People who agree to a Fourth Amendment waiver give up protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, allowing police to search a person or their home at any time over years-long periods.
The Language of the Night, by Ursula Le Guin
Horrible. I have a ton of work to do, but have recently started reading a wonderful book and keep finding excuses to avoid working so that I can read instead.
Most striking to me about these memos is the radically different assessment of the harm imposed by the president not being able to pursue his initiatives. Over the last 15 mos., that harm has in numerous cases been treated as almost per se serious and irreparable. Here, it gets no analysis at all.
But I literally do all of these things in a typical summer.
LinkedIn is a difficult site because I'm not sure how mean I should be there
Congratulations to @uofoklahomalaw.bsky.social Professor @msmith750.bsky.social for having his article “Resisting Generative AI With Fake Scholarship” accepted for publication by The University of Toledo Law Review!
His draft is available here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I know. I was using your post as an excuse to highlight this cringeworthy exchange.
Lash tweet defending Eastman. Eastman replies with, "Thank you, Professor Lash" and Lash replies, "You are most welcome Professor Eastman"
Not entirely
My latest Article--"Proportional Representation on the Federal Appellate Courts"--has found a home at the Tennessee Law Review!
In it, I argue that our long-standing practice of "state representation" on the federal appellate courts doesn't allocate judges according to any identifiable formula,
Announcing my latest law review article, Law-Policy Tethering, will be published in Iowa Law Review. The Supreme Court is transforming the law-policy relationship, with big implications for health, environment, labor, and voting. Judicial review is too strict & too deferential. (1/2)
Invitation to a lecture series by J. Joward Moore, hosted by the Young Peoples Socialist League
The lectures, "The Law of Biogenisis - Physical," "The Law of Biogenesis - Mental," and "The Boys Place in the World," on December 1, 8, and 15, but with no year
Found in the middle of a Herbert Spencer book I'm adding to the stacks. It was next to an envelope postmarked 1933, but Moore died in 1916, so I'm not sure of when this is from.
Buy old books! You never know what you'll find!
Big house gecko outside law school entrance with a cricket's hind legs sticking out of its mouth
Cricket Feast
At the office late and discovering it's the time of year when the big ass crickets come to visit.
Stuck in my head all day--posting it to spread the curse
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvrZ...
New Substack post entitled "The Vladeck Tragedy"
Written from a pained place for admiration and sadness.
How about that: Different text warrants different interpretation. Not so hard!
assets.aclu.org/live/uploads...
Seems like a good instinct for someone in this role
Mochi the neighborhood cat, laying on the front stoop in front of an Amazon package
I was initially pleased that Mochi guarded our package from thieves, until I realized that the Sarah Isgur book is in there.
I had a great time presenting my paper "The Capture of the Congressional Intelligence Committees" at Georgia State yesterday. Thanks to Julian Hill for hosting me, and to all the workshop participants for their thoughtful questions and comments!
William & Mary Law Review symposium on Grants Pass! Looks like it contains many noteworthy pieces!
maximinlaw.wordpress.com/2026/04/13/s...
I've informed the editors which citations are fake. I've left to their discretion whether they choose not to cite-check them or to assign these citations to an editor who they want to have a bad day.
Thank you to @noahchauvin.bsky.social for sharing his latest work on national security and Congressional committee capture. We had an incredible year of workshops and distinguished speakers at Georgia State this year! I am so pleased that Noah allowed us to wrap up with a bang!
Resisting Generative AI With Fake Scholarship 58 University of Toledo Law Review (forthcoming 2027) 32 Pages Posted: 9 Mar 2026 Last revised: 13 Apr 2026 Michael L. Smith University of Oklahoma - College of Law Date Written: March 07, 2026 Abstract Generative AI companies and enthusiasts claim that it's only a matter of time before lawyers, judges, law students, and law professors embrace this new technology and cede most, if not all, of their work over to skillful machines. Legal scholarship is one such domain that AI will purportedly dominate. This Article takes issue with such a dystopian prospect and proposes that authors and law journals resist by writing and publishing fake scholarship. Doing so may corrupt the body of scholarship upon which language models train, leading to increasingly inaccurate outputs that render generative AI useless for legal scholarship and other forms of legal writing. After describing and defending this proposal against likely objections, I provide an example of fake scholarship as a template for those interested in joining the cause. Keywords: generative AI, artificial intelligence, legal writing, legal scholarship, language models, credibility, fun, fake scholarship
My article, "Resisting Generative AI with Fake Scholarship" is forthcoming in the University of Toledo Law Review! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
(The updated draft incorporates some recent fake scholarship developments, plus color-coded citations to identify information that isn't made up).
We'll see where things go!
They might be out of luck, though, as I have an offer to publish my related "Fake Scholarship" piece, of which this is a substantial part. If those editors are willing to let me play this game, I might keep going. Otherwise, I'll do it later with something even worse.
Remember, almost everything in the piece is an outright lie.
I emailed today and informed them that some of their revision requests seemed inapplicable (e.g., I uniformly use Bluebook formatted citations), and that the lack of references to what I wrote made revising difficult, but that I'd try.
For your convenience, the key revision points are outlined below: • Strengthen the academic tone by removing informal or emotive language • Incorporate additional peer-reviewed legal sources and relevant case law references • Improve the overall structure, ensuring clear headings, logical flow, and avoidance of repetition • Provide a comparative or international perspective rather than a purely descriptive approach • Clarify legal arguments and minimize broad or generalized statements • Review and correct grammar and syntax issues throughout the manuscript • Ensure consistency in citation style across all references • Enhance critical analysis, moving beyond descriptive listing of laws
Then, yesterday, they emailed me again. Their rejection has suddenly transformed into what seems to be a revise and resubmit request!
The deadline to respond is unclear, as the email only said "[insert deadline]". The suggested revisions can be charitably described as "zero-effort bullshit":
Despite their initial interest, they notified me the next day (March 27) that the manuscript fell outside of their scope and couldn't "be considered for publication."
Why they solicited it in the first place is unclear.
They offered to provide alternative outlets, though. How kind.
I didn't reply
Just to see what happens, I submitted my fake essay in response to a request from one of those sketchy journals that solicits random SSRN pieces by emails.
The story so far...: