Bruce Larson

@brucelarson.bsky.social

Political Science Prof., Gettysburg College

This is my lane. I went through the 194 Trump v Barbara opinion from yesterday section by section, noting what they got right about US migration and citizenship history, and what the dissents get wrong. Please share if you think it is helpful to others.

I Read Trump v Barbara So You Don’t Have To — Anna O. Law

As someone who took 16 years to research and write a new book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship , a policy and legal history, I paid keen attention to the oral arguments (April 1) ...

annaolaw.com

With parties no longer limited in making coordinated expenditures, it may be that safe House incumbents will face even more pressure to transfer money to the party congressional campaign committees.

In NRSC v. FEC, I feel like there is a non-zero chance the Court will invalidate not only party coordinated spending limits but also limits on contributions TO the parties. Per McCutcheon, conservatives on the Court see quid pro quo corruption as less of a concern when money flows through parties.

Big if lopsided self-funding in the Dem primary in my MD-06 district. David Trone has loaned his campaign $25 million in the contest, while incumbent April McClain Delaney has loaned her campaign $7.4 million.

My colleague @mattngreen.bsky.social has made a terrific accounting of various democratic reform proposals floating about. This is a terrific roundabout and a good resource for much needed conversations.

Mischiefs of Faction@misofact.bsky.social · 3mo ago

There's been lots of proposals offered lately to restore some balance between the branches. For those trying to keep track, @mattngreen.bsky.social has a running list. open.substack.com/pub/misofact...

If the Court invalidates limits on party coordinated expenditures, it won’t alter the party fundraising side. So expect the Hill committees to ratchet up pressure on incumbents for funds, since incumbents can give unlimited sums to the national party committees from their campaign committees.

SCOTUS in City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980): plaintiffs gotta show discriminatory intent. Congress in the 1982 VRA Reauthorization: discriminatory effects are sufficient. Justice Alito in Louisiana v. Callais: f**k Congress.

Will need to update my class VRA slide to explain how, according to Justice Alito in Louisiana v. Callais, the words “in a manner that results in” must be interpreted as “in a manner intended by the state”

Bild

Not the main point here, but I do not ever recall a federal agency making significant programmatic and personnel changes as a result of the PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSAL, which does not change any law or funding allocations. Congress hasn't acted yet. What are we doing here?

Dan Garisto@dangaristo.bsky.social · 4mo ago

BREAKING: In response to huge cuts in Trump's budget request, NSF is shuttering its SBE directorate. Staff will be transferred to other parts of the agency and "grants that align with Administration priorities" will be maintained. That & more w/ @maxkozlov.bsky.social & @edwrdchen.bsky.social

You can celebrate the destruction of a ruthless group of leaders in Iran that has destroyed the lives of countless Iranians AND still have serious doubts that the Trump administration has a coherent plan to enable the emergence of a more humane government in Iran once the bombs stop falling.