Allen Sumrall

The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking) The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking) [Bell, Thomas] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Constitution of Conflict: How the Supreme Court Undermines the Separation of Powers (Constitutional Thinking)

Today is the release date for my new book The Constitution of Conflict, published by @univpressofkansas.bsky.social! The book argues that the separation of powers is better understood as a political architecture than a judicially-enforced legal doctrine.

www.amazon.com/Constitution...

Obligatory NESCAC enthusiasm!

I woke up to 40 texts from my fiancée giving me a play-by-play of the last ten innings.

Did you watch the whole game last night?

I have no public thoughts on such matters until September of next year. By its terms, Article III does not cover the NLCS.

Haven’t had a chance to read it yet but I will!

But Josh multiple causes are hard and don’t fit my horserace politics priors.

15th Annual Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop April 24, 2026| KU School of Law

Call for Papers for 15th Annual Fed Courts Junior Scholars conference is now up: law.ku.edu/junior-facul.... Lots of advanced notice, hope you will consider submitting!

Will work on distributing this to various listservs and blogs, but please share if you are able.

The Sick Chicken Case: The US Supreme Court and the New Deal Published in Congress & the Presidency (Ahead of Print, 2025)

New from me! A short and sweet book review of a short and sweet book: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Exactly.

On that view, the job of any judge applying federal law (lower federal court judges and all state court judges) is to guess at what the current SCOTUS will do with the case, regardless of what existing law says. It’s predictive. I don’t know what precedent means in that regime.

I heard a circuit judge on a podcast a few weeks ago discuss their fondness for SCOTUS concurrences and dissents (rather than just a single majority opinion) because they “tell circuit judges what’s coming down the pike.” That struck me as such an odd view of law and precedent.

Is that unique to admin law, though? It seems to me that, if that’s right, it probably describes all law.

Not if the President can fire them all whenever they like.

*and Mayhew

Depends how important Skowronek is to your definition of being Yalified.

That's true but it makes the same assumption: that meaning was clear and determinate (and therefore determinable) at a particular time (1789/"at the founding" broadly construed, typically). It rejects the possibility that, at a given time, meaning wasn't settled and wasn't supposed to be.

In a sense, it's also a question of the philosophy of language. It's sort of Russell/Kripke vs. Wittgenstein. Not to take this too far afield... Anyway...

(which partially elides the question in constitutional politics/interpretation about whether looking at/prioritizing the meaning of text really is the best or only way to do it)

I think the question is whether (1) any piece of text has an inherently incontestable or distinct meaning or (2) all text is inherently meaningless absent social context, which by definition can change. Certain meanings become more or less contestable as a function of social mores.

It's extra odd that the purportedly non-universal relief means that NM probably won't try to enforce its 7-day waiting period against gun sellers who violate it. So the non-universal relief will become something closer to universal for people aware of the ruling.

I read the opinion this morning. The Trump v. CASA point at the end also is odd. The district court can order relief only as to the two named plaintiffs, then? So the 7-day waiting period is still in effect for everyone else who hasn't and won't sue?

NEW: 10th Cir declares that New Mexico’s 7 day waiting period for gun purchases violates the Second Amendment.

Evidence shows such laws have a marked effect on firearm suicides, saving untold lives, but no matter — Bruen means history is all that counts.

www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/f...

Hello!

Native Peoples, American Colonialism, and the US Constitution Fall 2025 Session Presented in person at The New York Historical and via Zoom* Meeting Dates & Times: Fridays, November 7 and 21, December 5 and 12, 2025 | 11 am–2 pm ET Instructors: Maggie Blackhawk, Ned Blackhawk SEMINAR DESCRIPTION: As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, this seminar invites a critical examination of a central paradox in American constitutional history: how can a nation celebrate a founding document and constitutional tradition built, in part, on the dispossession of Indigenous homelands? From the Founders’ long-standing relationships with Native nations to the grievances lodged regarding ‘merciless Indian savages’ into the Declaration, Indian affairs and westward expansion were foundational to the creation and evolution of the US Constitution. The Northwest Ordinance laid the “blueprint for empire” for federal imperial expansion from thirteen states clinging to the Eastern seaboard to a nation that stretched “from sea to shining sea,” while the United States Constitution excluded “Indians not taxed” from American polity—in so doing, also codifying the specific subordination of a people by name within constitutional text. Despite this deep entanglement, Native history remains marginalized within the fields of constitutional history and mainstream constitutional scholarship. This seminar explores emerging historical and legal literature that re-centers Native peoples and American colonialism in the narrative of US constitutional development. Topics include the role of Native peoples and “Indian affairs” in the Constitution’s initial drafting and ratification and the legal architecture of colonial expansion. The seminar will also explore how centering Native peoples allows for a rethinking of United States constitutional history and American public law more broadly.

Junior faculty and grad students in political science, history, law, and Native American Studies, come take a class with us at the New York Historical Society (and via Zoom) on Native Peoples, American Colonialism, and the U.S. Constitution.

To apply, Institute for Constitutional History: 1/2

This reminds me of how memorable I found the Emil Bührle exhibit in the Kunsthaus in Zurich, which I've visited twice in the last year. It display's Bührle's art collection but is also overtly self-conscious about the prudence of displaying the collection at all.

Interesting! Worth a read!

Hey you! If you're a law school and you're hiring, you should probably just go ahead and hire Beau. He's thoughtful, thorough, and curious. He brings fresh approaches to core questions of American constitutional governance. He's a great coauthor, which suggests he'll be a great colleague, too.

Something something the least dangerous branch

Judges as Chaos Agents A seismic shift is underway in the American legal academy.

New Substack riffing on @joshchafetz.bsky.social’s excellent new article on Chadha. I highly recommend it.