7/17/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Fifth Circuit his reversed a preliminary injunction against HB 1523, Mississippi's unusual anti-LGBT "religious freedom" law. Its reasoning is incorrect and at odds with precedent. En banc review is warranted to establish uniformity in the law and vindicate important constitutional principles.

7/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Some commentators are seizing on court orders in the proceedings related to the scope of the injunction against the entry ban as an indication that courts are rethinking their decisions against the entry ban. That's wrong (with a cautionary note about the federal courts).

7/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

John Mikhail demonstrates that "DOJ’s historical definition of 'emolument' is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading."

7/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Last week, Brianne Gorod strongly refuted the claim that Alexander Hamilton thought presidents are free to accept foreign emoluments. Her post sparked a bout of criticism on Twitter. But that criticism is weak even on its own limited terms—and should not obscure Brianne's vital contribution to a debate of surpassing national importance.

7/10/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Separation of powers principles strongly support standing in the Foreign Emoluments Clause suit filed by Members of Congress.

7/7/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The commission is not truly bipartisan and is based on false assertions of widespread voter fraud.

6/30/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Kris Kobach just asked for help building a national voter file in two weeks. That’s massively irresponsible. And it might well be illegal.

6/29/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Justice Gorsuch has already written seven separate opinions in his 78-day tenure on the Supreme Court. What should we make of that?

6/28/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Alexandra Brodsky on how the Department of Education has retreated from civil rights enforcement and hid behind unlawful opacity.

6/24/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Eric Segall explains why the emoluments suit by 196 Members of Congress must be decided on the merits.

6/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

DOJ can't distinguish a case from 1995 in which it took a diametrically opposed view on the relevance of campaign statements.

6/22/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling in Matal v. Tam, the government speech doctrine will not swallow the First Amendment.

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a lawsuit against the President that's been brought by a D.C. gadfly who claims that Trump did not provide sufficient detail on the financial disclosure form he submitted as a candidate. Then, Easha talks with Leah Litman about the status of the Muslim ban litigation and the role of oral advocacy in this and other high-profile cases. Listen now!

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's "clarifying" memorandum undermines the facial legitimacy of the entry ban, and the government's stated purposes for the entry ban.

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

In this post I explain why, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Monday, there’s no good reason for the Supreme Court to grant any of the government’s petitions or applications.