Children will get sick and die because Trump owed RFK Jr. a favor

Andrew Koppelman

Is it a political mistake to kill your voters and their children? That hypothesis will soon be tested.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent mass firing of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is only the latest step in his years-long campaign against vaccination. In the face of a measles outbreak in Texas, he spread misinformation and trumpeted quack remedies. He has canceled vaccine development, cut off research into vaccine hesitancy and joined Elon Musk in massively cutting his agency’s budget and staff.

Kennedy has this power because his support helped elect Trump, and this is his reward.

Democrats ought to hold the Trump administration accountable. Before that can happen, though, the public needs to understand the danger.

I elaborate in a new column at The Hill.

Balkinization Symposium in Honor of Ken Kersch-- Collected Posts

JB

Here are the collected posts from our Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch.

1. Jack Balkin, Introduction to the Symposium

2. Rogers M. Smith, The Better Angels of Our Nature: An Introduction to the Scholarship of Ken I. Kersch 

3. Mark A. Graber, Confessions of Reviewer #2

4. Sanford Levinson, Ken Kersch and the Possibility of Inclusive and Diverse Conversation

5. George Thomas, Ken Kersch and the Politics of Constitutional Erasure

6. Mary Ziegler, Conservative Christians and the Remaking of the Conservative Legal Movement

7. James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Five Lessons from Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution for the Present Moment

8. Carol J. Nackenoff, Remembering My Friend Ken Kersch

9. Logan E. Sawyer III , Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: The Constitution and Conservative Identity in Changing Times

10. Dennis J. Wieboldt III, Ken Kersch’s Constitutional Imagination: A Student’s View

Ken Kersch’s Constitutional Imagination: A Student’s View

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch 

Dennis J. Wieboldt III 

I first met Ken Kersch in the fall of 2019 as an undergraduate student at Boston College. The summer before my matriculation, I came across a university social media post about Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution and thought that it might be a worthwhile read. For one, it seemed prudent to read something by a professor at the institution I would soon call home. And, as an added benefit, reading a book about “conservatives” seemed likely to be personally instructive for my thinking about American law and politics—both because of my quasi-libertarian ideological leanings and the experience of watching my high school peers react with uniform hostility to then-candidate (and later president) Donald Trump. In short, reading a book about “conservatives” and “the Constitution” appeared well-poised to teach me something about myself and those around me.

With the benefit of hindsight, reading Conservatives and the Constitution as a freshly minted high school graduate was equally imprudent and providential. As those familiar with Professor Kersch’s work know well, Conservatives and the Constitution was written for graduate students and experts in the field, not eighteen-year-olds whose only academic engagement with American history was in eleventh- or twelfth-grade A.P. courses. And yet, the copy of Conservatives and the Constitution that I bought six years ago retains evidence of a naive curiosity about the history of American constitutionalism that has yet to abate. In this respect, encountering Professor Kersch’s work as early as I did was providential.

Even as I have eschewed the libertarian leanings of my high-school-aged self, I have repeatedly referred back to Conservatives and the Constitution for the personal and professional reasons that once led me to open the cover of that unmistakably orange paperback. On the one hand, the way that Professor Kersch deftly identified the flaws in conservative constitutionalism, and its contributions to the American political tradition, has helped to shape my personal thinking about American law and politics. Equally importantly, Kersch’s revisionist account of twentieth-century American political and legal history has had a decisive impact on my own research agenda. Indeed, many of the question marks that I once placed in the margins of Conservatives and the Constitution have since become central to my own studies of twentieth-century American constitutionalism.

Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: The Constitution and Conservative Identity in Changing Times

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch 

Logan E. Sawyer III 

In 2020, I wrote a highly complimentary review of Ken’s Conservatives and the Constitution.  The book, I argued, was an insightful and novel explanation of perhaps the key issue in the history of post-war conservatism:  how did a loose and potentially fractious association of different viewpoints and interests become a unified and highly coordinated political movement?  It happened through the use of stories, Ken told us, stories about the Constitution, which were intentionally developed by movement intellectuals in a successful effort to build a conservative political identity.  The book was required reading, I thought, for anyone looking to understand the American Right and its relationship to the law and the constitution.  In retrospect, I was not nearly complimentary enough.  Changes in our politics since I wrote that review have made Conservatives and the Constitution one of the surest guides not just to the creation of the New Right than emerged in the 1970s, but also to the ongoing reconstruction of the conservative movement that is happening today.

