William Baude

When Extremism Becomes Moderation A Comment on Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Co-post with @williambaude.bsky.social
blog.dividedargument.com/p/when-extre...

I’ve posted a short piece for lay readers on Youngstown papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

New Episode: "Betty Boop or Shakespeare" In the latest episode of the podcast, we dig into the tariffs decision.

blog.dividedargument.com/p/new-episod...

Yes

Call for papers!

www.law.uchicago.edu/form/uchicag...

www.law.uchicago.edu/news/does-un...

‘The Justices Might Actually Have to Say No, Even to the President’ www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/o...

I generally agree with this, but I also wonder how much of a convention it actually is. I'd guess that maybe 30-40% of my articles have had a "Part IV" in this sense, and that most or all of my most-cited pieces don't (and to the extent they do, that's not what they're cited for).

1, Im not sure, but 2, shouldn’t it be the state law of interpretation?

Things to Read This Week (1/19) Election Law, Shugerman, ACX

blog.dividedargument.com/p/things-to-...

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation In August 2018, Cedric Galette sustained injuries when his stopped vehicle was struck by a New Jerse...

In 15 minutes:

fedsoc.org/events/court...

Why Stop at Level Three? discretion to pose the question in Trump v. Illinois and elsewhere

blog.dividedargument.com/p/why-stop-a...

Big and good news for the Constitutional Law Institute. Thanks to Deb Cafaro!

Are those all pre-Grzegorczyk?

Zielinski: www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?...

Grzegorczyk: www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?...

I notice that I am confused by the GVR in Zielinski v. US. I had thought the Court had stopped GVR'ing i/l/o SG confessions of error after Grzegorzyk.

Am I misremembering/misunderstanding?

Pretty sure I'm one of the folks Mark's subtweeting. While I don’t feel compelled to respond, this actually provides a beautiful lesson for how academics and other serious observers might think about engaging with the Court and law. (thread)

I’m not sold that it was either! I am describing …

And I won't give away the ending, but I will tell you the last sentence: "Does the Roberts Court have the will and the power to do what the Marshall Court could not?"

You have to subscribe online or find a place that sells journals to read it. But an excerpt from the heart:

My latest, “Marbury Now,” is published in the latest issue of Liberties! libertiesjournal.com/articles/mar...

With all that is going on in the world, it might be easy to overlook that the D.C. Circuit appears to have changed its Special Panel (aka Motions Panel) so that it's no longer in place for a month.

I think this change is both really important and really good.

(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )

Front pages of American newspapers after Jan. 6, 2021, with headlines like "Capitol Chaos," "Assault on Democracy," "Pro-Trump mob storms Capitol."

Five years ago.

"Perhaps the Court is moving back to assessing irreparable harm with more nuance and precision, as it should." If only. Here, however, there's no injunction against effectuating a Trump policy--let alone a statute--so I'm afraid this wasn't a recognition that that's not invariably "harm" to the U.S.

My first post on the Interim Docket blog is up:

NB: When I, a professor of law, profess that an act is unlawful, I am not doing it to inform the lawbreaker, but rather to inform you, the reader.

So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.

Burkeanism and the Administrative State A debate on unitary executive power.

"Burkeanism and the Administrative State"

I really enjoyed doing this podcast episode with Sarah Isgur, @williambaude.bsky.social, and @davidfrenchjag.bsky.social. It was framed around separation of powers debates, but the conversation ranged much more widely. thedispatch.com/podcast/advi...

The best moment in the History of the Word Caucasian came in a series of Supreme Court cases during the immigration panic of the 1920s.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 said that only "white" people could be naturalized as American citizens, but that only raised questions about what counted as white?

Opinion | Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century

I don’t write the headlines but I do like this one (post-Slaughter argument roundtable for @nytimes.com with @stevevladeck.bsky.social & @williambaude.bsky.social)

www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...