Emmet J. Bondurant, a prominent trial law...

I’m thrilled that Georgia State’s College of Law is home to the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice, and Democracy! As associate director, and @espinsegall.bsky.social as director, we’re taking GSU to new heights in the field of constitutional law. news.gsu.edu/2026/02/26/n...

I always knew the founding generation drank copious amounts of alcohol but like 16 ounces of whiskey a day is wild! Madison was downing like 8-12 old fashioneds for funsies.

One possibility I could see here is something like the 3-3-3 of the tariff case decision. 3 justices say this law fails under Bruen. 3 justices say its fine under Bruen. The 3 liberals say Bruen sucks (though not clear to me the 3 libs will all be aligned on the outcome).

Look Jackson made the most direct criticism of Bruen, but Alito's questions also show the absurdity of a test that ties the entire inquiry to history. They didnt have the same problems so of couse they didnt regulate in the same way! (Yes! If only this had made him reluctant to sign onto Bruen...)

Right but I mean they’d have to come up with a narrow way first for him to be in the majority at all. He seemed to me to wanna give lots of deference to this executive/congressional judgment in the CSA that I don’t think had many other adherents.

It would have been impossible for me not to respond by citing the "Andy Griffith Show" episode where Otis the town drunk bought a car. A horrified Andy and Barney tried to persuade him not to drive, but they never assumed authority to prohibit ownership outright.
mayberry.fandom.com/wiki/Hot_Rod...

Maybe some weird narrow thing could make that happen I guess.

And, we're done. I think the Chief & Alito are very skeptical of the challenger here; they seem to think Congress can of course disarm drug users. But...it's hard for me to see many other justices clearly on that side. I'm sure the govt will get more than 2 votes, but not sure it'll be a majority.

GOVT rebuttal.

H: congress made judgment that mixing CSA drugs and guns was dangerous in g3. that satisfies the tradition. they look at modern laws and suggest you need individualized determinations all the way down. Heller forward have all suggested that categorical judgments are okay.

BK: can someone habitually uses but who doesnt satisfy defn of addict on "public morals"

M: probably resist morals alone and say look to history.

BK: as to individualized assessment, no separate individualized as to whether they are dangerous once proved addict.

M: yes inividualized decision as to whether int he category.

BK: but for user, not addict, must be individualized.

M: yes has to show that it has effect historical ones did

those currently intoxicated, but it had to be that it was effecting you even when you were not currently intoxicated.

BK: how many prosecutions under addicted vs. unlawful user?

M: seem few that are only addicted.

EK: your answer is no matter how bad a drug is, but when you arent in the grip you cant disarm, even if habitual. how do you win with MJ but not with that drug?

M: if you assume habitual, it does take into account the kind of drug & so maybe enoguh to capture that person. we agree it wasnt ONLY abt

SS: no defn for the unlawful user prong, even in case law, right

M: correct and even states not really have that.

M: yes but this wouldnt make the sky fall either.

SS: unlawful user & addicted--two prongs. addicted defn goes to the jury.

M: yes it does already.

SS: on unlawful user prong, you didnt really talk about vagueness. arent they giving new defn.

M: yes we think thats a problem.

SA: didnt cognress determine CSA makes someone dangerous in g3?

M: no bc not all those are alays used illegally.

SA: in our 2A cases, there are always sky is falling args. in rehaif, i said 922g did more work in public safety than those dumb gun laws. agree?

SA: you would have potentially eveyr single district judge say users of this drug are dangerrous or not.

M: no can give the jury a standard for what it takes. govt can put on evidence

SA: here are the 3rd circuit factors to consider: long list. in a criminal case, would you submit those to jury?

M: we think govt would want to put that in.

SA: so jurors make this call?

M: dont think it will happen often. but govt has to do this to put this on a schedule at all.

too risky.

M: maybe. but historical principle is about the effect the substance was having on your ability to function.

SA: how can that be done in the context of a criminal prosecution? adopt the 3rd circ standard?

M: adopt one more on historical principle - renders them unable to function in day to day life, all the time.

SA: im just puzzled by most of your argument. congress cant say this drug is makes you

SA: if individualized consideration is required for user, is it that person or as to the drug?

M: not saying it always has to be individualized. govt could try to prove that a category of drug is analogous--not saying has to be case by case.

SA: so can every addict get individualized?

M: yes statute requires to show they are an addict.

SA: not to use, but as to the drug/situation.

M: that's what it means to determine whether someone is an addict.

SA: you say no problem with prohibiting everyone who is addicted to drug from having guns. for every drug?

M: yes bc addiction has to show that makes a person a risk all the time.

SA: seriously? every single scheduled drug? ambien?

M: maybe defn addiction is doing the work there

BK: so govt could say unlawful user but addict for some category of drugs?

M: yes - addicted to is focused on so excessively to fit the habitual drunkard tradn out of compulsion. the user is out of choice but only if its habitual.

KBJ: sounds like youre saying this category is overbroad. really just that the purpose is not furthered by including this kind of person.

M: yes we'd say overbroad as to the historical category. but under means-end scrutiny, youd say the same things.