Since when is it anti-democratic for a President to abide by the terms of a federal statute? @leahlitman.bsky.social @profmmurray.bsky.social @kateshaw.bsky.social have an important new paper highlighting slippery slope problems presented by the strong form of UET: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

W/o getting drawn into the "seriously or literally" / "it'll never happen" trap, we need to stomp *hard* on the continuing effort to undermine Article 1 power of the purse by saying that this or that revenue stream makes something outside the normal budget process. 1/ www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...

Lutnick says Trump’s $5,000 checks for Americans wouldn’t rely on taxpayer funds

A top White House official suggested Congress would use a budget process to fund them. Vice President JD Vance had said tariff revenues.

nbcnews.com

🧵 I'm curious about competing historical evidence in Trump v. Barbara.

New paper 🚨: SCOTUS has made democratic theory a central part of its consolidation of presidential power over agencies, but its democratic vision is chock full of empirical and normative holes, which I unpack in a forthcoming essay in the Duke Law Journal. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I must say, the person selling unlimited wash packages at the local car wash really enjoyed hearing about my upcoming research agenda/teaching schedule in response to the question, what prevents you from coming back at least 2x in the next 30 days?

This is a fantastic article that uses critical evidence most scholars didn’t even know existed. If you believe in the relevance of historical practice, find originalism an appealing approach to constitutional interpretation, or care about the history of public administration, this is for you!

Christine Kexel Chabot@kexelchabot.bsky.social · 2mo ago

In the wake of Trump v. Slaughter, everyone has been scrambling for a way to distinguish tenure protected officers from those who are removable at will. My updates to “The Interstitial Executive” drive home that history offers a basic yet overlooked way to make this distinction: statutes.

If removal is a matter that the Constitution commits to Congress's discretion (as a matter of office creation under the Appointments and Necessary and Proper Clauses) then one would expect removal to vary by statute.

Jonathon Booth@jboothhistory.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Not my area but I do love the idea that the way to interpret the constitution is by the laws congress passes. Seems like a logical system to me!

In the wake of Trump v. Slaughter, everyone has been scrambling for a way to distinguish tenure protected officers from those who are removable at will. My updates to “The Interstitial Executive” drive home that history offers a basic yet overlooked way to make this distinction: statutes.

This is a fatal flaw in Roberts' analysis in Slaughter. He cites a 1780 note in which Thomas Jefferson *recognized* good behavior and term of years tenure protections.

Jed H. Shugerman@jedshug.bsky.social · 3mo ago

Daily Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #4: In Slaughter, Roberts Omitted the Parts of Jefferson's 1780 Notes that Contradicted His Theory open.substack.com/pub/jedshuge...

Great news for folks teaching Leg Reg this fall. You may expect pushback for teaching legislative history, but CJ Roberts just made legislative history the centerpiece of his argument for a categorical Art II removal power in Slaughter. Game on!

A must read analysis of Slaughter/Cook by @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social @janemanners.bsky.social www.justsecurity.org/145132/lost-...

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

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

justsecurity.org

What are you wearing for America at 250 tomorrow? Check out my new essay with Prof. Felicia Caponigri @fashionbyfelicia.bsky.social in The Fashion Law @tfl.bsky.social on the American flag in fashion: www.thefashionlaw.com/america-at-2... 🇺🇸 #July4 #AmericaAt250 #fashion #trademark #copyright

America at 250: Who Owns the American Flag in Fashion?

As the United State of American marks its 250th anniversary, the American flag occupies a unique place in fashion.

thefashionlaw.com

So, this is in print now. Title pretty much says it all. virginialawreview.org/articles/abo...

There is so much bs and bad faith, but I’ll just note that this response to @kexelchabot.bsky.social’s excellent scholarship on the Sinking Fund is utterly incomprehensible:

Unitary Executive thread: SCOTUS decided Slaughter & Cook. 6-3 for Trump, overturning Humphrey's. 5-4 for Cook & Fed independence. All 6 conservatives confirmed they do not understand or care about historical evidence or originalist methods. 1/ www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Completely botches the history! Power to remove the CJ/VP from the Sinking Fund Commission makes no sense given the comm’ns structure, Hamilton’s stated desire for a politically insulated body, and presidential commissions for CJs who served on executive bodies.

Todd Phillips@tphillips.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Hey @kexelchabot.bsky.social, this seems like an ahistoric reading of these laws, right? The president couldn't fire the CJ or VP, but could remove them from their positions on the sinking fund commission? What?

Honored that my article (Interring the Unitary Executive) was cited in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump v. Slaughter:

Now up on @ssrn.bsky.social, my latest with @levmenand.bsky.social on The Case for Administrative Law Pluralism, forthcoming in the exciting new edited collection by @blakeprof.bsky.social, @joshuamacey.bsky.social, @ksabeelrahman.bsky.social, and Bijal Shah. (1/4) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

The Battle over the Constitution Has Spread to American Science. I'm out in the @theatlantic.com today about the new OMB proposed rule. It's just the longtime agenda of the the Supreme Court. US science and cancer cures now all depend on us picking up a fight with the Roberts Court.

The Unitary Executive Takes Over New Territory

The Trump administration’s theory of how the federal government should work is a threat to American science.

theatlantic.com

Happy Defenestration of Prague Day to all who observe. #earlymodern

Such arguments giving presidents the full privileges of kings are nonsense. As prominent judges like St George Tucker wrote after the revolution (1803) about the sections of Blackstone’s common law treatise that concerned the king’s privileges: irrelevant in the US because we are a republic

15 Historians File Amicus Brief in Trump v. US Debunking Immunity Claim

Historians show that history doesn’t support presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

brennancenter.org

A must-read. Congrats!

Nathaniel Donahue@nwdonahue.bsky.social · 6mo ago

The final version of the paper is now published and live, with a greatly expanded application section and some new historical finds. Thanks to everyone who gave me comments and workshopped the piece with me—it’s so much better for everyone’s input! yalelawjournal.org/pdf/01KQD1GF...

No, Article II/UET does not exempt the President from the rest of the Constitution: news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-...

UnAmerican? @lawprofblawg.bsky.social ?

Milan Markovic@profmarkovic.bsky.social · 6mo ago

United and American are both terrible--I can't imagine what a combination would look like.

This may be news to the Fifth Circuit, but we’ve had laws regulating home distilleries as a means of taxing spirits since at least 1791:

Reuters@reuters.com · 6mo ago

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional reut.rs/4czY1hk

🧵A few takeaways on the role of original public meaning in the oral argument for Trump v. Barbara. Both sides cited historical sources from relevant time periods to explain the text of the 14A. Do competing historical arguments mean that the matter is impossible to resolve as a matter of OPM?

My contribution to the great Balkinization symposium on @slskowronek.bsky.social’s exciting new book is now live! balkin.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-...

I really like how this article offers a different answer to the question of removal than either 1) total indefeasible removal or 2) absolutely no removal power. It’s an interesting intermediate position that I don’t think has been adequately considered!

Christine Kexel Chabot@kexelchabot.bsky.social · 7mo ago

“The Interstitial Executive” is forthcoming in the BYU Law Review! Historical officer commissions show that the Founding generation recognized Congress’s power to insulate executive officials from political control. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....