JUST IN: John Eastman, the conservative attorney who helped devise President Trump's last ditch strategy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, has officially been disbarred, per the California Supreme Court:
NEW: Eastman helped devise the strategy to pressure Mike Pence to halt Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory — and he memorably fought with Pence’s aides even as the Capitol was in lockdown on Jan. 6.
www.politico.com/news/2026/04...
Orange fluffy cat inside my car.
I have to go to work and this is not my cat.
U of Minnesota has named a new School of Nursing scholarship after Alex Pretti.
Amen. One of the most insightful short pieces I've read in a long time. I hate news sites. daringfireball.net/2026/03/your...
Wonderful - congratulations!!
Courts have been finding ways to avoid hearing bankruptcy cases for a long time. This practice distinguishes bankruptcy from other types of federal cases. The federal district courts operate under the twin principles that they are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a “virtually unflagging” obligation to exercise it. But those twin principles are inverted in bankruptcy. That is because bankruptcy courts do more than just resolve disputes; they solve problems. Bankruptcy jurisdiction is expansive and dramatic. When a debtor commences a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction not only over the case itself and proceedings “arising in” the case, but also a broad swath of cases “related to” the bankruptcy proceedings. Yet, unlike their district court relatives, bankruptcy courts have much broader authority to dismiss or abstain from hearing cases before them, as well as to reshape the contours of a
bankruptcy case by lifting the stay or by allowing custodians to maintain control of property of the estate. Bankruptcy courts wield that authority in a host of pragmatic, equitable, and surprising ways: pulling back when the case lacks a bankruptcy purpose, policing against a range of forum-shopping practices, abstaining when other insolvency proceedings are underway, and (most strikingly) stepping back when debtors and creditors are engaged in informal, out-of-court workouts. This Article refers to all these abstention or abstention-adjacent decisions as “bankruptcy abstention,” a mix of permissive and mandatory rules that provide contours to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts by limning out bankruptcy’s “negative spaces.” This Article maps out three situations when the bankruptcy courts pull back, explores what this unusual practice tells us about bankruptcy as an area of law, suggests how bankruptcy abstention might be refined, and proposes some lessons about the nature of courts along the way. While federalism principles can explain much of bankruptcy abstention, bankruptcy courts also pull back from re-adjudicating out-of-court workouts that they deem fair and efficient — even when the matters have not yet seen the inside of a courtroom. Bankruptcy courts also pull back when they perceive that the tools at their disposal are a poor fit for the problem they are being asked to solve. Bankruptcy abstention thus goes beyond federalism principles and demonstrates the character of the bankruptcy courts as courts of equity — courts that nurture what Alexander Bickel called the “passive virtues.” The Article suggests that we can rethink some of bankruptcy’s most contentious doctrines through that lens, coins the phrase “bankruptcy ripeness,” and provides new insight into the debate over bankruptcy exceptionalism. This reframing can, in turn, suggest guidance to attorneys, judges, and policymakers for how best to fine-tune the bankruptcy system — as well as pr…
The contempt power is an ancient one, but it is making the news today in a dizzying variety of ways. Contempt proceedings are colorful. They involve stubborn clients and stubborn lawyers, and sometimes even more stubborn judges. They usually occur at high speed, especially compared to the glacial pace of most legal proceedings. Direct criminal contempt is particularly fast: a person who disrupts or disrespects the court can find him- or herself spending a night in jail after summary process. Even in civil contempt cases, when the judge threatens a contemnor with steep
fines or indefinite imprisonment, the contemnor usually complies quickly. This Article is not about the fast cases. We focus instead on the longest-lasting contempt cases in contemporary American law, the ones where the contemnor buckles in for the long haul. The five cases that we cover here may not be timely, but they are timeless. They involve a deep-sea engineer, an ex-husband, a financial adviser, a secretive mother, and two brothers deprived of their ancestral land. The contemnors say that they were defending priceless things or people from the judicial system: their money, their land, their newborn child — even gold coins from a historic shipwreck. Their adversaries view them as liars, cheats, abusers, maybe even murderers. In each of these cases, the contemnor served more than five years for civil contempt of court — and in each of these cases, the legal rationale for letting them out has been obscured from public view, whether because the decision was unpublished, sealed, or simply made orally with no written opinion. In all five cases, our research and advocacy are responsible for making the court’s reasoning public. This Article thus presents, for the first time, what we call the “hidden law” of the adamant contemnor. After exploring the new insight we have into these five adamant contemnor cases, the Article goes on to outline how this classic “battle of wills” should be conducted within a rule-of-law system. We advocate for better modeling of rational actors, expert assessments of mental health, objective standards, benchmarks and outer bounds, and written, published decisions. The Article concludes with specific proposals for reform, including guidance for courts, executives, and legislatures.
🪶I have two new papers coming out: "Bankruptcy Abstention" is forthcoming in @bulawreview.bsky.social (2026) and "The Hidden Law of the Adamant Contemnor" (with Ryan Lee Scott) is forthcoming in @ucdavislaw.bsky.social (2026).
papers.ssrn.com/abstract=619...
papers.ssrn.com/abstract=619...
Also, just going to re-up this: the first paper to analyze (and, in fact, define) the phenomenon we now call "jawboning": papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Non-US news feels no obligation to walk on eggshells, and is much more blunt about the backdrop for all the US coverage being “a military and economic superpower is being run by a deranged imbecile, and this is scary for the rest of the world.”
