Marty Lederman

 I’m afraid it’s something much worse than that: the administration making policies based on factual premises that virtually everyone knows are *not* true— and nothing can be done about it.

... will "exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free” if only the POTUS intones the magic words? [4]

But those doctrines were based upon a presumption of presidential good faith & procedural regularity. What should the judiciary do when faced with a President whose modus operandi is to exploit the knowledge that courts ... [3]

... and then courts defer to what everyone knows to be pretextual. They're not necessarily wrong to do so, given the well-established deference doctrines. [2]

Case after case takes the same form: Trump or a Secretary virtually boasts about doing something for an unlawful purpose, but also (presumably at lawyers' urging) invokes a legitimate basis, often sounding in national security or foreign affairs ... [1]

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

I'm the President of that Club.

Had me at "serious gourmet shit!" Heh. #jimmie'scoffee

What would "waking up," or hardball, entail? The main point of the article is that it's not obvious what the Dems can do to respond.

Taking Stock of the Birthright Citizenship Cases, Part I: Unpacking Trump v. CASA, Inc. Analysis of the aftermath of Trump v CASA and the pending litigation about the Trump executive order on birthright citizenship.

www.justsecurity.org/118040/takin...

Everything You Always Wanted to Know (and a whole lot you probably didn't!) About Trump v. CASA--and its impact on the pending birthright citizenship litigation.

Deep in the weeds ...

OK, so 22-year-old rookie Nick Kurtz just had what's probably the greatest offensive game ever in baseball. Four homers, a double and a single (19 TB); six runs; 8 RBI. What?!

... much of U.S. history and the U.S. Code would be called into question.

What am I missing? [8]

... that the "enumeration principle" the Court expressed in Lopez and Morrison (and, as far as I can recall, never before then) was a mere rhetorical flourish, a sloppy Rehnquistian shorthand or wishful thinking. Otherwise--as Richard demonstrates in compelling detail in his book ... [7]

... to establish an official flag and seal; to create corporations and other legal entities; to acquire territory; to regulate Indian affairs, defined *very* broadly (see Brackeen); etc.?

I'd simply assumed that all (serious) profs teach their students ... [6]

Are there CONLAW profs who keep their students in the dark about the power to deport/remove foreigners from the U.S.? The powers to enter into contracts; to sue; to exercise eminent domain; to not only issue paper currency but also deem it as legal tender for payment of preexisting debts; ... [5]

Don't they expose their students to the federal government's foreign affairs functions, including (but hardly limited to) excluding persons from entering the U.S.; diplomacy; regulating U.S. nationals’ overseas travel & conduct; formally recognizing foreign governments; & declaring neutrality? [4]

Really?!!

Are there actually CONLAW profs who teach their students that? Do they not assign the first 21 paragraphs of McCulloch (where the Court concludes that Congress has the power to incorporate a bank before even mentioning the N&P Clause)? [3]

by the animating proposition, namely (as the inner flap begins): "Every law student learns that the federal government is constrained to act only according to its enumerated powers." On page 1, Richard describes this as "the traditional thinking"; his post calls it"the dominant paradigm." [2]

This is a superlative post. All constitutional law professor and students should read it -- and then, of course, go read Richard's great book, too.

I continued to be somewhat amazed/alarmed, however, ... [1]

@williambaude.bsky.social @johnmikhail.bsky.social @jackbalkin.bsky.social

Curious about your coauthors Millard, Kohn and "R." ;-)

#funwithSSRN

Can't wait to read this, Sam. Incredibly important topic. It might be interesting to consider the related, alarming First Amendment theories that Philip Hamburger, Jed Rubenfeld, et al. pushed in the Murthy context.

The impact here is huge: B/c of the stay, people can now bring suit for Section 2 violations in the states covered by CTA8, and those states can't act on the assumption they won't be sued.

Yes, because you (and I) consider the government's conduct in such cases to be *unlawful.* The problem, then, is with the merits of the stay decision itself, not the lack of explanation. If you're a Justice who thinks the USG will prevail in *both* cases, why explain one stay but not the other?

Not sure I understand. Isn't "our action allows a government policy to go into effect" a basis for thinking an explanation is *less* needed? As was true here?:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22p...

Is that why the "It's outrageous that the Court didn't explain its reasoning!" chorus has been conspicuously silent on this one?

This is wonderful, thanks.

What should the fourth item be for a forthcoming NYT Connections category?:

Paramount
Paul, Weiss
Columbia University

Here's the astounding agreement itself. [2]

Any law profs out there with syllabi for a Government Extortion course that they're willing to share? Thanks in advance.

president.columbia.edu/sites/defaul...

Must-read from Dave Pozen. The Columbia "agreement" "gives legal form to an extortion scheme ... in which the federal government is seeking to reshape the internal operations of universities." [1]

balkin.blogspot.com/2025/07/regu...

Any law profs out there have a syllabus for a Government Extortion course they'd be willing to share?

Sure you noticed how Barrett cited only Bray's article and treatise--no actual caselaw or the like--for some *very* contested propositions in CASA.