Matthew Segal

That would be "good" in the sense that it would be a "good" way to make people rethink their decision to become lawyers.

a man with a mustache is talking to another man in a movie . Alt: "That's the Chicago way!"

"They pull a federal agency, you pull an executive order limiting federal access to city property. He sends posts on Truth Social, you send legal filings citing the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

House of South Carolina Judge Criticized by Trump Administration Burns Down Authorities are investigating a fire at the home of a South Carolina judge who had reportedly received death threats in what could be the latest incident of political violence across the country.

"Court judge Diane Goodstein... had reportedly received death threats for weeks related to her work". "[A]t least three members of her family, including her husband... and their son, have been hospitalized with serious injuries." time.com/7323442/sout...

just until SCOTUS demonstrates that it can enforce the Constitution without outside help

federalizing some state supreme court justices so they can assist SCOTUS, which is clearly struggling to muster an adequate response to this situation

I’m thinking about this again on my walk to work this morning, which goes by the site of the Boston Tea Party and ends up a few blocks down from the Boston Massacre.

We have delineated rights in the Constitution because those arguing about it and its passage had those rights violated.

This is jawdropping. The idea that a state about to be invaded by out-of-state soldiers that Trump is moving around the nation like chess pieces has no standing to object to the invasion!

That… doesn’t sound lucky

“It is unclear how plaintiffs were injured by this alleged violation of their rights; if anything, they gained some very tidy and well-mannered roommates.”

That’s the main reason I had to say “nearly”

Same tbh

I often tell my students that I’ve litigated nearly all the amendments but they should call me if they have a Third Amendment case so I can collect the whole set.

It is supposed to be a joke. 🫠

White and blue text: "Know Your Rights when interacting with federal agents, local law enforcement, or military troops: If you get stopped, ask if you’re free to go. If they say yes, walk or drive away. If you’re questioned, you can say, “I want to remain silent.” In some cases, you may be required to provide your name, address, immigration status, and/or ID. If an official asks to search you or your belongings, you have the right to say no, but do not obstruct access. They may have authority to conduct the search anyway. If they begin searching you or your vehicle, say clearly: “I do not consent to a search.” You do not have to unlock your phone or give government officials your password without a warrant. For additional security, turn off biometric identification such as Face ID. If law enforcement officers arrest you, you have a right to ask why. Otherwise, say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don't sign, say, or agree to anything without a lawyer present. If you believe your rights have been violated, when you can, write down everything you remember, get contact information for witnesses, and take photographs of any injuries." Light blue ACLU logo. Blue arrow pointing to the right. Black background.

White and blue text: "Know Your Rights when witnessing federal agents, local law enforcement, or military activity in public: You have the right to talk about and publicize truthful information that you obtain lawfully, including about what law enforcement officers are doing and where they are doing it. You have the right to tell people their legal rights. If you are a lawyer, make clear you are not giving legal advice. You have the right to photograph or film anything in plain view, including federal buildings and law enforcement. These officials can’t confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant, nor can they delete data under any circumstances. However, they may order you to move a reasonable distance away. If you think a command is unlawful, it’s safest to follow the order, document the interaction, and challenge it later. You can ask for officers’ names and badge numbers, as well as who to call if there are follow-up questions." Light blue ACLU logo. Black background.

Whether you're in Chicago or any other U.S. city, remember federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution.

Know your rights if you're approached by federal forces.
aclu.org/deployment_kyr

Judge observes that Trump administration is not operating in good faith.

State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in October Issues on the dockets include New York’s Voting Rights Act, investigations of gender-affirming care for minors, and Meta’s challenge to a disclosure law for political ads.

Another big month for state supreme court oral arguments. Is there a constitutional right to record law enforcement? Can Texas seek information about PFLAG's membership? Can Michigan deny workers comp to undocumented immigrants? And much more... statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

Just spitballing here but maybe the Chief Justice of the United States should respond? Or is that too much to ask?

Tomorrow: "DHS said the raid, in which they arrested every attendee at the Phillies/ Dodgers game, resulted in the capture of 8 people with outstanding warrants"

DHS says an operation last week in which agents raided a Chicago apartment building, rappelled in from helicopters, broke down doors and detained numerous residents, resulted in the arrest of two suspected gang members.
www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...

"I’m trying to help the students to reason, to think, to do legal analysis, to consider how they could be wrong, to anticipate what the counter arguments to their positions might be, because I think those skills are really valuable, whether they become lawyers or not,” Segal said. “If you’re just conducting your work life convinced of your own righteousness, then you’ll be taken by surprise, by judges and by adversaries, because you will have failed to appreciate their point of view, and you will have failed to anticipate their arguments.”

To the extent I have a "teaching philosophy," it is this: www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2025...

Just amazing that, as things worsen week after week, the nation’s most powerful court keeps proceeding as though the gravest threat to our democracy is district courts failing to get out of the President’s way.

it's almost like all this eating away at 𝘉𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘴 has left no real accountability for federal law enforcement.

A gift link to Chemerinsky’s NYT op-ed on the compact

I'm saying if you won't make single-issue allies with people who hold views you regard as immoral on other issues, you may help fewer people.

And, for that reason, people who are willing to make single-issue allies think that is the moral thing to do.

So I think everyone should be less judgmental.

In my experience, that is not accurate.

If people think our democracy is at risk, but their willingness to work with others to save it depends on their view of, say, abortion or climate, they will be less likely to succeed. And they should concede that their reasons are moral, not practical.

I don't speak for Democrats, but the hard thing is that everyone thinks they're helping the most people.

Consider "We won't work with you on Democracy unless you're with us on _________."

To some, that is nobly refusing to leave people behind. To others, that is petulantly dooming everyone.

All good points, though the line between sacrificing and prioritizing is not clear.

If people think our democracy is at risk, they could decide to prioritize that issue at the expense of other important issues. Some people are simply unwilling to do that, which is their choice. But a risky one.

One weird thing about teaching conlaw on Friday mornings is that on Friday afternoons the White House will inevitably say something that is contrary to everything that the textbook says about executive power.

Far be it from me to claim to know what the author was thinking. I just think it's understandable that the poem's logic doesn't always persuade people because they may perceive, correctly, that they are in fact safe from the threat.

Yes, but:

I had a colleague who once said to me that the poem is fundamentally wrong. Targeted individuals are all the more vulnerable because, in fact, they *don't* come for everyone. So when people think to themselves, "well, that'll never happen to ME," they aren't necessarily wrong.

so to state the obvious - leaving aside everything else, this is why the shadow docket is bad, this is why grabbing cases from the trial level is bad. fact finding matters! it's important to establish a record before you reach a decision. there's a reason that order exists, and SCt is upending it