Feedback / comments / criticism very much welcomed.
The Article applies these lessons to two AI current controversies, over copyright and defamation, to clarify how these doctrines have previously dealt with hybrid information production and what is at stake normatively in these debates for AI governance.
Fourth, humans are inextricably enmeshed in cyborgs, because only humans can exercise the moral judgment necessary to make values-laden choices about system architecture and policy.
Third, testing is the key to effective governance: hybrid systems are what they actually do.
Second, normal accident theory shows that having a human in the loop can usefully create resilience, but only if the cyborg’s design enables that person to exercise meaningful autonomy in decisionmaking.
I call these hybrid systems "cyborgs." The history of cyborg systems teaches four vital governance lessons for AI. First, blended human-automation decisionmaking is increasingly ubiquitous, diverse, and inevitable in a world flooded with data.
New article forthcoming about AI regulation, in
@WLU_LawReview. Core claim: governance of hybrid (human + AI) systems should situate AI in context, by technology & use, & draw lessons from history of human-computation co-production for more effective, less burdensome oversight.
I just posted a new essay, forthcoming in the Florida Law Review, on Retrospective Surveillance. It focuses on geofence searches and how to assess them, in anticipation of the upcoming huge Supreme Court case on geofences.
Check it out: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
One thing I feel ought to be discussed more is the fact that basically all rural and suburban places in the US are subsidized by cities. They resent cities. They insult cities. They elect politicians who abuse cities. But none of them could survive without cities.
A Doonesbury comic with a Fox News reporter interviewing “Dean of Admissions at the Minnesota Academy of Professional Agitation,” discussing the supposed training of paid protesters and how you can make good Soros money from it. “WOW! Any downside?” asks the reporter. “Oh, sure. You can get shot in the face. The terror game isn’t for everyone.”
Doonesbury is hit or miss these days for me, but today’s hits.
NOEM: I would disagree with the judge
CROCKETT: I'm sure you would, but can you tell me whether or not you have a law degree?
NOEM: A what?
CROCKETT: A law degree
NOEM: No I do no-
CROCKETT: Okay
It's a sign that things are changing that Dems are now circulating strategy memos saying they can take this issue on directly.
Delighted that "AI, Artists, and Anti-Moral Rights" (co-authored with Bob Woods) is now available in vol. 113 of the Georgetown Law Journal Online: www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-l...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARK KELLY, United States Senator representing the State of Arizona, 120 Constitution Ave NE, Suite 516 Washington, D.C. 20002 Plaintiff, V. PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, 1600 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 1600 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 JOHN PHELAN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy, 1000 Navy Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20350 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 1000 Navy Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20350 Defendants. Case No._ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9. If permitted to stand, the Secretary's censure and the grade-determination proceedings that he has directed will inflict immediate and irreparable harm. The censure, the grade-reduction process, and its inevitable outcome impose official punishment for protected speech, chill legislative oversight, and threaten reductions in rank and pay. Each of these actions also signals to retired service members and Members of Congress that criticism of the Executive's use of the armed forces may be met with retaliation through military channels. The Constitution does not leave such injuries to be remedied after the fact. Speech or Debate, First Amendment, separation-of-powers, and due-process protections must be vindicated at the outset, before the Senator is forced to submit to an unconstitutional and legally baseless proceeding. Senator Kelly therefore brings this complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendants' actions violate the First Amendment, the Speech or Debate Clause, the separation of powers, due process, 10 U.S.C. § 1370, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 11. In particular, Senator Kelly respectfully asks this Court to declare the censure letter, reopening determination, retirement grade determination proceedings, and related actions unlawful and unconstitutional; to vacate those actions; to enjoin their enforcement; and to preserve the status of a coequal Congress and an apolitical military.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests an order: a) declaring Defendants' actions unlawful; b) enjoining the enforcement of Defendants' actions; c) vacating and setting aside Defendants' actions under 5 U.S.C. § 706; d) staying the effective date of Defendants' actions under 5 U.S.C. § 705; e) preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, appointees, successors, and anyone acting in concert or participation with Defendants from 45 Case 1:26-cv-00081 Document 1 Filed 01/12/26 Page 46 of 46 implementing, maintaining, or giving effect to Defendants' actions, including the Secretary of Defense's determinations and threats of further criminal or administrative action; f) awarding Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees in accordance with law, including but not limited to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and g) issuing any and all other such relief as the Court deems just and proper.
BREAKING: Senator Mark Kelly sues Pete Hegseth, DOD, and others over Hegseth's censure of Kelly and effort to reduce his retirement grade, alleging violations of the First Amendment, due process, Speech & Debate Clause, and federal laws.
Kelly is represented by Arnold & Porter.
The Tallahassee Democrat published an op-ed by Jane Bambauer and me on academic freedom (or the lack thereof) at the University of Florida. Link (paywalled, unfortunately): www.tallahassee.com/story/opinio...
The FCC is a master class in jawboning of late. That's not a compliment. I'm a signatory to TechFreedom's excellent letter.
Listen to Wesleyan University President Michael Roth and @genevievelakier.bsky.social discuss the #jawboning of higher ed and how the admin is weaponizing allegations of antisemitism:
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/h...
The billion dollars is the least of it. It’s universities’ autonomy, independence, and integrity that Trump is really after. www.cnn.com/2025/08/08/p...
From @knightcolumbia.org’s analysis of the Columbia settlement. knightcolumbia.org/blog/what-th...
