Why Liberals and Conservatives Flipped on Judicial Review

JB

I've posted a draft of my latest article, Why Liberals and Conservatives Flipped on Judicial Restraint: Judicial Review in the Cycles of Constitutional Time, on SSRN. This is part of a longer book I am writing on cycles of constitutional change.

Posted 6:05 PM by JB [link]

Further reflections on Super

Sandy Levinson

It is difficult not to agree with most of what David Super says in his typically thoughtful post.  We are a fundamentally divided, highly polarized country.  Most, even if not all, of the dreadful people in public office were elected in fair elections.  The most shocking single statistic is that even now, when there is shockingly little new to learn about Donald Trump (save the extent of his indebtedness to Russian financiers), at least 40% of our fellow Americans support this ignorant and malevolent lout.  I think that a fairer electoral system, including one that dispensed with the indefensible allocation of voting power in the Senate (even if it allows Vermont's two Democratic senators to cancel out Texas's two Republican ones), would produce a different distribution of votes, but that wouldn't gainsay David's basic point that even the fairest election process would produce a number of victors most of us should be appalled by.  (It is certainly possible, for example, that the truly despicable Mitch McConnell will win re-election next year.)  There is no magic fix, including what could be produced by constitutional reformers, for our present discontents.

That being said, it will not surprise David, or others, that I persist in my support for a new convention largely because I find the alternative--which is basically a national silence on the extent to which our basic political system is dysfunctional--so dispiriting.  I have frequently attacked Bernie Sanders, the faux-revolutionary, for leading his impressionable supporters to believe that he could do almost magical things should he win the presidency.  That is patently false, but he refuses even to bring up the way that the system was rigged in 1787 (perhaps because he'd have to explain why Vermont enjoys indefensibly exaggerated power in the Senate).  The catch-22 is that the left almost resolutely refuses to even raise the issue of constitutional reform.  The American Constitution Society, which I have somewhat devotedly supported, has never once encouraged its membership even to think about the possibility.  Paradoxically or not, it is the ostensibly originalist  Right, including Texas's Gov. Greg Abbott, that is suggesting the need for serious reform.  The left has become paralyzed with fear that the Right might be successful in triggering a so-called Article V Convention.  All we seem able to do is to say, quite correctly, that the Right envisions a takeover by conservative (or ultra-conservative) state-appointed delegates who would return us to something close to the Articles of Confederation (save for a dictator-like president in the realm of foreign and military policy).

From my perspective, we have a "left" that is scared to death of the possibility of an aroused public.  It would be foolish to deny that there is some basis for this fear, given events not only in this country, but around the world with what has become labeled "populism."   I don't know how one builds the kind of movement that both David and I believe is desperately necessary without conveying a genuine respect for the ability of ordinary Americans to engage in self-government.  Lincoln spoke of government "of, by, and for the people."  Liberals are terrific at the last, i.e., support for programs that experts believe will in fact help the people.  I fear that we are less terrific in genuinely supporting the second term, i.e., government by the people.  (Among other things, this would suggest a greater support than one usually finds for so-called "direct democracy," including initiative and referenda.)  

The gerrymandering case could turn out to be valuable if it really does lead liberals, including the American Constitution Society, to give up their faith (the "hollow hope"?) in the judiciary to provide cures for what ails us as a polity.  As Roberts himself noted, contradicting his terrible dissent in the Arizona electoral commission case, a number of states do allow their citizenry to seize control of the redistricting project away from self-interested party hacks.  But, of course, many states--and, most importantly, the U.S. as a national polity--are hostile to the idea of an awakened popular sovereign.  We prefer what Thomas Hobbes called the "sleeping sovereign" that puts all actual decision-making power in the hands of so-called "representatives" who may or may not fit any truly plausible theory of "representation" save the ability to prevail in dubious electoral processes.

Out debate would be very different, of course, is Democratic candidates were in fact willing to suggest certain kinds of "ordinary" constitutional reform as part of their platforms.  A convention would obviously be an extreme event (at least at the national level), and it is foolhardy to believe that it would necessarily be efficacious.  My favorite presidential campaign of all time occurred in 1912, because both Wilson and Roosevelt (and, I suspect Debs), were serious constitutional reformers, while William Howard Taft was by far one of the most capable defenders of the established order.  Not coincidentally, the decade of the teens saw a variety of genuinely important amendments through the Article V process.  That discussion is totally absent today, save for some almost offhand comments about reforming the Electoral College, which is really low-hanging fruit inasmuch as every single public opinion poll since 1944 has shown that a majority of the respondents supported getting rid of it in favor of direct election.

Imagine that your favorite  Democratic candidate--mine is Elizabeth Warren--is inaugurated on January 20, 2021, with Nancy Pelosi (or your own favorite Democratic replacement) taking the gavel as Speaker of the House, but with Mitch McConnell remaining as the Senate Majority Leader with, say, 51 or 52 votes.  Does a single reader believe that President Warren would be able to get a scintilla of her program through Congress?  Can one even be confident that her nominees to replace Ginsburg and Breyer would get hearings, let alone confirmation?  What would it take to lead more sober and thoughtful people than I, like David, to declare that Congress as an institution had in fact become "illegitimate"?  What would follow from such a declaration is, of course, an entirely different question.



