Santa Clara v. Trump and the Perils of the Gestural Presidency

4/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

If we had a president less concerned with posing as a man of action and more as the fiduciary taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, he would probably do better in court. I don't foresee him changing course.

Peter M. Shane

Ohio State, Moritz College of Law

The Rule of Law Means Little If The President’s Word Means Nothing

4/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

In a new op-ed, I emphasize the importance of taking President Trump at his word–even as efforts to save his executive orders from his tweets inevitably push Trump's defenders to come up with new and creative reasons for ignoring Trump's public statements.

With Sanctuary Cities, the Apprentice is Now the Biggest Loser

4/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

If Trump keeps tweeting his lawyers will have their work cut out for them

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

Trump Is Weakening His Only Defense of the Sanctuary Cities Order . . . by Enforcing It

4/24/17  //  Commentary

DOJ argues that Trump's orders threatening sanctuary cities can't be challenged because they remain speculative. But a recent volley of menacing letters from DOJ to sanctuary cities and counties, and to the State of California, has blasted a hole in DOJ's own defense.

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

A Rough Guide to Amicus Briefs In the Travel Ban Cases

4/24/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care offers a quick, rough breakdown of the amicus briefs filed last week concerning President Trump's revised executive order.

Take Care

The Attorney General, Hawaii Statehood, and National Injunctions

4/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

The AG's comments denigrating Hawaii statehood are objectionable for many reasons. But don't overlook his underlying complaint about national injunctions—which conservatives spent years developing and have suddenly, painfully discovered can be used against them.

The Muslim Ban: Answering Tough Questions About Motive

4/21/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The opinion by then-Justice Rehnquist in Hunter v. Underwood (1985), a case about denying the right to vote for racist reasons, offers thoughtful answers to many of the hardest questions that you might ask about motive and the Muslim Ban.

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

A Different View of Why the Muslim Ban Violates the Establishment Clause

4/20/17  //  Commentary

A diverse group of leading constitutional law scholars—representing many different views about the Establishment Clause—has filed an amicus brief challenging the Muslim Ban. Here's what you need to know.

Corey Brettschneider

Brown University

Micah Schwartzman

University of Virginia School of Law

Nelson Tebbe

Brooklyn Law School

Versus Trump, Episode 1

4/20/17  //  Commentary

"A New Sheriff In Town" + Zephyr Teachout

Reinvigorating Civil Rights in the Era of Trump

4/13/17  //  Commentary

Given the nativist overtones of his campaign and his administration’s signature policies — from the Muslim ban to an immigration crackdown that equates being a foreign-born minority with criminality — Trump has exploded the fiction that we live in a post-racial society.

Chiraag Bains

Harvard Law School

Those Who Do Not Know History

4/12/17  //  Commentary

On the first full day of Passover, the Trump Administration offered several lessons about institutionalized racism and ethnic cleansing.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

California v. DOJ on Immigration Enforcement

4/11/17  //  Commentary

An exchange of letters between the California Chief Justice and Attorney General Sessions offers valuable lessons for states considering immigrant protective policies that respect human rights and dignity (but might annoy the Trump Administration).

Jennifer Chacón

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Attack on American Cities

4/7/17  //  Commentary

Trump's anti-urban rhetoric has fanned the flames of a war by state governments against progressive cities. We see this in battles over sanctuary cities, LGBT rights, gun regulation, employee rights. The time has come for a campaign on behalf of city power.

Richard C. Schragger

UVA School of Law

Why Trump's Travel Ban Statements Compel a Finding of Improper Purpose

4/6/17  //  Commentary

Trump's statements about the revised travel ban overwhelmingly evidence a purpose at odds with the Establishment Clause. And few, if any, of those statements evince actual, substantive national security or foreign affairs objectives that explain the bizarre scope of his order.

Why Courts Have Probed Trump’s Motives for the Travel Ban

4/4/17  //  Commentary

Perceptions of presidential bad faith have given judges the fortitude to do what the law already demands of them, even though their actions might prompt the President to bash them by name on TV or Twitter.