We have an apparent cure for most people with pancreatic cancer—a profoundly swift, deadly cancer—and the position of the U.S. government is that it should be banned. This is real fall-of-empire stuff.
I think this is a blind spot for a lot of law professors, who frame this as an issue of academic freedom. But when we actually litigate, we are bound by the same ethical constraints as any other lawyer.
Screeching about thought police etc. just shows that you don't understand the issue or question.
More photos
Prof. Brian Murchison, the legend
The end of an era…. Our beloved colleague Brian Murchison on his final day of teaching after 44 years as a faculty member at @wlulaw.bsky.social! Faculty, staff, students and alumni lined the hallways of Lewis Hall for our traditional “clap out” in his honor.
I watched Eastman, in real time, testify to the Georgia General Assembly that it was their *duty* to overturn my vote in 2020. He lied about evidence. He misled his client about the law. Law profs who back wannabe coup leaders and authoritarians should retire because what’s the point of law at all?
Apparently Justice Thomas missed the day in school when they taught about the Progressive Era. It’s like he’s never heard of Robert M. La Follette, William Jennings Bryan, Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, or the Bull Moose Party.
This is a must read. In addition to Thomas’s screed against progressive values generally, he gets the history badly wrong.
Orbán rode to power on resentment over the economic stagnation that developed under center-left governments. But he leaves office with Hungarians facing falling wages and higher inflation than similar countries are experiencing. Orbán’s sectarianism and intolerance have sparked neither a religious revival nor a fertility bump; Hungary’s population is shrinking and has become more irreligious, even as Orbán has demonized LGBTQ people, “Muslim invaders,” and Jews. Orbánism, in short, did not make Hungarians more rich, Christian, or free—unless you happened to be one of Orbán’s buddies, in which case you may have gotten rich. As most Hungarians felt their economic circumstances worsen, Orbán provided them with relatively powerless targets to hate.
Orban made grand appeals to “Christianity” and “Western Civilization,” but his “illiberal democracy” was just a scam, a way to make him and his buddies rich while subjecting Hungarians to stagnation and robbing them of their freedom. Sound familiar? (Gift link) www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
![I think the Court should interpret the “relating to” addition primarily by determining what Congress intended to
accomplish with this amendment. Learning Resources, Inc.
v. Trump, 607 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2026) (JACKSON, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 1–
2). Indeed, the Court’s “fundamental task” in interpreting
federal statutes is to give effect to Congress’s intent. R.
Katzmann, Judging Statutes 31 (2014) (Katzmann); see
Pennington v. Coxe, 2 Cranch 33, 59 (1804) (opinion for the Court by Marshall, C. J.) (“It is the duty of the court to discover the intention of the legislature, and to respect that
intention”). And the Court faithfully discharges this duty
when it considers all reliable evidence of Congress’s intent—including statutory and legislative history. See
United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 775 (2023) (“Statutory history is an important part of [the] context” in which
we interpret text); Katzmann 38 (“Legislative history . . .
can help [judges] understand what the law means”).
Here, the statutory and legislative history is clear:](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:j5hxppoqwtnzyltkyht2msjf/bafkreibks3oj7njq35jscllpmqexvn6twyoyqp7u24wsrw75sa3nnffuju)
I think the Court should interpret the “relating to” addition primarily by determining what Congress intended to accomplish with this amendment. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2026) (JACKSON, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 1– 2). Indeed, the Court’s “fundamental task” in interpreting federal statutes is to give effect to Congress’s intent. R. Katzmann, Judging Statutes 31 (2014) (Katzmann); see Pennington v. Coxe, 2 Cranch 33, 59 (1804) (opinion for the Court by Marshall, C. J.) (“It is the duty of the court to discover the intention of the legislature, and to respect that intention”). And the Court faithfully discharges this duty when it considers all reliable evidence of Congress’s intent—including statutory and legislative history. See United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 775 (2023) (“Statutory history is an important part of [the] context” in which we interpret text); Katzmann 38 (“Legislative history . . . can help [judges] understand what the law means”). Here, the statutory and legislative history is clear:
Justice Jackson's concurrence in today's Supreme Court case: Make Legislative History Great Again!
No Callais today at SCOTUS. Still waiting with trepidation…
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24–813
CHEVRON USA INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS v. PLAQUEMINES
PARISH, LOUISIANA, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[April 17, 2026]
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Congress has long authorized federal officers and their
agents to remove suits brought against them in state court
to federal court. The federal officer removal statute authorizes an officer or “person acting under that officer” to remove state suits “for or relating to any act under color of
such office.” 28 U. S. C. §1442(a)(1). In this case, Chevron
USA Inc. invoked the statute to remove to federal court an
environmental suit brought against it in Louisiana state
court. Chevron argued that the suit was removable because
it implicates Chevron’s crude-oil production during the Second World War, when Chevron also refined crude oil into
aviation gasoline for the U. S. military. No party disputes
that Chevron “act[ed] under” federal officers when it performed its refining duties. We thus decide only whether
this suit, which implicates Chevron’s wartime production of
crude oil, “relat[es] to” Chevron’s wartime aviation-gasoline
refining for the military. We hold that it does.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreifaedmoj7vhg4nvd67erpruwpj4cvngg7h4gjs256iipdrlqcjozq)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24–813 CHEVRON USA INCORPORATED, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [April 17, 2026] JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Congress has long authorized federal officers and their agents to remove suits brought against them in state court to federal court. The federal officer removal statute authorizes an officer or “person acting under that officer” to remove state suits “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” 28 U. S. C. §1442(a)(1). In this case, Chevron USA Inc. invoked the statute to remove to federal court an environmental suit brought against it in Louisiana state court. Chevron argued that the suit was removable because it implicates Chevron’s crude-oil production during the Second World War, when Chevron also refined crude oil into aviation gasoline for the U. S. military. No party disputes that Chevron “act[ed] under” federal officers when it performed its refining duties. We thus decide only whether this suit, which implicates Chevron’s wartime production of crude oil, “relat[es] to” Chevron’s wartime aviation-gasoline refining for the military. We hold that it does.