Five Lessons from Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution for the Present Moment

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch 

James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain 

We had the good fortune and great pleasure to be good friends of and in intellectual conversation with Ken Kersch. We appreciate the opportunity, through this Balkinization symposium on his work, to try to honor his legacy by offering some thoughts on his erudite and sobering work concerning conservative political and constitutional thought in the U.S.

A recent “Best Sellers” list in the New York Times Book Review describes Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny as follows: “Twenty lessons from the 20^th century about the course of tyranny.” Kersch’s Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (2019) provides at least twenty lessons from the second half of the 20^th century about the development of conservative constitutional thought and activism. These lessons are relevant for understanding the present political moment, filled with concerns that the U.S., several months into the second Trump Administration, is lurching toward tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Kersch’s book highlights that a recurring refrain by conservative thought-makers and politicians during their “wilderness years,” or “postwar liberalism’s heyday between 1954 and 1980,” was that conservatism’s enemies—including not only “godless communism,” moral relativism, and secularism, but also liberalism and liberal “living” constitutionalism—were leading the U.S. toward totalitarianism and authoritarianism. As his subtitle indicates, conservatives envisioned constitutional restoration (and redemption), to be ushered in when Republicans returned to political power and control of the judiciary. In this post, we sketch five lessons from Kersch’s book.

A Bill Like No Other

David Super

      Over the past few months, the nation’s attention has darted between the chaos and cruelty of Elon Musk’s vandalizing the federal government, the merciless brutality of official assaults on innocent immigrants, the Trump Administration’s wanton disregard of numerous statutes and court orders, its demolition of decades of civil rights progress, its multi-front war on science and higher education, its steady march toward greater authoritarianism, its wildly disruptive on-again-off-again trade wars, its betrayal of and threats against dependable allies, and its humiliation of numerous large law firms – along with a cornucopia of scandals, soap operas, and corruption.  Each is appalling in its own right, and cumulatively they augur badly for the future of this country as we have known it.

     It therefore should not be surprising that President Trump’s transformative reconciliation bill has flown relatively under the radar.  Yet on it marches, with its enactment into law quite possible within the next two to three weeks.  Although it reprises several familiar themes in Republican fiscal legislation, in many important respects this bill nonetheless breaks the mold.

Remembering My Friend Ken Kersch

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch 

Carol J. Nackenoff 

Ken Kersch was not only a superb scholar but a good friend.

I knew something about Ken before I met him in 1997.  His father and I were members of the Horatio Alger Society, a small group of book collectors, researchers, and fans of late 19^th and early 20^th century series books for boys and girls. I learned that Ken, a lawyer, had gone back to graduate school to get a Ph.D. in Government from Cornell.  His father wanted to hear what I thought about Ken’s career prospects, and I offered some positive words.

Ken and I met at a Northeastern Political Science Association panel in Philadelphia, when he was working on his dissertation.  As a discussant for a panel on which his paper had been placed, I was struck by how astute, ambitious, careful, mature, and creative Ken’s scholarship was. This was no ordinary graduate student, I said to myself.  He subsequently won the 2000 Edwin S. Corwin Award for best dissertation in public law.

Supreme Court Retirements 2025-Style

Gerard N. Magliocca

No, I don't have any inside information. But I do have an observation. 

In the past, Justices often announced their retirements effective in July. For example, Justice Kennedy's retirement letter announced that he would take senior status on July 31st. Justice Stevens retired "the day after the Court rises for its summer recess," which basically meant July 1.

Those were the days. This year there will be no summer recess of the emergency docket. From now on, Justices are therefore more likely to follow the example of Justice Breyer and retire upon confirmation of their successor. Otherwise, the Court could face several 4-4 deadlocks during the summer on big issues.

Conservative Christians and the Remaking of the Conservative Legal Movement

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch

Mary Ziegler 

I discovered Ken Kersch’s work because of his important contributions to our understanding of originalism, but as Ken’s work shows, conservative constitutionalism is and was always richer, broader, and much messier than the interpretive methods that are most prominent now. It is to his work that I turn to understand the rise of the contemporary conservative Christian legal advocacy, led by organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is reshaping not only the law of everything from abortion to transgender rights but also the very identity of the conservative legal movement.

