Fight originalism, take on the unitary executive, rethink the relationship between law and history -- if you're excited by any and all, come work with us! @brennancenter.org

This a great gig for recent history and poli sci majors!

Originalism in Our Time: April 18, 2026, 3:30-5pm. The panel will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the originalism theory and what it means in our current constitutional moment.

I'm not at OAH, but if I was, I'd hightail it to this fabulous panel with @jgienapp.bsky.social @rachelshelden.bsky.social @janemanners.bsky.social and others on the meanings of originalism in our time.

True — and some need to be reminded that intellectual edginess, at least in politics, is not valuable in itself.

Need to quote @tomtmwolf.bsky.social here: your daily reminder that U.S. v Trump is an abomination unworthy of our democracy.

Debaser YouTube video by Pixies - Topic

Claiming some credit here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvld...

Happy Surrender and Freedom Day! On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant and the Army of the Potomac. home.nps.gov/apco/planyou...

Your regular reminder that Trump v. United States’ grant of criminal immunity to presidents is an embarrassment and an insult…

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

"The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes... It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched." —Robert Jackson, Nuremberg

There's a reason the lawmaking power and the power of the purse go together (see 17th C Britain).

From Countering Originalism: A Guide for Litigators...

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

"We hope that this guide will help you navigate this challenging [originalist] present and start building a better future." - @sam-breidbart.bsky.social @cisozaki.bsky.social and @tomtmwolf.bsky.social

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

a man with his eyes closed looks at the camera Alt: Man looking distressed saying “am I a joke to you?”

Parmenides like

"a term popularized by Palantir" we are cooked

3/ @jamellebouie.net also collects on-point quotations from the briefs of @kewhittington.bsky.social, Akhil Amar, @katemasur.bsky.social & @marthasjones.bsky.social

Read his entire essay. It is a banger.

Countering Originalism This guide offers lawyers strategies, arguments, and citations to address originalist claims they encounter in litigation.

But winning this time would hardly obviate the originalism problem. And we can fight that on multiple fronts, including in the courts. That playbook was featured today:

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

The Court invited this spectacle. Even the originalists couldn’t manufacture historical sources to convince the justices, it seems, and the anachronism of their method was on full display.

For more on this idea, see @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social amicus brief: www.brennancenter.org/media/15301/...

And @jamellebouie.net in today's NYT: www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/o...

And--CRITICALLY--we constitutionalized the rule that everyone born here is American to prevent politicians from revising it from day-to-day or administration-to-administration.

Or, in other words, to stop exactly what Trump is trying to do now: Deciding for himself who is American and who isn’t.

1. SCOTUS is going to have a hard time ruling for Trump on birthright. He did himself no favors today.

2. Our birthright citizenship rule is a universal one, designed to prevent Trump from doing what he's trying to do now -- deciding who's American and who isn't.

3. SCOTUS? Still a major problem.🧵

Today—like all days, really, but especially today—I hold on to my firm belief that we will someday be free of the scourge that is originalism, and will view it the same way we view alchemy today.

Today, sadly, is not that day, and the alchemists will be reveling in their alchemy.

But it’ll come.

Almost everything the SG is arguing is about the expectations of the ratifiers of the 14th not the text.
Wait, I thought originalism is about text and meaning not expectations.
Originalism can mean anything, anytime, anywhere. Really.

Originalism got us here. It is tempting to turn away from the courts. But we can push back on originalism in the courts too.

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Our history is a cautionary tale here. We know what happens when political actors get to decide citizenship (see Dred Scott, which conceived of citizenship as the result of the consent of the sovereign). Birthright was constitutionalized so that citizenship could not be denied on political whims.

Alito also misses what the real rule on citizenship is. It isn't just "everyone born here is a citizen, with a few small exceptions." It's also that we've constitutionalized this universalistic rule to prevent politicians from manipulating the definition of "citizenship." See @jamellebouie.net today

Originalism often devolves into cherry picking sources, so this is not a surprise. But originalists at least claim to be bounded in the sources they use. The government's "ctrl+F" style of finding historical sources here exposes the ultimate weakness of their arguments.

It was not just about newly freed slaves (just as Dred Scott was not about that). It was about instantiating an inclusive birthright rule for all who are born here.

He's wrong because the 14A repudiated Dred Scott. Dred Scott constitutionalized a racial caste system -- rejecting citizenship for Black Americans whether or not they were slaves. The 14A reversed Dred Scott by establishing birthright citizenship regardless of race, regardless of parentage.

If you're actually trying to win, you should want the Solicitor General to be really locked in on the bench, responding to the Justices' words and affect in real time.

You don't want the SG playing to Trump, mashing whatever rhetorical button needed to get a nod from the president.

"Will the Supreme Court protect birthright citizenship?"

A reasonable question, given <gestures broadly> all this.

Keep in mind as you assess how the Court behaves at tomorrow's oral argument ⬇️