No, the Chief Justice Did Not Just Embrace Obergefell

6/27/17  //  Commentary

Many commentators have misunderstood the significance of a per curiam ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Closing the Courthouse Doors: Justice Kennedy’s Very Bad Day

6/22/17  //  Commentary

David Gans discusses Ziglar v. Abassi, a new SCOTUS ruling that makes it very hard for individuals to sue federal officials for trampling on federal constitutional rights

Take Care

The Clarifying Memorandum Is Not A Reason For A Stay

6/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

An analysis of DOJ's latest filing at SCOTUS in the travel ban cases.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The President’s Clarifying Memorandum And The Amicus Brief About Animus

6/20/17  //  Commentary

The President’s clarifying memorandum undercuts the legitimate rationale the executive order and DOJ had offered for the entry ban. An amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court explains why that matters.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

SCOTUS Severely Narrows Civil Rights Suits Against Federal Officers

6/20/17  //  Commentary

Yesterday's SCOTUS ruling in Ziglar v. Abbasi makes it all but impossible for civil rights plaintiffs to sue federal officials for money damages.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

Against Type Briefs

6/16/17  //  Commentary

Filing an amicus brief joined by Republicans critical of the Trump Administration and with some claim of expert knowledge made by these Republicans related to the constitutional issues can be a powerful tactic to use in courts.

David Fontana

George Washington University Law School

Versus Trump: A Gadfly Suit + Leah Litman

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!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Easha Anand

San Francisco

How the President’s Clarifying Memorandum Destroys the Case for the Entry Ban

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.

Take Care

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Morales-Santana and the "Mean Remedy"

6/12/17  //  Commentary

Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Sessions v. Morales-Santana exacerbates many of the shortcomings of our immigration system.

Ian Samuel

Harvard Law School

See You In Court: Ninth Circuit Round 2

6/12/17  //  Quick Reactions

A quick recap of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hawaii v. Trump with thoughts about what it portends for the Supreme Court.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

States And The Emoluments Clause

6/12/17  //  Commentary

In a new lawsuit, Maryland and D.C. allege that the President's violations of the Emoluments Clauses harm their sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and proprietary interests. Those interests get special solicitude in federal court.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Two Sides Of Donald Trump, As Reflected in The Government's Motion to Dismiss in the CREW Emoluments Case

6/12/17  //  Quick Reactions

The government's motion to dismiss alternately characterizes CREW's lawsuit as a case involving "official action" and a case involving solely a private "business venture." The different descriptions go to the core of CREW's lawsuit, which is that given the President's business affairs, we don't know when he's acting as President or as a businessman.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Government’s Vanishing National Security Rationale (aka Round 10000 In The Incompetence Versus Malevolence Debate)

6/8/17  //  Commentary

The government’s litigation strategy in the travel ban litigation undermines the purported national security rationale for the entry ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Basic Error In Texas’s Amicus Brief In The Travel Ban Case (aka Youngstown Zone Zero Redux)

6/7/17  //  Commentary

Texas’s Amicus Brief Makes An Argument That Is So Obviously Wrong Some People Thought It Was Not Worth Responding To

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Ian Samuel

Harvard Law School

Tweetstorm Round Deux

6/5/17  //  Commentary

The President's latest statements on Twitter undermine DOJ's defense of the entry ban, and continue the President's efforts to blame everyone (including DOJ and the courts) but himself.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law