Yes, I found that quite annoying. I still use prefixes for signals (per the signals plugin) but I don't think the suffix field is well designed for a lengthy parenthetical.

Yeah, I modified the style so that the periods aren't automatically inserted to make it possible to add parentheticals after cites manually.

My style is only bluebook. For Zotero, you use a distinct style file for distinct sets of rules. Someone else may have produced a style for Cal but not sure.

If you're comfortable with/ Claude Code you could fork and modify this style easily.

This is more useful for scholarship than cases FWIW.

Unfortunately, there are some features of legal cites that aren't possible to implement using a CSL style. (For example, generating "hereinafters" for two cites by the same author in the same FN. I'm working on some plugins that might fix that (using Claude ofc). Please flag other things like that!

It's linked on that page, but I've also updated a plugin that lets you insert properly formatted signals in cites.

danepps.github.io/zotero/

I'm fairly confident this one won't do that!

Law profs/students/anyone doing legal scholarship:

If you're not using @zotero.org to manage cites and research, you should. An unbelievable time saver.

I've revised the Bluebook style for rendering footnotes, w/ detailed instructions on using Zotero:

danepps.github.io/bluebook/

Agree or disagree: the length of a dissent is inversely related to its persuasiveness.

Some big professional news: I’m thrilled to be joining the amazing faculty at @fordhamlawnyc.bsky.social this fall!
🧵

For more on my and @willsortman.bsky.social's Defender General, see this NYT article by @adamliptak.bsky.social: www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/u...

A great development, but I disagree w/ the article's claim that this is totally different from my & @willsortman.bsky.social's "Defender General." This helps w/ problems we identified & resembles our proposal even if it doesn't go far enough.

Article here: repository.law.upenn.edu/Documents/De...

At the 2026 National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars. The Rehnquist Center at Arizona Law puts together a great program. Neat to see tomorrow’s debates forming…and the sunsets aren’t bad.

I am 43 years old. I would like to think that if 13-year-old me could see the life I would build three decades hence, he would be pleased.

I very much appreciate Mark’s engagement and think he makes some good points worth reading!

Case v. Montana and the General Law Approach to the Fourth Amendment Justice Gorsuch seems to look to modern general law to flesh out the content of the Fourth Amendment in today's Fourth Amendment decision.

New post from me on the @dividedargument.bsky.social blog: "Case v. Montana and the General Law Approach to the Fourth Amendment"

blog.dividedargument.com/p/case-v-mon...

What you want today: Tariffs, Voting Rights

What you’ll (probably) get instead: USPS v. Konan (liability for undelivered mail); Coney Island Auto Parts (time limits for motions to set aside void judgments)

The Marshal and the Margarine | Divided Argument We're back with the first episode of the new year, breaking down the interim docket opinion/order in Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state...

NEW EPISODE: "The Marshal and the Margarine"

We catch up on Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state criminal jurisdiction over federal officers, and some recent online discourse.

dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/the...

Sorry I thought you meant a suit against the agent personally as an alternative to criminal charges against him. If FTCA I think the best path would be to style as an international tort subject to the law enforcement proviso

Why wouldn’t this be barred by the Westfall Act?

When you’re waiting for huge opinions, never, ever underestimate the Court’s ability to disappoint you.

If you entirely lack the relevant context, it might be best to sit this one out rather than jumping in to try to contradict based on vibes. I stand by what I said, I have good reason to say it, and my goal is to encourage my peers to engage in ways that are socially productive

I took Mark's post as essentially saying it's not worth engaging even with folks left of center if they're not 100% with the program 100% of the time.

But (1) we need also to keep our side honest and rigorous and (2) try to not only speak to our ingroup in a way that alienates good-faith folks with different values.

I am absolutely good with calling out low quality/politically motivated work and I hope I wasn't read as saying otherwise. I spend less time doing that because (1) much of it isn't in my core areas of expertise and (2) a lot of folks have that covered.

🤷‍♂️I try to talk to a lot of folks outside that bubble, even if _policy_wise I'm more of a centrist. I think preferring one set of policies is not the same thing as preferring to live in a bubble where you don't interact with people who don't share your views.

that also seems bad?

The entire thread is worth your time. The portion around and including this post gets at a point I tried to make in my book - the less common ground within the profession about what the rule of law entails, the less likely we are to be able to sustain the rule of law.

No...I think it's a genuinely hard question (what to do about X). I struggle with it. Sort of a collective action problem in that a lot of folks I respect are there still.

Ok, in the sense that there are certain kinds of political principles that should be applied consistently?

If that's the claim I think I agree with it! But accepting that claim means I can still take legal reasoning seriously on its own terms, right, even if sometimes I think it leads to bad outcomes?