Ken committed to understanding the intellectual underpinnings of these disparate movements. He grasped, perhaps uniquely, how many intellectual traditions shape the contemporary conservative legal movement. Understanding and identifying these different threads allows us to see how mutable the conservative legal movement truly is, and to anticipate critical doctrinal and interpretive innovations before they develop.

Parliamentarian Facing Key Rulings on Reconciliation Bill

David Super

      Among the most important decisions concerning the massive budget reconciliation bill pending in the Senate will be made far outside the glare of public attention.  Some time in the next week or so, a handful of Senate staff from each party will meet with Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough for a peculiar ritual known as a “Byrd Bath.”  Almost certainly, no senators will be present.  The result of these few hours of conversation will have a profound effect on the future of U.S. social policy.

     The budget reconciliation procedures Republicans are relying upon to move President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” provide one of the rare opportunities to circumvent the filibuster, which otherwise requires some bipartisan support for legislation to move.  Half a century ago, the Senate agreed to this deviation from its traditions of forced compromise to allow important fiscal legislation to move relatively unobstructed.  Senators were clear, however, that they did not want budget reconciliation’s reach to spread to allow narrow majorities to impose their will on primarily non-fiscal matters.  The Byrd Rule reflects that sentiment, blocking provisions that disregard Congress’s fiscal planning process, those with no clear fiscal impact, and any other if “it produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision”.  Any such provisions may move in a reconciliation bill only if sixty senators – the same number required to end a filibuster – vote to waive the point of order.

     Previously the parliamentarian rejected Republican attempts to defund Planned Parenthood via reconciliation, ruling that anti-abortion fervor was driving the provision and any modest savings were “merely incidental” in its sponsors’ eyes.  Similarly, she prevented Democrats from increasing the minimum wage on reconciliation – an action that would have quite large impacts on taxes and benefit programs – because she judged that those effects were “merely incidental” to sponsors’ desire to transfer money from employers to low-wage workers.  Most controversially, in 2021 she rejected several proposals to give immigrants a path to citizenship – an initiative difficult to accomplish on regular legislation because of its large fiscal cost – because she saw changes in immigration regulation as its sponsors’ key motivation.  I disagree with some of her interpretations of the Congressional Budget Act but have defended the consistency with which she applies those interpretations.

Ken Kersch and the Politics of Constitutional Erasure

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch

George Thomas 

Ken Kersch was a singular voice in political science. As political science has become less historically grounded and less attentive to ideas, Kersch wrote thick historical books that deepened our understanding of American constitutionalism by illustrating how our present world was constructed over time. In Constructing Civil Liberties he dismantled the progressive narrative of Whiggish constitutional development that framed our understanding of civil liberties as a steady forward march, revealing a history of conflict and discontinuity. In Conservatives and the Constitution, he turned his talents to illuminating the conservative effort to reframe how we think about the Constitution in the middle years of the twentieth century when progressive liberalism was triumphant. Kersch’s rich and detailed histories offer a capacious take on American constitutionalism and bristle with imagination—the New Deal as the end of History?—while dismantling conventional pieties. Reading Ken was always educative, but it was also a pleasure, as his voice was unmistakable, as was his occasionally acerbic wit (deployed against sanctimonious progressives and illiberal conservatives alike).

Ken Kersch and the Possibility of Inclusive and Diverse Conversation

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch

Sanford Levinson

Nothing I could write could add to Roger Smith’s wonderful tribute to a truly wonderful person, Ken Kersch.  His work was obviously important, and it would be worth remembering even if he were a lout.  But he wasn’t.  All who encountered him as a person knew that he was special, not only a person of great intelligence, with a willingness and ability to tackle truly important issues, but also a mensch, a person one wanted to have as a friend.  I was privileged to know Ken for quite a few years, and we usually had dinner at least once (which was not enough) during the semesters that I happened to be in Boston.  I last saw him in September.  Neither of knew, of course, that it would be for the last time.  Our conversations were usually casual.  Now I wish I had taken more opportunity to explore interests we had in common and to find out more about where his thinking was taking him. 

