Профиль

As I've said before, this might be the most important law review article of the second Trump term (and, of course, it's fantastic).

So did SG Sauer actually dissuade Trump from filing a petition for rehearing in the birthright citizenship case (Barbara)? I believe the deadline just came and went, and there's nothing on the (electronic) docket.

So did SG Sauer actually dissuade Trump from filing a petition for rehearing in the birthright citizenship case (Barbara)? I believe the deadline just came and went, and there's nothing on the (electronic) docket.

Comey's motion to dismiss on the ground that his "86 47" reposting wasn't a "true threat" that Comey might try to kill the President. This should be one of the most easily and swiftly granted motions ever. The indictment is an embarrassment. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

What Josh said. Under current doctrine, this isn't a close question: A spending condition will be treated as equivalent to a direct prohibition.

This is what I've been pondering, thanks: If I move to in-class and (in some respect) "closed book," I'll try to cover far less substantive ground, focusing on only one or two questions with one or two fairly obvious issues.

Love this thread, and I haven't even seen the film yet! Law-of-war nerd question for those who have (including esp. @emilyrcwilson.bsky.social): Does Nolan question the legality/morality of the Trojan Horse b/c of its perfidious nature?

That's what I've always tried to test for, as well. But in-class and closed-book exams--which might be the fairest--instead test for (i) speed and (ii) ability to memorize/regurgitate: two skills that, if they were ever significant, are now increasingly obsolete.

My primary reaction is that all these understandably anxious discussions about exams/evaluations, many of which are very thoughtful in terms of assessing fairness, don't really get at the hard, fundamental question of what we should be testing for in this new world.

Another reminder, since no one in Congress appears to care: These strikes are a campaign of unlawful murders, and the Administration hasn't offered any plausible argument to the contrary. www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/0...

Your daily reminder that the war against Iran is so blatantly unconstitutional that even the Trump Administration (including OLC) hasn't offered any argument that Trump has unilateral authority to direct DOD to engage in such a war. @justsecurity.org www.nytimes.com/2026/07/26/u...

The larger problem is that we don't really know what we should be assessing in the first place in this new world. Most solutions addressed to fairness concerns end up testing for (i) speed and (ii) ability to memorize/regurgitate--precisely those things that A.I. can and will do better in practice.

I wonder how many of his "top advisors" reminded Trump that this war without congressional authorization is blatantly unconstitutional--so much so that the Administration (including OLC) hasn't even offered any argument to the contrary. @justsecurity.org www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/u...

Subtle. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/b...

Is there really a "Beshear needs to fight" thing of any moment?

A buncha takes on various facets of the Trump v. Barbara citizenship decision--including a closer look at how little the (wrongheaded) Thomas/Gorsuch "domicile" condition would change things. www.justsecurity.org/148991/count...

(or woman)

Excellent and informative, as always

Kinda like birthright citizenship and Trump's third term.

Astonishing. RFK Jr. adds 8 members to a 6 member FDA advisory panel. 6 of them were sellers of peptides, and the 7th a compounding pharmacist. In an 8-6 vote with all 8 votes coming from these new panel members, the panel approved 4 peptides against the objections of FDA scientists.