Aw shucks

Some key takeaways from new work with @marknevitt.bsky.social:
🚫Funding the military long term through reconciliation is unconstitutional
🚫Long-term military funding in OBBA is unconstitutional
❓Maybe ICE funding too
🚫Tapping the Judgment Fund for defense procurement contracts is unconstitutional

This is a fantastic paper -- well worth your time to read!

Discover Our Latest Articles and Insights Explore our latest articles and stay updated with fresh insights and trends across diverse topics in our recent posts section.

Thanks to @lsolum.bsky.social for highlighting “Reviving the Military’s Term Limit,” co-written with @mblawrence.bsky.social

legaltheoryblog.com/2026/04/16/l...

@jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @curtbradley.bsky.social @rgoodlaw.bsky.social @bobbychesney.bsky.social @stevevladeck.bsky.social

Seriously, is there any better city to visit than Cleveland?Lake/vibe/food/people.

Was a treat to get to do my first-ever keynote, at CSU law health insurance symposium today. Presented joint work w/ Allison Hoffman that I’m excited about.

Thanks for having me!

Thank you Prof. Matthew Lawrence (Emory University School of Law) for joining us for today’s Ideas Lunch and sharing your talk, “Platform Polarization?” We’re grateful for the thoughtful conversation and for the chance to engage with your work!

Abby Moncrieff introduces Mark Hall and Joan Krause for an awesome opening panel at CSU Law’s health law symposium. Awesome lineup.

Was awesome to present at @yaleisp.bsky.social today and kind of amazing to realize yesterday that my twin brother Dave would be on a panel at Thurmond Arnold across campus at the same time. That has to be a first, right?

Btw I presented “Platform Polarization?” papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I love creative conlaw scholarship.

Kessler and Pozen have a great article up on “epistemic discovery” as a first amendment theory that could gain real traction protecting a range of conduct from AI use to experimentation with psychedelics. tinyurl.com/3rz6k5bx.

Here’s the crux of why I think it’s right to call many social media apps “addictive” regardless whether or when “social media addiction” gets added to medicine’s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual:

Good point. Figuring out a regulatory regime that manages harms while minimizing or avoiding barriers to entry/lock in of marker participants becomes a big question now. Maybe there are options for a good regime to improve competition.

Facebook’s stock so far today corroborates the idea that the “b” word should be tucked away for the time being.

I wonder if the damages here could add up to the point that we’d wind up starting to talk bankruptcy? Or is that not feasible.

led by Nate Lubin with iyerland.bsky.social, alissacooper.bsky.social and several others

Next up for social media may be a settlement or court ordered remedy.

But we need to be careful that the relief is genuine and stops the harm.

For one take on how, see my piece with a group of fantastic coauthors—“Social Media Harm Abatement.”
nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

The debates about DHS and Iran appropriations assume the long term slush funds the OBBA gave the president for ICE and military ops are constitutional.

That premise is mistaken, as @marknevitt.bsky.social and I explain in our draft, now forthcoming in GW Law Review! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Wow that’s an important point.

For the past year or so, I've been working on a project for the Administrative Conference of the United States on best practices for drafting regulatory preambles in light of recent developments in judicial review. The draft report is now available here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... 1/

If you’re tired of incremental marijuana rescheduling announcements and interested in the root problem with drug scheduling, or how to fix it, check out my new piece with Dave Pozen, just out in Science!

SSRN version here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Good point, wonder if there is a way to fix the incentive problem

But if AI does what we are told shouldn’t it lower the cost to a handful of journals of collaborating on their own alternative? Even that they run in parallel to scholastica, as a way for interested authors to give them money directly?

But if AI does what we are told shouldn’t it lower the cost to a handful of journals of collaborating on their own alternative? Even that they run in parallel to scholastica, as a way for interested authors to give them money directly?

Fair! (I was thinking one per cycle.)

Side benefit: Targeting volume would help address the financial side of system. Scholastica fees act as a gatekeeper for quality. One submission per author would force frequent authors to gatekeep themselves but not impact others

Can we find a solution to the AI in law reviews ”problem“ that involves redirecting the rents Scholastica extracts from law schools (and lawyers/law students who want to publish, of course) toward the students who do all the work? Hate to think of scholastica owners profiting off students’ toil.

I’m just gonna go get my eyes checked….

I don’t know if it’s “sympathetic” but the Pozen/Purdy Boston review article is good.

I know at the end of the day the work is really not about recognition but it is still rewarding to see my name in this ranking. I just remember all the struggle that went into the pieces underlying this. Thanks to Rob Willey and Melanie Knapp for putting it together.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

@jodishort.bsky.social @epps.bsky.social @dfroomkin.bsky.social

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.