Jonathan Hensley
@jonathanhensley.bsky.social
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Towson University. Law, politics, guitars, Cadillacs, etc., etc. Believer in democracy and the rule of law. Views are my own, not my employer's.
The ongoing evolution of judicial nominees’ responses about the 2020 election. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/the-ongoin...
The ongoing evolution of judicial nominees’ responses about the 2020 election
Nominees have shifted their answers but still refuse to unconditionally state that Biden won.
nominationnotes.substack.com
This amazing image really captures the Tennessee fight and it's all over the internet. I am reposting it to encourage people to credit photographer Nicole Hester and the Tennessean.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court struck down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana, weakening a landmark voting rights law’s protections against discrimination in redistricting.
Supreme Court voids majority Black congressional district in Louisiana, boosting Republican chances
The Supreme Court has struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district in a decision that could open the door for Republican-led states to eliminate Black and Latino electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats.
bit.ly
"I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent."
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3mo agoSecond (and last) #SCOTUS ruling is the big one, Louisiana v. Callais. For a 6-3 majority (Rs v. Ds), Justice Alito purports to narrow the ability of states to draw majority-minority districts as a remedy for race-based vote dilution, but, per Kagan's dissent, comes pretty close to gutting the VRA:
In Supreme Court Justices’ Histories, a Story of Immigration in America www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/u...
In Supreme Court Justices’ Histories, a Story of Immigration in America
nytimes.com
This is insane. Hard to imagine more obvious misconduct.
Raffi Melkonian@rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social · 4mo agoMan, SCOTUS denied cert in Wilson v. Midland?? Blurgh. That's the IJ case where a criminal defendant sued a lawyer who acted as both the prosecutor and the judge's law clerk int he same case. Yes, you read that right. He was on both sides of the case. Secretly.
SCOOP: Federal judiciary approves new Supreme Court defender office to help represent indigent defendants at #SCOTUS. Its full-time director will serve as a counterweight to the U.S. solicitor general in federal criminal cases. The first will be former Kagan clerk and SG atty Ashley Robertson.
BREAKING The Federal Circuit immediately issues the mandates in the tariffs litigation, rejecting the Trump admin's request for further delay. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Scientists Decry ‘Political Attack’ on Reference Manual for Judges www.nytimes.com/2026/03/02/c...
Scientists Decry ‘Political Attack’ on Reference Manual for Judges
nytimes.com
NEW POLL on Dem. structural reforms: U.S. adults support 18-yr term limits for Supreme Court justices by a 50-point margin (GOP is +34 in favor), favor statehood for Puerto Rico and limits on pardons by POTUS, and are split on DC statehood, packing the Court: www.gelliottmorris.com/p/two-thirds...
Jodi Kantor in the NY Times reports that the Chief Justice requested Court employees sign nondisclosure agreements in November 2024 - moving to formal contracts requiring silence/confidentiality after Trump was reelected: www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/u...
Today in History: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
Today in History: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States
On Dec. 14, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, ruled Congress was within its authority to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against racial discrimination b…
trib.al
It's the 160th anniversary of the United States' refounding, the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Really remarkable to see federal judges, even anonymously, criticizing SCOTUS this way. You know things have gotten bad if they’re willing to do this.
Lawrence Hurley@lawrencehurley.bsky.social · 11mo ago🚨EXCLUSIVE: Federal judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court has got to do a better job of explaining emergency rulings, with frequent decisions in favor of Trump at least appearing to validate harsh criticism of the judiciary at a time of rising threats: www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...
Yesterday, in the context of an emergency (there was none) motion with no argument and limited briefing, the Court overturned almost a century of precedent to just about end independent agencies. This is not how real courts behave. #notacourt.
one of the many infuriating things about this is that if the authors of the amendment wanted it to apply exclusively to the formerly enslaved they had the capacity to do so! they would have written it that way! they didn't!
Adam Serwer@adamserwer.bsky.social · last yr.Sauer keeps saying the amendment was suppose to apply to "former slaves" but the actual text of the 14th amendment is "all persons born or naturalized in the united sates," i thought conservatives were big text guys
On the other hand, there is this. Like I said, I’m still not too optimistic here.
Leah Litman@leahlitman.bsky.social · last yr.Kavanaugh: “tell me what I can write in my opinion ruling for you, Trump admin, about why this wouldn’t be so bad.” That fucking Guy.
I don’t want to get too optimistic about these SCOTUS arguments, but even Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have sounded pretty annoyed with D. John Sauer at various times in this argument.
David French’s column today says Harvard is “remarkably intolerant,” the speech environment is “abysmal,” and left-wing bias is “overwhelming.” So I have a question: if they’re so biased against conservatives, how do they keep being a stepping stone for influential conservative lawyers and judges?
