Uh, wow! Absolutely amazing free resource!

blog.archive.org/2026/04/20/u...

Winner of the Bancroft Prize!

Dobbs contains multitudes: (1) “we cannot allow our decisions to be affected by … concern about the public’s reaction to our work," yet (2) “it is important for the public to perceive that our decisions are based on principle."

Read all of Allread!

Looking forward to speaking at the Federal Bar Association's annual Indian Law Conference tomorrow!

Here's the full program: www.indianlawconference.com/program/

Lots of Indian-law analogies to draw on here, too.

And new from Joseph Blocher and I: Applying History as Law: on the increasingly high-profile and contested role of historical facts in constitutional law: texaslawreview.org/applying-his...

New Duke Law Journal symposium on history & constitutional law co-edited with Joseph Blocher & Tim Lovelace, hosted with @bolchjudicial.bsky.social: dlj.law.duke.edu/current-issue/, pieces by Karen Tani, Christine Hammock Jones & Darrell Miller, Jake McAullife, Daniel Rice, Saul Cornell

Whatever happens, this is a deeply shameful episode in American history that will leave a permanent stain on the country.

Repeatedly vowing to commit war crimes against millions of innocent civilians is beyond the pale.

The final version of "Tradition Without Text?" (in Duke Law Journal Online) is now live: scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcont...

I argue that "historical understanding[s] of ordered liberty" shouldn't be determined solely through reference to textual rights protections.

Just after the 20-minute mark of this link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly4Q...

Supremacy From two acclaimed legal scholars, a new history of the Supreme Court that overturns our most basic assumptions about its role in our democracy, showing how it seized the power it now wields., Suprema...

After years of research, Daphna Renan & I are thrilled to announce preorders of SUPREMACY. Why is US democracy so broken? One reason is we've wrongly accepted that 9 justices have the final say over the Constitution. This book traces how that happened—& how we can reclaim power to govern ourselves.

It also massively, massively disrupts 1L spring classes.

SCOTUS attributing a Justice McLean quote to Chief Justice Marshall

Would love to see AI spit out a list of erroneous citations/attributions in Supreme Court opinions!

congrats on your toilet paper!

What in God's green

Behaving pettily and impulsively (as he has all year) isn't a great way to beat them.

Congrats!! (and talk about a climate change!)

A sign indicating that David Pozen is speaking at UNC Law today, which the post’s author wants injected into his veins

Inject it

Scalia's Romer dissent: "Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. ... Striking [Amendment 2] down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will."

Can't wait to dig in to this @wmborj.bsky.social symposium issue on Con Law casebooks!

scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/

same, for stain remover

When every nation's best author submits to YLJ

bracket name

Yale Law Journal (@yalelawjournal.bsky.social) will be publishing my latest, “The New Criminal Docket and the Clemency Court.”

It explores how SCOTUS is no longer using its criminal merits docket for broad constitutional reform, opting instead for targeted relief for the fortunate few.

Congrats to my co-clerk on this awesome new gig!

Excited to share two projects, forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review and the Notre Dame Law Review, about federal courts’ increasing reliance on “external” factfinding of epistemically dubious provenance. (1/4)

CONGRESS’S POWER OF INQUIRY IN IMPEACHMENT Jonathan David Shaub The nature and scope of Congress’s constitutional power of inquiry in impeachment has rarely been discussed and never been satisfactorily analyzed. Impeachment is both increasingly salient and singularly important, particularly after Trump v. United States. Indeed, impeachment may now be the sole remaining mechanism for investigating presidential misconduct, but recent executive branch doctrines—established during the first Trump administration and largely affirmed during the Biden administration—severely limit congressional authority to investigative for purposes of impeachment. This paper proposes a constitutional framework that balances the exceptional power the two Houses of Congress wield in the exercise of their respective impeachment authorities with the need to retain the solemnity of impeachment investigation and protect its role in holding presidents and other executive branch officials accountable. This framework recognizes that the invocation of impeachment authority is a distinct, nondelegable authority that functions as a judicial power separate from legislative. Once this power has been invoked, generalized executive privilege doctrines used in oversight, and related prophylactic protections for that privilege, are inapplicable. Instead, distinct, specific objections to disclosure should be adjudicated by the two Houses respectively pursuant to established procedures, with the presumption that the congressional bodies need access to all pertinent information, even if the information needs to be protected from public disclosure. Moreover, each House should establish procedural protections unique to impeachment, including due process protections for accused officials and witnesses. Finally, a comprehensive framework that empowers the House and Senate to exercise fully their respective authorities to investigate for purposes of impeachment inquiries and trials necessitates a mechanis…

v/excited to share that my article, Congress's Power of Inquiry in Impeachment, is forthcoming in the Virgina Law Review. Abstract below. Full draft up soon (SSRN... throws hands in the air)... happy to share the draft, though, and would love comments ...

If you feel the need to write articles using AI, please find another job. Your students and colleagues deserve a lot better.