6/19/17  //  Commentary

Here I offer three quick reactions to the government’s latest filing in the Ninth Circuit case—the first two on questions concerning what the Court should do now with the government’s applications, and the third with respect to the merits of the statutory ultra vires argument on which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit relied.

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.

6/13/17  //  Commentary

There’s been a great deal of noise from some of the President’s confidants over the past 48 hours suggesting that he might (try to) remove Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

6/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The most remarkable thing about DOJ’s brief is that its conclusion doesn't follow from its own explanation of the meaning of the term “emolument,” nor, for that matter, from any of DOJ’s analysis. To the contrary, DOJ’s account of the Clause, and of the meaning of the term “emolument,” actually demonstrates that the President is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, at least with respect to some of the conduct alleged in the CREW complaint.

6/3/17  //  Commentary

I've argued that the Supreme Court shouldn't grant review of the travel ban case because 33 hours after the Respondents file their response to the petition for certiorari on June 12, the entry ban will no longer be operative. Here I respond to two purportedly “plausible” alternative interpretations of the executive order offered by William Baude.

6/2/17  //  Commentary

The government's papers in the Supreme Court neglect to mention that the entry ban expires in 12 days, anyways.

5/17/17  //  Commentary

With briefing almost completed in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, it’s good to remember the way in which the case can be resolved on straightforward statutory grounds without deciding whether Title IX prohibits discrimination against transgender persons, as such.

5/9/17  //  Commentary

In the Fourth Circuit argument in IRAP v. Trump, Judge Keenan put her finger on a simple, basic reason why Section 2(c) of Executive Order 13769 is unlawful—and it doesn’t have much to do with the Establishment Clause. Rather, it’s a matter of everyday statutory interpretation, and the fact that President Trump has failed to establish the necessary precondition for the exercise of his statutory authority.

5/4/17  //  Quick Reactions

The President's Executive Order on "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty" it is entirely hortatory, and does even less than the White House's modest roll-out last night suggested.

5/4/17  //  Uncategorized

An executive order to be issued today likely will direct the IRS to exercise “maximum enforcement discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits religious leaders from speaking about politics and candidates from the pulpit.” Here's what that means and why it matters.

4/18/17  //  Commentary

Under President Trump, questions about the role of religion have come to the fore. The Supreme Court was set to decide a major Free Exercise issue this Term, but it now seems that the case is moot.

4/8/17  //  Commentary

A document seeking to justify the use of force in Syria has begun circulating outside the government that is said to have been developed within the Administration. But there are significant flaws in this justification as a matter of domestic and international law.