            Rogers and other participants in this symposium will address his body of work.  I want to do that indirectly, by picking up one aspect that Rogers adverts to and that increasingly absorbs my own imagination.  My own view is that Ken’s book on conservative constitutional thought is a masterpiece that should certainly be on the bookshelves of (and, more importantly, read by) anyone claiming to be interested in the general subject of American constitutional law.  It exemplifies, incidentally, the importance of “the Constitution outside the courts,” because most of the people he writes about never got close to any federal court, let alone the Supreme Court about which most legal academics unwisely obsess.  Part of the reason, of course, is that the years roughly between 1940-1990 encapsulated what we can only regard, looking backward, as liberal hegemony.  The founding of the Federalist Society was certainly a response to this reality.  Hegemonies operate by both inclusion and exclusion.  “Conservatives” like John Marshall Harlan were certainly welcome.  William Rehnquist was simply regarded as an outlier of little fundamental importance beyond his having one vote out of nine.  But his most important opinions were dissents, as was true of the “early” Antonin Scalia.  What struck me when reading Ken’s book was how many of the people I had barely heard about and certainly had never read seriously.  As Rogers suggests, one important example was Francis Schaeffer, whose book A Christian Manifesto I now have on my desk, almost certainly because of Ken’s book. 

            So I want to spend the rest of my (indirect) tribute to Ken by addressing why Schaeffer is so important, not only as a particular thinker, but, far more importantly, with regard to the possibility of genuine discourse between secularists like myself and at least some of “the religious.”  So consider only the Preface to his self-consciously titled “manifesto,” which concerns “Christ’s total Lordship in all of life.”  Acceptance of such “total Lordship” necessarily leads to “Christian resistance” of the “judicial and governmental authoritarian elite in the United States” today.

Confessions of Reviewer #2

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch 

Mark A. Graber 

The most feared curse in the American academy is “May Reviewer #2 write your obituary, speak at your memorial service, or pen a memorial essay.”  I was the infamous reviewer #2 for Ken Kersch’s first book, Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law.  Within a few pages, I recognized that my recommendation was going to be positive.  The manuscript obviously merited publication by the best university presses in the United States.  Kersch knew stuff.  The text combined remarkable elbow grease with a sophisticated theoretical foundation.  After making a brief note that some of the jargon might be reduced, I largely stopped grading the manuscript and started learning.

Constructing Civil Liberties has much to teach.  Professor Kersch challenged the view that contemporary liberal perspectives on criminal procedure, labor, and education were products of rational neutral principles replacing formalist legal prejudices.  He scorned the Whig histories that liberals too often told of civil liberties.  Constitutional development, he demonstrated, was always just one set of contested principles replacing another.  The ancient regime was never as formalist as liberals pretended.  The liberal regime was never the product of pure reason as liberals pretended.  Politics structured criminal, labor and education policy as much when progressives controlled government as when conservatives were in charge.  The publication recommendation was easy.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: An Introduction to the Scholarship of Ken I. Kersch

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium in honor of Ken Kersch

Rogers M. Smith 

Kenneth Ira Kersch, who went by Ken, passed away on November 17, 2024, at just 60 years of age. He was Professor of Political Science at Boston College and the founding director of its Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy. Winner of multiple awards for his stellar writings on American constitutional development, Ken was a rarity in modern academia, a conservative-leaning scholar whose erudition, open-minded thoughtfulness, and warm, smiling presence won him genuine friends and admirers even among ardent liberals and progressives, as this well-deserved symposium makes abundantly clear.

Balkinization Symposium in Honor of Ken Kersch

JB

This week at Balkinization we are holding a symposium in honor of the political scientist Ken Kersch, who taught at Boston College for many years and who passed away last November. The participants are James Fleming (B.U.), Mark Graber (Maryland), Sanford Levinson (Texas), Linda McClain (B.U.), Carol J. Nackenoff (Swarthmore), Logan Sawyer (Georgia), Rogers Smith (Penn), George Thomas (Claremont College), Dennis Wieboldt (Notre Dame), and Mary Ziegler (UC Davis).

Symposium on Burning Down the House

Andrew Koppelman

The Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues has published a symposium on my book, BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE: HOW LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY WAS CORRUPTED BY DELUSION AND GREED. Thoughtful reactions from Eric Mack, Kevin Vallier, Roderick Long, Joseph Fishkin, and Rachel Lu, along with my response. When San Diego organized this book conference, I gave them the names of the people whom I was most eager to engage with, scholars I admire despite some deep disagreements. They have forced me to sharpen my own views. I am very lucky.

Abrego Garcia's Return

Gerard N. Magliocca

The upshot of this case is that presidents eventually decide that they need the good will of the courts more than they need to defy a particular court order. That realization does not always happen right away and does require prodding from diligent judges and advocates. But we're not in a constitutional crisis because the sausage takes time to make or looks unappealing during the process.  

