Aaron Bruhl

Since this is Jeopardy!, I will be pedantic and criticize the question’s wording. The Court didn’t rule on tomato’s botanical designation but on whether the relevant statute used the word in an ordinary versus a specialized (e.g., trade or botanical) sense.

I like nonmutual defensive collateral estoppel and the LA Dodgers. I recognize that not all agree, so can someone who is good at the economy help me do an initial coin offering so I can make money off of counterparties to these opinions.

The #SCOTUS oral argument in Olivier v. City of Brandon, happening now, is pretty interesting. The justices are struggling with the broad language of Heck v. Humphrey and how following it here would lead to a pretty awkward result.

Introduce yourself with five concerts you’ve seen:

1. Violent Femmes
2. Ozomatli (before they were famous)
3. REM (at height of fame)
4. @eve6.bsky.social
5. Willie Nelson (at Houston Rodeo)

Happy Thanksgeve* to you too.

* Apparently some of the kids these days are using this term, a word I never knew I needed.

If the plaintiff actually alleges PJ in the complaint—which is not required under FRCP 8—then I’d think it needs to have a basis in law and fact.

Links:
Biden v. Byrne motion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Dissent in TX redistricting case: electionlawblog.org/wp-content/u...

@hilzoy.bsky.social @blakeprof.bsky.social

A formulation of the categorical imperative.

“Free-floating Hegelian interpretation”

This week’s scorecard of German Idealism in legal documents:
Kant 1
Hegel ?

Left: Hunter Biden motion for default judgment

Right: Judge Smith’s dissent in Texas redistricting case

(Smith’s reference is obviously meant to be negative, but given the tenor of the dissent, how to score?)

Star Trek TNG’s Capt. Picard from “four lights!” scene.

GSD/hound mix in a pile of leaves

Mixed-breed dog in a pile of leaves.

It is officially “dogs trying to hide in raked-up piles of leaves” season.

I’m attending for the first time and looking forward to seeing what it’s like.

The 5 Colleges hosted a water polo tournament in the early 90s called the Baldy View Tournament, which I think was tongue in cheek because odds of seeing Mt. Baldy were 50/50.

Friday reading recommendation: my new article, “The Amended Statute,” which is now out with @uchilrev.bsky.social! Hope you’ll check it out!

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Mandamus in the nature of procedendo, my favorite flavor of mandamus.

He did.

I saw them live!

In a different world, Congress might enact various complicated fallback provisions in case of invalidation of this or that provision.

Mike can speak for himself if he wishes, but the point I’m taking from this isn’t that the non-severability position is right but rather that the remedial difficulties surrounding the dozens of indep. entities Congress has created weigh in favor of preserving Humphrey’s.

@mls1776.bsky.social

I missed this when it was posted.

Among my other things, some nice points about congressional reliance on Humphrey’s Executor:

Ok, make that two kings.

No kings but Mookie Betts.

Legal Theory Blog Discover our latest articles and updates. Stay informed with recent posts that cover a variety of topics you care about!

Please help me get the word out about the new websites for Legal Theory Blog and the Legal Theory Lexicon. Reposting here and on other social media sites is great. It would be especially helpful if law school faculty members could send an email to their colleagues with the new addresses.

Don’t forget the faxed handwritten edits that might have “despicable” scrawled on the top of the first page, but no one can decipher it for sure.

With the caveat that one can’t always tell from oral argument, it sounded to me like the Court will reverse and say that the state statute does not apply in federal court.

The tougher question seemed to be which Federal Rule(s) the state law conflicts with: 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, discovery, “structure”?

This morning SCOTUS heard Berk v. Choy, a Civil Procedure case about the Erie doctrine. The state requires an “affidavit of merit” to accompany medical malpractice complaints. Does it apply in federal court?

I listened to the oral argument.

Reactions in next post.

Docket and briefs at this link:

Someone (not me) wondered enough to write an article.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

That could be, but I think other relevant remedies at law could include mandamus, quo warranto, and declaratory judgment.

For non-pedantic content on QP 2, by the way, see below from Sam Bray:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Screenshot of order granting stay and certiorari in Trump v. Slaughter.

The Supreme Court’s reference, in QP 2 in the Slaugher removal case, to “at equity or at law,” rather than using the traditional formulaic prepositions “in equity or at law” stands as a stark contrast to its embrace of “history and tradition.” In this essay I will …

#pedantry

This kind of thing is why our library is the best.