@janemanners.bsky.social and I shared some thoughts on @justsecurity.org on the uses and misuses of history on the Court's recent Slaughter decision. Whatever we want to say about the history of officer removal, it's not, as CJ Roberts put it, "lost to history." t.co/SoejegGfxM

In the Slaughter and Cook cases, the Supreme Court misread history with an unmistakable result: two fundamentally irreconcilable decisions, argue @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social (Andrea Scoseria Katz) and janemanners.bsky.social (Jane Manners).

“Lost to History”: Uses and Abuses of the Past in Slaughter and Cook

In these two cases, the Court misread and ignored history with an unmistakable result: two fundamentally irreconcilable decisions.

justsecurity.org

Ahead of the Supreme Court’s release of Trump v. Slaughter, I blogged about the key precedent the Court will probably rely on (and misread). Thanks to @donmoyn.bsky.social for the opportunity to guest blog. open.substack.com/pub/donmoyni...

Taft at the Beach

What the Supreme Court Misses About a Key Unitary Executive Precedent

open.substack.com

Worth a read. The purpose of the Citizenship Clause was *precisely* to prevent spun up theories based on hypothesized social contract, virtue, allegiance, community membership, etc., from being used to deny citizenship. The 14th Amendment means what it says.

Ilya Somin@ilyasomin.bsky.social · last yr.

My critique of the Randy Barnett/Ilan Wurman constitutional rationale for Trump's order on birthright citizenship: reason.com/volokh/2025/...

I dug into the only US source cited by Randy Barnett & Ilan Wurman for their theory - against birthright citizenship - in @nytimes @nytopinion: Edward Bates in 1862. He doubly contradicted their argument: "Birthright Citizenship: The Bates Backfire" shugerblogcom.wordpress.com/2025/02/16/b...

Birthright Citizenship: Barnett & Wurman’s NY Times Essay and their Bates Backfire

Randy Barnett & Ilan Wurman had a guest essay in the N.Y. Times on Feb. 15th: “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship.” The bottom line is that their essay backfires, bec…

shugerblogcom.wordpress.com

AUSA Hagan Scotten, former clerk for John Roberts, really put some mustard on his resignation letter.

DOJ leadership has put all Public Integrity Section lawyers into a room with 1 hour to decide who will dismiss Adams indictment or else all will be fired. Sending them strength to stand by their oath, which is to support the Constitution, not the president’s political agenda. 🇺🇸

t.co/hi1sM73zXB

Two new pieces from me on the Roberts Court, the presidency and the administrative state: (1) Separation-of-Powers Lochnerism (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....) and (2) Taking Legality Seriously: What the Major Questions Doctrine Is - And Isn’t (with @BlochOfra) (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....)

Ofc the giant question is whether decisions like Loper Bright construing the APA and limiting agencies will affect SCOTUS’s reading of Article II to limit presidential power. Good news: Most statutes delegate their implementation to agencies. Bad news: civil service laws delegate directly to Prez.

Not to be missed — including a new article by the always brilliant @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social!

Lawrence Solum@lsolum.bsky.social · 2y ago

The new issues of the Journal of American Constitutional History is now available:

The new issues of the Journal of American Constitutional History is now available:

Journal of American Constitutional History

The Journal of American Constitutional History is a peer-reviewed web-based journal publishing high-quality scholarship on U.S. constitutional history. Our editorial board includes over 60 leading…

buff.ly

Happy to see this in print! jach.law.wisc.edu/regime-of-st... Basically, I argue that the modern president is built earlier than we generally understand—Reconstruction/Gilded Age—and piece by piece, out of statutes where Congress delegated powers to the office. (1/3)

A Regime of Statutes: Building the Modern President in Gilded Age America (1873-1921)

by Andrea Scoseria Katz At a time when the Supreme Court is turning its sights on the administrative state and enhancing the profile and powers of the president, it is worth recalling that behind our ...

jach.law.wisc.edu

My co-author @narosenblum.bsky.social and I explain what's wrong with Myers and the Court's current thinking on the presidency (2/2): columbialawreview.org/content/beco...

BECOMING THE ADMINISTRATOR-IN-CHIEF: MYERS AND THE PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENCY - Columbia Law Review

“Inherent power! . . . The partisans of the executive have discovered a [new] and more fruitful source of power.” — Sen. Henry Clay, Senate Debate of 1835. “We elect a king for four years, and...

columbialawreview.org

Here's some new work of mine. SCOTUS's current view of the president rests largely on one case, Myers v US (1926). But Myers is a false friend: it took a sharp detour from past separation-of-powers cases, misread history and precedent, and created nothing like the presidency we have today (1/2)

Hello Bluesky! I'm tentatively glad to be here.