The first time I brought in a client via social media connection I felt so vindicated (and I’m not even that active on the socials)

Lawyer here - I fully agree 👍

Somewhat excited but mostly dreading the birthright citizenship oral argument this morning. Buckle up, everyone…

Anyways, thanks to the real scholars that are unfortunately having to carry this ridiculous anti-law fight, like @evanbernick.bsky.social and @anthonymkreis.bsky.social

(Full disclosure: I also chose the topic in part to troll Rep. Louie Gohmert. I couldn't help myself)

Mentioned before but I wrote a law review article almost 15 years ago on the constitutional and international law understanding of birthright citizenship. It was a topic that interested me but there was no real debate on the other side - it seemed like a dead issue. Little did I know . . .

The nonsense case against birthright citizenship Meet the conservative legal minds telling the Supreme Court to side with Trump.

Good summary of the scholarly "debate" re: birthright citizenship ahead of tomorrow's SCOTUS argument. No surprise - there is no debate. Anti-birthright citizenship proponents are legal cranks twisting in the wind.
www.motherjones.com/politics/202...

I remember you posting about having your smol hooman shortly before mine arrived. Mine is not yet walking so seeing yours run around is both exciting and fear inducing! I'm loving the content

My hope for you all is that you live your life and practice your law in such a way that you never have to write a letter like this to a judge. Yikes

Article about birthright citizenship? I thought the preferred practice now was to put the conclusion in tweet and then backdoor your reasoning using misrepresented sources into half dash articles and amici?

This is the inevitable cycle that never ends. And it's damn hard to find that happy medium. It's a perpetual "the grass is always greener" feeling

ESPECIALLY “new” outlook 🤬

Remember when Hunter Biden trying to make money off his name was a huge scandal?

They said wrong answers only. This seems just right.

Very insightful thread. Thanks for this

Texas next. We’re working on it 👍

We’re working on it on behalf of CAIR 👍

User Chris: What was the core difference why you think the DoW accepted OpenAI but not Anthropic Sam Altman: I can't speak for them, but to speculate with the best understanding of the situation. *First, I saw reporting that they were extremely close on a deal, and for much of the time both sides really wanted to reach one. I have seen what happens in tense negotiations when things get stressed and deteriorate super fast, and I could believe that was a large part of what happened here. *We believe in a layered approach to safety--building a safety stack, deploying FDEs and having our safety and alignment researcher involved, deploying via cloud, working directly with the DoW. Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with. We feel that it it's very important to build safe system, and although documents are also important, I'd clearly rather rely on technical safeguards if I only had to pick one. *We and the DoW got comfortable with the contractual language, but I can understand other people would have a different opinion here. *I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did

I saw some folks asking what the difference was between what OpenAI signed with the DoD and what Anthropic said they wanted, and Sam more or less admits here the key point: OpenAI's deal requires them to trust the NSA. Anthropic's contract had real safeguards.

the party that wants to require ID to vote abruptly invalidating a thousand people’s IDs overnight seems like a pretty giant flashing red light

look at my country man, we’re getting out-No Kings’d by the fuckin’ british

I don’t know who needs to hear Jesse Jackson leading the kids on Sesame Street in this beautiful call-and-response reminding them that every child is somebody, but here it is

Speaking as a Texan: yeah, I agree

But that’s the conservative viewpoint on the commerce cla…. Wait…

"Any event you go to, people ask about it. It's like the border used to be," said Dave Carney, the top political strategist for Mr. Abbott. "What are you doing about Shariah law? What are you doing about the Muslims taking over the state?'"

It will surprise y’all to hear that there are no “Muslims taking over the state” and there is no “sharia law” in Texas that threatens anyone.

This is genuinely disgusting.

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/u...

"If the government may simply seize *someone* without due process, there is no check on its ability to seize *anyone*."

Perhaps the most fundamental check against tyranny. And it is gravely threatened.

So, her anecdotal examples of something being not abnormal are (1) a guy who was arrested at the time for the thing, and (2) a guy who was forced to flee the country because of the thing? Really?

Or they just want to rely on others to do it instead?

Snip from Ana Reyes's memorandum opinion temporarily blocking end of protection status for Haitians in U.S. that reads in part as follows: There is an old adage among lawyers. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side--or at least has ignored them. Does not have the law on her side--or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter). Kristin Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the APA to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program. The record to-date shows she has yet to do that.

A few partners at law firms that capitulated to the administration reposted this on linkedin.

I guess they (and admin at certain universities) still don't realize that it takes someone to stand up and pound the facts and law in the first place? And call out the administration when it has neither?

Campaign donations work 👍