Only one SCOTUS opinion this morning: Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Thomas has the opinion for the court, reversing the Fifth Circuit and siding with Chevron in a "federal officer removal" case.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
NEW: A ProPublica and MLK50 analysis shows that just 17 of more than 800 immigration arrests made by Trump’s crime-fighting task force in and around Memphis were for violent crimes.
82% of the immigration arrests followed a traffic stop.
Adrian Vermeule, quote posting the pope: Adrian Vermeule O @Vermeullarmine I take the first sentence, especially in the context of both current events and perennial Church teaching, to mean "God does not bless any and all conflicts," rather than "God blesses no conflicts."
this is the most AV thing that has ever been AV’d
historic rejection of JD Vance
In the first weeks of the war, the Chicago-born Leo was initially reluctant to publicly condemn the violence and limited his comments to muted appeals for peace and dialogue. But Leo stepped up his criticism starting on Palm Sunday. n.pr/4ckPbCK
Narrator:
The president did in fact start this war and appears unable to finish it.
“Sauer started by offering, not statutory text or court precedents — you know, law — but instead a 1921 law review article. In response, Evan Bernick, a law professor, posted excerpts from that article to show that the solicitor general got it wrong.”
www.nytimes.com/2026/04/03/o...
TLI! Translunar injection complete, Artemis II apogee now over 400,000 km; they're heading to the Moon.
"We will look back at Donald Trump’s presidency as years where the concept of election integrity got turned on its head. In the name of protecting democracy, Trump is breaking democracy. The damage could last a generation, even if the shelf life of his new executive order might be measured in days."
Don't get me wrong: I'm relieved that this case is shaping up as either 8-1 or 7-2 against the Trump executive order. But the case is a gift to the Supreme Court. By rejecting an outlandish position, it will earn credibility as apolitical, even as the Overton window moves far to the right.
sg sauer (federal government) just invoked ilan wurman's amicus brief in support of their theory denying birthright citizenship.
so shameful - and embarrassing for the academy (and humanity).
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Thats it. Not complicated, not ambiguous. Genuine shame on the Times and WSJ for platforming the claim that there was a real conflict about these words.
A crazily unconstitutional effort to seize control of elections from states by seeking to have the USPS put in place rules to ban the transmission of mail-in ballots that don't form to standards the Trump admin puts into place and for people the Trump admin hasn't verified as a citizen.
(i) Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that: (A) is marked as Official Election Mail, including through designated markings provided by USPS for this purpose, such as the Official Election Mail logo, as necessary and appropriate; (B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode, or successor USPS technology, that facilitates tracking and is consistent with the other requirements of this section; and (C) has undergone a mail envelope design review by the USPS to ensure compliance with USPS mailing standards, including barcode placement. (ii) Proposed provisions specifying that, no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any State may choose to notify the USPS if it intends to allow for mail-in or absentee ballots to be transmitted by the USPS. As part of that notification, any notifying State should further indicate whether it intends to submit to the USPS, no fewer than 60 days before the election, a list of voters eligible to vote in a Federal election in such State to whom the State intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS. (iii) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.
This is what we call an "easy case" for a lawsuit; the idea that the President can order the Post Office to adopt rules refusing to carry mail-in ballots that don't conform to the President's preferred design.
Laughably, obviously unconstitutional if USPS tries to go forward with it.
Hello.
“Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object,” a young representative named Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1848. This was “understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.” This quote, incidentally, is immortalized on the House’s website, if any members of Congress are looking for it.
In fairness it’s not like the consequences of having a mad king unilaterally take the country to war on a whim were so incredibly obvious that you could see it coming from the 18th and 19th centuries www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
from 1868 to 2025 there was little dispute about what the birthright clause meant and the idea that the past year has been some great scholarly debate is absurd. a handful of partisans and hacks have churned out junk so that the president can get what he wants. that’s it.
The illegal alien is a line-jumper and a violator of sovereign borders, a thief of both time and space, and generally speaking a thief may pass no valid title to stolen goods. Of course the child of an illegal alien is innocent of any personal wrongdoing, but the problem is that the parents lack the kind of lawful status that could ground transmission to their descendants of the citizenship, and the share of sovereignty, to which the parents are not themselves entitled. Our law, interpreted in this way, would merely deny to the illegal alien, a violator of the republic's laws, the ability to pass on to their children the fruits of the parents' own wrongdoing, the crucial ability to vest a share of republican sovereignty in their own descendants. A mild remedy indeed.
Well, that’s the most repulsive thing I’ve read in a minute. I suppose I appreciate Adrian’s candor in saying all of this out loud.