Get a Better Source

Gerard N. Magliocca

The Government, both in the Supreme Court and today in the Ninth Circuit, cites a letter written in 1866 by Senator Lyman Trumbull to President Andrew Johnson that discussed domicile in connection with birth citizenship. The letter, as far as I can tell, was a private one. It does not reflect the original public meaning of anything. Worse still, the letter was about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

In short, why is this letter a relevant source for a court case? A scholar writing a history article or book can cite or quote private sources. I do that all the time. But not to establish a legal proposition in a brief. 

Trump’s Reconciliation Bill Goes to the Senate

David Super

      On May 22, the House of Representatives passed President Trump’s bill to slash taxes for the affluent as well as health coverage and food assistance for the poor.  The vote was 215-214.  With many Members not wanting to vote for the bill, House Republican leadership allowed two to vote “no” and three others not to vote at all.  The five include four purported “deficit hawks” and one New Yorker whose constituents will hate the bill’s cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes (SALT).  Three safe Democratic seats are vacant after seriously ill incumbents ran for re-election in November then died in office.  Had these Democrats voted, the Leadership would have had to require the abstainers to vote or forced one of the dissenters to change his vote. 

     The result was never seriously in doubt.  Despite all their posturing, House Republican “moderates” folded like a K-Mart puptent in a Category 5 hurricane.  Indeed, not only did they not win any moderation in the health care and food assistance cuts, they did not even try:  all their efforts focused on improving SALT deductions for their affluent constituents (which efforts largely fell short). 

     The “deficit hawks” apparently bought a slightly better brand of puptent but still folded quickly after Leadership inserted even more savage health care reductions.  The bill remained an extreme budget-buster.

Cleansing Public Debate

Mark Tushnet

Cohen v. California properly rejected the assertion that the government has the power to "cleanse" public debate by proscribing the public use of the word "fuck" in political expression. Private entities--newspapers, in particular--are of course different. But when they police public discussion by substituting their words for those uttered by others, which the newspaper editors believe (whether for moral or profit-related reasons) shouldn't be printed, they can distort the sense of the utterances.

Newspapers and others have developed some workarounds--"the N-word" being the most prominent, "effing" or "the F-bomb" being another, with "the C-word" and (I suspect) "the K-word" on the rise. I've commented here on a puzzle about these workarounds: It seems that the concern is not with the cognitive effects of the "proscribed" words but with something like their auditory impact. 

I'm provoked to make these comments because two separate articles in today's New York Times deliberately misquote Philip Larkin's great poem "This Be the Verse,"with its first line,"They fuck you up, your mum and dad." Both times "mess"is substituted for "fuck." In one appearance the line is set in italics, signaling that it's apparently a direct quotation, though in the paragraph following the author uses the phrase "a slightly altered version" of that line (an odd phrasing, in that "mess you up" is an altered version of Larkin's line). Good poets choose their words carefully, and Larkin's choice pretty much hits you over the head with the double meaning of "fuck you up," absent (unless I'm completely out of touch with common usage today) from "mess you up" (or at least,"not present without the reader doing a lot more cognitive work than Larkin's version requires"--I can come up with real-world settings in which "mess around" is a substitute for "fuck").

I'm willing to go with the "seven dirty words" decision on the ground that sometimes it's not nice to let small children hear the word "fuck." And, more broadly, in some social settings--family dinners being the one that comes immediately to mind--everyone should probably think twice about using the word. But in print, and in connection with public affairs, reporting that Joe Biden said that Obamacare was a "big fucking deal," not a "big effing deal," and that cabinet members and Elon Musk shouted "Fuck you" at each other, or "Fuck off," and not "Eff you," seems to me a matter about which the public probably ought to be informed directly, without weasel words.

Liberation Day From Liberation Day

Gerard N. Magliocca

The Court of International Trade held today that most of the Administration's tariffs are unlawful. The Supreme Court might as well cancel its summer vacation. Presumably, the Administration will want review on the merits quickly. A stay pending appeal is not that helpful here, as no foreign nation will negotiate on trade issues when the legality of the tariffs is doubtful.  

We'll see if this decision pries Abrego Garcia loose from El Salvador, as I speculated a few weeks ago. 

Originalism as Novelty and Our Merely De Facto President

Mark Graber

Trump under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is merely de facto president of the US. And originalism is an effort to develop a novel interpretation of the Constitution, not one faithful to history.  Click this link to find out why.

