E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
OK, so maybe it's not quite right that the rule of law is like Oakland. My view is that the rule of law, such as it is, is stabilized by the historically contingent agreement among well-socialized legal professionals that certain behaviors are consistent with the rule of law, and others not. But, again in my view, that agreement can erode when well-socialized legal professionals begin to disagree about whether particular behaviors are or are not consistent with the rule of law. The erosion can be slow or fast, and at early stages most legal professionals will say that the dissenters are badly socialized, shouldn't count, and the like. I think we're at that point with Donald Trump.
At some point, though, the erosion -- the disappearance of agreement about specific behaviors -- is so substantial that it's no longer plausible to attach the label "[in]consistent with the rule of law" to those behaviors. And, at the moment the first erosion crops up, one can't be confident that we're observing mere extreme eccentricity rather than the early stages of a process that will generate increasing agreement that actions formerly agreed to be inconsistent with the rule of law are in fact consistent with the rule of law. (My metaphor for that moment is, "Trump wins the election.")
Agreement may continue to exist, of course, with respect to other behaviors, and the range of those behaviors may be large enough to make the phrase "rule of law" useful -- but only with respect to them. So, the rule of law is like Brigadoon -- here (with respect to specific propositions) for a while, then gone (with respect to those propositions). And there's no way to guarantee that any specific proposition will have an especially long lifetime.