I do not think there is sufficient appreciation for how catastrophic yesterday’s decision in Slaughter is for this country. As Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent and she intoned from the bench yesterday, “today the majority reshapes our Govt.”
Maggie Blackhawk
@maggieblackhawk.bsky.social
Professor, NYU Law; scholar of Congress, the Constitution, and American colonialism; she/her/kwe.
Important point of discussion. Although the “space“ left by the Court after Slaughter is only helpful in so far as the Court actually understands the “functions” of Congress—and, apparently, those functions don’t involve building the government (as Congress has done for over 200 years now).
Sam Halpert@samhalpert.bsky.social · last mo.Explore the space the Court leaves open here for an admin state independent of the President--& not only bc it's the path that remains. Yoking admin expertise to Congress would also re-establish the institution's democratic relevance, reconnecting our representative assembly w/those it represents.
I will once again remind folks that a very sizable chunk of what looks like Congress not doing anything to push back against the president is in fact a consequence of the Court disabling/destroying all the ways Congress has tried to push back.
First America is climbing the podcast series chart! Thanks everyone for listening. ❤️ If you haven’t yet, pls subscribe, download and rate the show. It helps more people find it!
BREAKING: Alligator Alcatraz has officially closed. A lot of outlets won’t report on this, but the Miccosukee Tribe played a key role in the fight.
This is a really good post by @stevevladeck.bsky.social on the significance of the Landor case, the further decline of private enforcement, and long-term trends in the Court's Spending Clause jurisprudence: open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...
Bonus 234: The Ascension of Westside Mothers
The Court's 6-3 ruling in Landor is likely the "sleeper" case of the term—a technical decision with massive, long-term, and ominous constitutional implications.
open.substack.com
I need a lot more time to absorb this article, but can’t overstate how strongly I recommend it: bsky.app/profile/magg...
![June 2026]
The History of the Constitution is Our Future
1115
Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence illustrates the problem. The Court's turn to "history and tradition" to define the scope of constitutional rights rests on the premise that there exists a singular, national constitutional tradition capable of supplying determinate answers—or that it is normatively good to construct such a national tradition as constitutional myth. Constructing that tradition has proven deeply contested. But much of the debate remains rooted in which aspects of the presumed national history are the most relevant, without challenging the presumption of nationalism in the first instance.® In Wol-ford v. Lopez, a recent case to go before the Court on the Second Amendment, members of the Court suggested that the legal and constitutional traditions of Hawai'i—from the Kingdom of Hawai'i's 1838 constitution, through its overthrow and territorial period, and until statehood in 195990—were largely irrelevant because Hawai'i was now "part of the United States."'' By contrast, the colonial laws of New Jersey from 1771, enacted before U.S. independence," were treated as authoritative evidence of the nation's constitutional tradition."3
This asymmetry reveals how methodological nationalism structures constitutional inquiry. Histories that reflect the instability, plurality, and contested sovereignty of expansion are discounted, while colonial-era practices from the eastern seaboard are elevated as national tradition. In this way, the Court reproduces the logic of expansion and forced uniformity, while insulating that logic from interrogation and critique by presenting the centrality of the "nation" as a neutral, even natural, constitutional method.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qcdkgsv4ancml4yt5bde7fwi/bafkreifsyu6t6quaftgfzazxmbemzisortfa4tuzwaev64jgvdwp3npf6a)
Maggie Blackhawk@maggieblackhawk.bsky.social · 2mo agoA few years of digging into the archives uncovered a scientific field little known today: the fathers of American political science, history, and constitutional history saw expansion, Native peoples, and the science of governing others (non-subject populations) as central to their disciplines./1
Very important 🧵 from the great Maggie Blackhawk. Even now, SCOTUS upholds a view that dates back to the Doctrine of Discovery: The conviction that polities, societies, & cultures arising outside of the European world order are fundamentally illegitimate—even the once-recognized Kingdom of Hawai'i.
Maggie Blackhawk@maggieblackhawk.bsky.social · 2mo agoIt is difficult to read the Supreme Court's opinions over the last week and not see the general trend toward accretion of Court power. Interpretive philosophies like originalism give way to "plain text" readings (by judges) and historical "standards," without any specific guidelines. /1
A few years of digging into the archives uncovered a scientific field little known today: the fathers of American political science, history, and constitutional history saw expansion, Native peoples, and the science of governing others (non-subject populations) as central to their disciplines./1
I gather that mine is an unpopular opinion: but the Supreme Court deciding the Birthright Citizenship case by reaching the Constitution, rather than holding the executive order unlawful as violating the statute (INA), follows naturally from a week of opinions that strengthen #SCOTUS power overall.
Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · 2mo agoJohn Roberts will want you to forget everything that happened this week at SCOTUS after he confirms that the first sentence of the 14th Amendment means what it says, please do not fall for it
It is difficult to read the Supreme Court's opinions over the last week and not see the general trend toward accretion of Court power. Interpretive philosophies like originalism give way to "plain text" readings (by judges) and historical "standards," without any specific guidelines. /1
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
FIRST AMERICA would not have been possible without the incredible team that helped put it together. It has been a tremendous effort, and we wouldn't be here without the talent and dedication of everyone involved. I am so grateful.
I sat down with Slate's What Next to talk about why reckoning with our full history is the only way forward—and what happens when we finally center Native truth in the story of America. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts! slate.com/podcasts/wha...