Who Will be the Executor of Humphrey's Executor?

Gerard N. Magliocca

One puzzle created by today's emergency order is that nobody now has a reason to bring the merits of overruling Humphrey's Executor to the Court. Anyone litigating this issue received a clear signal of the outcome. Why would they bring a case to the Court? Thus, it's possible that Humphrey's Executor will formally remain the law but be ignored in practice. The Court should have granted certiorari and simply overruled Humphrey's Executor on the slow-poke docket. 

A side note. This order is the first Supreme Court endorsement of central bank independence as a constitutional principle. That is no small thing, as I will explain in another post. 

Emergency Powers in a Nutshell

Gerard N. Magliocca

The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.

Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in Youngstown.

The Weapons of the Weak Before the Movement

Mark Graber

For the Balkinization symposium on Dylan C. Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (Liveright, 2023).

The rule of law provides the foundation for structuring elite domination and a forge for fashioning the weapons of the weak.  The substance of law inevitably reflects the interests and values of the lawmaking, law enforcing, and law interpreting class.  One hardly needs to be a Marxist to understand how the law of property, contract, and business associations privilege those who have property to bestow by contract or protect by incorporation.  The freedom of the press secures the rights of those who have access to a press.  Elites that govern by law nevertheless provide a pathway by which the less fortunate successfully make rights claims.  The Supreme Court vindicated Joseph Lochner’s right to work his immigrant bakers more than ten hours a day, but the same justices would have vindicated the right of those bakers to receive their contracted-for wages.  A small incorporated black church in rural 1910 Alabama had the same limited liability as U.S. Steel.

Did Race Distort the rule of Taft v. Hyatt?

Guest Blogger

Black Civil Rights and Black Corporate Rights

Guest Blogger

The Appellate Void and Trump v. CASA

Andrew Coan

At yesterday's birthright citizenship oral argument, several justices (most notably Justice Kagan) expressed concern about the appellate void I described back in March: What if the government loses in the district court or court of appeals and simply declines to appeal? In a clear-cut case, where the government loses across the board, this strategy could deprive the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction and thereby prevent the establishment of any nationally binding precedent. The government could then defy a lower court judgment, daring it to enforce contempt sanctions without the cooperation of the executive branch or backup from the Court.

In a world without universal injunctions, the government would not need to go so far as defying lower court orders to exploit this appellate void. It could comply as to the plaintiffs, while refusing to treat any adverse lower court decision as binding precedent. If all of the government's losses are in district court, as might be the case for truly clear-cut constitutional violations, those decisions would not in fact establish any precedent, since district court decisions are non-precedential. In contexts where a class action is unavailable, this would leave anyone who lacks the wherewithal to bring their own suit without a judicial remedy. For something like the birthright citizenship order, such persons could number in the millions. 

This possibility has always been the strongest practical objection to universal injunction abolitionism and the narrow, private-law model of Article III that it rests upon. But the objection carries less force in a world where the government can be counted upon to appeal its defeats, preserving the Court's power to establish nationally binding precedents that are functionally indistinguishable from universal injunctions. Yesterday, the solicitor general insisted that we still live in that world. But the justices did not seem so sure. Nor did they seem sanguine about the possibility of widespread constitutional violations falling into the appellate void.

The future of universal injunctions--and perhaps the birthright citizenship order--might turn on these questions.

Penningroth’s Achievement

Guest Blogger

The Government's "Domicile" Argument on Birth Citizenship

Gerard N. Magliocca

One thing that was clear from today's argument is that the Court will not reach the merits yet. After another argument in October, maybe. Or maybe not until the circuit courts have weighed in.

The Solicitor General mentioned today the Government's merits argument rests in large part on the claim that "subject to the jurisdiction" in the Citizenship Clause requires that the parents of the children have a domicile within the United States. That's wrong for several reasons, but here's one that relates back to an argument that I made in some earlier posts.

The children of "gypsies" were expressly mentioned as people who would get birth citizenship under the Citizenship Clause. Traditional "gypsies" did not have a domicile. Indeed, you might say that the lack of a domicile (e.g., "wandering band of gypsies") is what defined that group of people and explains why they were persecuted for centuries. You can't reconcile that with a domicile requirement for birth citizenship. 

Legal Pluralism in “Before the Movement”

Guest Blogger

For the Balkinization symposium on Dylan C. Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (Liveright, 2023).

Mark Tushnet

It’s commonplace to observe that major civil rights organizations from the 1910s to the 1960s received significant financial support from Black professionals and businesspeople who provided services to the Black community. Often that observation is coupled with comments about the ways in which that source of funding gave the organizations’ programs a middle-class tilt. And it is also sometimes coupled with the explanation: These contributors were insulated from retaliation by the white community in ways that, for example, schoolteachers, sharecroppers, and tenant farmers were not. 

Though he doesn’t focus much on the phenomenon just described, Dylan Penningroth foregrounds a deep explanation for it. Black professionals and businesspeople had the resources they did because they had ordinary contract and property rights, the same rights that whites had. And, indeed, a perhaps stronger point: The professionals among them—the barbers, dentists, and insurance agents—were often able to build their businesses because they had licenses from the white-dominated state. 

And things could have been different. Penningroth mentions an abortive effort to impose licensing requirements for washer-women in Atlanta. Professional licensing could have been administered as literacy requirements for voting were: nominally neutral as to race but in practice racially discriminatory. As I’ll argue, we can see hints of this sort of difference at several points in Penningroth’s narrative.

American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award for The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It (W.W. Norton, 2024)

Corey Brettschneider

Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places: Dylan Penningroth’s Before the Movement.

Guest Blogger

Balkinization Symposium on Dylan C. Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (Liveright, 2023).

JB

This week at Balkinization we are hosting a symposium on Dylan C. Penningroth's new book, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (Liveright, 2023).

We have assembled a terrific group of commentators, including Evelyn Atkinson (Tulane), Ian Ayres (Yale), Mark Graber (Maryland), Steve Griffin (Tulane), Carol Rose (Yale), and Mark Tushnet (Harvard).

At the conclusion, Dylan will respond to the commentators.

Review It All

David Pozen

By Katharina Pistor and David Pozen

Governance reform has become the latest flashpoint in debates over the future of Columbia. Under pressure from the Trump administration to “centralize” campus discipline and decisionmaking, our Board of Trustees has ordered a faculty-led review of the University Senate as well as a more limited, consultant-led review of its own “processes.” While we commend the project of institutional introspection, singling out academic senates for special scrutiny is a troubling development—and one that could spread far beyond Columbia unless checked. 

Academic Freedom of Law Reviews: Personal Statements Under Attack

Tom Ginsburg

 Academic freedom—classically defined as the freedom of research and teaching—is a complicated idea, and one that has come under severe attack in our era. One question that has not received much attention, is whether academic freedom applies to the student editors of law reviews. Last year, Aziz Z. Huq and I argued that it does. This is because the academic discipline of law has delegated to students its editorial judgement about what to publish. One could imagine an alternative world in which law looked more like every other discipline in the university, with journals edited by professional academics utilizing peer review to screen articles. That is not our world, in part because we think that there are pedagogical and intellectual benefits to be had from student-run journals. One consequence is that, in their exercise of editorial judgement, law review editors should be able to make their decisions independently, free from pressure by the administration or faculty.

Is the Librarian of Congress an Executive Official?

Gerard N. Magliocca

The Librarian of Congress joined the ranks of the suddenly unemployed last week. One fair question people might ask is, "Wait, didn't she work for Congress?" If so, how can she be fired by the President without cause?

Past scholarship pointed out that the Library of Congress is an unusual institution that is neither legislative or executive. The Library serves members of Congress by, in effect, providing research assistance. But it also houses the Copyright Office, which performs regulatory functions like other administrative agencies. And it's a giant library and museum for the public.

I doubt that the Librarian wields executive power that subjects her to at-will firing by the President. But we may see that tested in court soon.

UPDATE: In the long run, maybe Congress will move the Copyright Office to, say, the Department of Commerce. Then the argument that the Librarian of Congress is an executive official would be weaker. 

A Justice Souter Anecdote, or “Seeing a World in a Grain of Sand”

Mark Tushnet

Editors of constitutional law casebooks scramble at the end of each Term to edit the Court’s important opinions of the Term into a supplement available for use in the fall semester. The task is exacerbated by the Court’s tendency to clump important opinions in its last few opinion days. In the pre-electronic early 1990s the best you could do, at least if you didn’t go to the Court to pick up slip opinions, was to use the US Law Week, which typically published opinions on the day they were released and was available from the library the next day. 