America Before 250
America didn’t start with the Declaration of Independence.
slate.com
The great Rebecca Nagle of "This Land" is back! First America charts the history of the U.S. and Native peoples as a guide for how we ended up *here.* Supported by many Native voices, including Nick Estes @nicke.bsky.social, Phil Deloria, Ned Blackhawk, and me. First episode of six today!
Rebecca Nagle@rebeccanagle.bsky.social · 2mo ago“Native people are written out of the American story. Without us, you don’t know what happened.” To get the full story, listen to First America–the true story of how the United States came to be. And how our current political moment is 250 years in the making.
“Native people are written out of the American story. Without us, you don’t know what happened.” To get the full story, listen to First America–the true story of how the United States came to be. And how our current political moment is 250 years in the making.
If you're anywhere near Cambridge on May 29th, come see Jamelle Bouie, Martha Jones, Heather Thompson & other starry speakers reflect on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Tickets are *free* but nearly gone so hit the link below asap www.philanthropy.cam.ac.uk/story/the-un...
The United States of America at 250
Reflections on the past, present, and future of independence. 29 May 2026, 12.30pm to 5.30pm, Ray Dolby Centre, Cambridge
philanthropy.cam.ac.uk
Thank you, Mary, for all that you do!
Mary Dudziak@marydudziak.bsky.social · 3mo agoWow! The @legalhistoryblog.bsky.social, continuous since 2006, has its 15,000th post! I wrote post #1 from the kitchen table of my then boyfriend's (now husband's) home in Sharon, MA. The blog is now beautifully curated by @kmtani.bsky.social & @dbqur.bsky.social. Thank you readers! ⚖️ 🗃
You guys. The Legal History Blog @legalhistoryblog.bsky.social has hit 15,000(!) posts! 👏 It's been an honor to help run the blog & to work beside true LHB stalwart Dan Ernst @dbqur.bsky.social. All hail LHB founder & visionary @marydudziak.bsky.social 🙌 #LegalHistory
LHB 15,000
This is the 15,000th post on Legal History Blog. No less than at its founding by Mary Dudziak almost twenty years ago, it remains committe...
legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com
Excited to head to Cambridge for a star-studded discussion on the US at 250. There is also a brilliant conference on federalism at Oxford the day before, organized by the amazing Emily Zackin (author of "Looking for Rights in all the
🥳🎉 Unironically thrilled to announce 🎉🥳 This means a journal has to publish it now…right?
Of all the horrors inflicted by Russia’s war, the abduction of Ukrainian children is one of its worst. Stealing children is a calculated Russian attack on Ukraine’s future. Bringing them home is a priority. We support this with funding, aid and sanctions.
Oh that’s a cool job.
Maggie Blackhawk@maggieblackhawk.bsky.social · 3mo agoCome work with us! Are you a *great* litigator with a love for teaching? We are launching a formal federal Indian law clinic--and are looking to hire a two-year clinical fellow to work with us and the great Professor Deborah Archer (also President of the ACLU). apply.interfolio.com/186544
I agree generally with the conclusions here but this is a very thin historical analysis — historians have examined the legal background for these claims to “parental absolutism,” with great care, including me in my own first book.
Liberal Currents@liberalcurrents.com · 3mo ago"The latest front in America’s culture wars has arrived with a familiar script: according to right wing media, the left is once again coming for your children. The culprit this time? Connecticut Democrats who want to know how many children in the state are homeschooled."
Come work with us! Are you a *great* litigator with a love for teaching? We are launching a formal federal Indian law clinic--and are looking to hire a two-year clinical fellow to work with us and the great Professor Deborah Archer (also President of the ACLU). apply.interfolio.com/186544
I remain convinced that our problems rest, in large part, on the fact that we now have only two branches instead of three; and worry we might, in our righteous anger, end on a single branch by tearing the institutional structure of the courts through leaks and delegitimization.
Megan Wachspress@meganwachspress.bsky.social · 3mo agoThis, 100%. Congress as it currently exists is not a solution to our judicial crisis. (There is some magical thinking among this branch of left scholarship not unlike the Bernie believers who insisted on his transformative capacity in the absence of a theory of institutional change.)
This, 100%. Congress as it currently exists is not a solution to our judicial crisis. (There is some magical thinking among this branch of left scholarship not unlike the Bernie believers who insisted on his transformative capacity in the absence of a theory of institutional change.)
Maggie Blackhawk@maggieblackhawk.bsky.social · 3mo agoI dream of a day when the legal academy spends as much attention to congressional and other legislative reform, than they spend debating whom among us is properly critical of the Supreme Court. Reforming Congress is equally (or more) important than rethinking Supreme Court practice and authority.
Aiming sights even higher: we haven’t yet fully theorized what legislatures are and what their role is in our constitutional system. Congress and state legislatures have changed dramatically across history—as has their relationship to “administration“ and the public. (lobbying and campaign finance)
this is also one of my hobbyhorses. you want a better caliber of lawmaker? you want to reduce the odds of corruption? pay them more. a lot more.
Waldo Jaquith@waldo.net · 3mo agoI wrote a paper about this in 2010, for the Richmond Journal of Law and Public Interest. Basically, low-paying, part-time legislatures serve to enshrine conflicts of interest as a best practice. We should raise pay by 10x.