The Court released its opinions in Lee v. Weisman on June 24, 1992. I edited it the next day, including substantial excerpts from Justice Souter’s concurring opinion, which offered his views on the original understanding of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. His opinion contained a footnote contrasting Thomas Jefferson’s articulated views and his practice as president. Arguing that Jefferson’s articulated views better expressed the original understanding, the footnote added after its description of Jefferson’s practice, “Homer nodded.”

How to Avoid Accountability

David Super

     The cuts and chaos generated by the Orwellian-named Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have done lasting damage to the federal government’s ability to meet the nation’s needs.  The arbitrary arrests, deportations, and renditions of immigrants and those perceived to be or associated with immigrants have both caused immense, unnecessary hardship in the short-term and debased this country’s moral authority for decades to come. 

     Yet beyond all this devastation, these actions have had an additional destructive effect:  distracting journalists and the public from transformative legislation making its way through Congress.  Even among politically engaged people, few are aware that the most important social legislation since at least the Affordable Care Act is on track to gut the most important parts of the social safety net, reverse the central achievement of the Affordable Care Act, and so vandalize our nation’s finances that major social initiatives may be effectively unaffordable for a generation to come.  This obscurity of President Trump’s “big beautiful bill” is very much part of the plan:  everything about it has been designed to remain in the shadows until it becomes too late.

Picking a Book Cover

Gerard N. Magliocca

Let me take a moment to explain why I picked this cover for my new book. I rejected a standard portrait of a Justice enrobed. Instead, this is a photo of Jackson testifying before Congress in 1937. 

With this choice, I wanted emphasize the importance of Congress in the Youngstown concurrence and in general. I also wanted to make the point that proper governance involves thought and wide consultation for what Jackson described as the necessity "the law be made by parliamentary deliberations" 

What Did “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States” Mean in the Oregon Citizenship Legislation of 1872?

Guest Blogger

Michael L. Rosin

In a recent Balkinization post Gerard Magliocca noted that he could find no example in federal law of “subject to the jurisdiction” not meaning “’subject to the law’ … or ‘subject to legal authority’ of the United States.” This post discusses the use of “subject to the jurisdiction” in an 1872 statute granting citizenship from birth. This was the first such citizenship legislation enacted into law after the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment. It demonstrates that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “subject to the legal authority of the United States.” If the phrase had meant “and not subject to any foreign power,” (the interpretation the Trump Administration gives to the phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment), the 1872 legislation would have had no effect.

The Ordinary Meaning of "Subject to the Jurisdiction"

Gerard N. Magliocca

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" appears many times in federal law. It's in the 18th Amendment. It's in a slew of federal statutes. I can find no example where the phrase is used to mean "allegiance" or any equivalent. Instead, the phrase is always used in its ordinary sense to mean that the object (either people or places) is "subject to the law" of the United States or "subject to legal authority" of the United States.

If someone can find a contrary example, I'd be interested to hear about it. 

The Big Picture

JB

The New York Times asked 35 law professors for their assessment of the constitutional situation during Donald Trump's second term in office. They got many thousands of words, which they boiled down into an op-ed that appeared this morning.

The Times ended up using only a single sentence of what I wrote. So I publish here what I originally sent them about some of the deeper causes of our current problems.

* * * * *

For the past forty or so years the United States has been descending into a deeper and deeper constitutional rot. The signs are (1) increasing polarization; (2) increasing wealth and income inequality; (3) policy disasters like the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis that convince ordinary people that their government is unconcerned with their welfare; and (4) and loss of social trust--between politicians of different parties, between the public and the political classes, and between the public and almost every institution of social life, whether it be science, medicine, the media, sports, business, or the academy. Loss of social trust is the cancer of democracies.

Birthright Citizenship and DOJ's Appellate Briefs

John Mikhail

In its appellate briefs in the birthright citizen cases making their way through the courts, the Department of Justice claims that the original meaning of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause supports President Donald Trump’s Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship to American-born children whose parents are either citizens or legal permanent residents (LPRs). Although these briefs from the government might seem at first glance to be scholarly and well-supported, a close look at them reveals that DOJ is grasping at straws. Many of the authorities on which the briefs rely are misleading or derivative, while other more pertinent sources are mischaracterized or ignored. In a post on Just Security, I discuss eight notable examples, focusing on the brief in Washington v. Trump. DOJ’s other appellate briefs seem to be virtually identical and subject to the same criticisms.