Posted 11:05 PM by Sandy Levinson [link] (140) comments

Can the House Hold the President in Contempt?

Gerard N. Magliocca

The House of Representatives has a broad inherent contempt power. The Supreme Court so held in Anderson v. Dunn, an 1821 decision. The Court concluded that the House could hold a non-member in contempt even though no textual provision grants that authority.  In reaching that conclusion, Dunn said that the argument that "such an assembly should not possess the power to suppress rudeness, or repel insult, is a supposition too wild to be suggested."

I submit that the President's recent comments are an insult to the House of Representatives. Under Article I, that body has the authority and the right to respond. The response could, of course, be a simple statement that condemns the comments. Under the inherent contempt power, though, I think that the House could go further by (for instance) declaring the President persona non grata within the House chamber. The House is obviously not going to clap the President into some makeshift Capitol jail, but a far more modest sanction seems appropriate.

If a member of the House had made comments about other members comparable to the President's recent comments, there would be a serious discussion about censuring or punishing that member. Why not here?
Posted 3:27 PM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link] (82) comments

Practical and Idealistic Themes in Political Reform

David Super

Posted 2:13 PM by David Super [link]

What's newsworthy, or important, about the President's racist tweet-storm? (Short answer: It's not anything about Trump himself.)

Marty Lederman

As I'm sure you've all heard by now, the President of the United States issued a series of grotesque, race-baiting, xenophobic (not to mention factually inaccurate) tweets this morning.

Of course he did.  After all, it's a day of the week ending in "ay."

As horrifying as this is, it isn't news.  Nor does it tell us a single thing that everyone didn't already know about Trump, the audience to whom he addressed his bile, and the 40+ percent of the electorate who will vote for him again no matter what he does.  (Are you surprised in the least that the reaction on FoxNews was gleeful?)

So it's not an especially important or revealing incident, in and of itself.

What is important--although also, sad to say, hardly groundbreaking--is that not a single one of the 250 Republican members of Congress, nor anyone who has served in Trump's Administration, will publicly acknowledge that this behavior demonstrates Trump's patent unfitness to hold the highest office in the land (or any office, for that matter).  Indeed, very few of the 250 (any?) will so much as criticize the tweets, or call them what they are.

Why should this day be any different?  They were silent when his response to a plausible allegation of rape was "She's not my type."  They were silent when he cozied up to and coddled autocrats such as Orban, Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jong Un and bin Salman.  They were silent when he refused to allow anyone in his administration to be privy to his discussions with the Russian President.  They were silent when he--repeatedly--spewed outrageous calumnies against countless dedicated, talented and patriotic officials in the Intelligence Community, DOJ and the FBI.  They were (mostly) silent when he mocked John McCain for having been captured in Vietnam; when he referred to "blood coming out of her wherever" when speaking of Megyn Kelly; when he sneered at Khizr and Ghazala Khan; when he claimed that thousands ofNew Jersey Muslims cheered the 9/11 attacks and then openly mocked Serge Kovaleski's disability when the reporter called out his lies.  They were silent when the Mueller Report described a series of self-interested violations of his constitutional duties and well-established norms in an effort to undermine the most important counterintelligence investigation of a generation.  They were silent when he gave an Independence Day speech in which he described the Continental Army as "seiz[ing] victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown," "ramm[ing] the ramparts," taking over the airports, and then watching the star-spangled banner "wave[] defiant” at dawn.

The list, of course, goes on . . . and on, and on, and on.  "Grab 'em by the pussy."  "There are very fine people on both sides."  "Shithole countries."  Ad nauseam.  When one's project is (apparently) to lower the bar each and every day, there's no shortage of evidence of this vile man's unfitness for office and degradation of public discourse.  Every reader of this blog could easily identify another dozen or more examples.

There was a day (or so I'd like to think) in which there would have been a consensus outcry, among virtually all public officials and figures, and virtually all commentators, writers and even, yes, academics, no matter their partisan affiliations, that each and every one of these things was beyond the pale--that any single one of them obviously rendered Trump unfit for office.  Today, however, there's virtual silence from Republicans in power, and the intellectual and political classes that support them, as the deviancy is defined downward repeatedly.  (Indeed, even former President Bush and serious individuals who've worked for Trump and seen the deviancy up close--think Mattis/McMaster, et al.--hold their tongues.)  It's not Trump's behavior itself that's "normalized" the unthinkable--it's the utter absence of any concerted, bipartisan outrage and alarm in response.

To be sure, there are a handful of brave exceptions, most of whom are employed by or write under the aegis of the Washington Post, Lawfare or "Checks & Balances," such as Max Boot, George Conway, Jennifer Rubin, Peter Keisler, Jack Goldsmith, Anne Applebaum, Don Ayer (if you haven't already read it, check out this recent, extraordinary piece by Ayer, a man of great integrity who fears for what his nation and party have become), Charles Fried, Michael Gerson, and a few others.  They deserve our deep respect.  [UPDATE:  Here's the "Checks & Balances" statement "on President Trump’s Racist Tweets."  Just about pitch-perfect, as ever (although I would have liked them to say out loud what's implicit--namely, that the conduct demonstrates unfitness for office).]

This list, however, unfortunately does not go on and on.  It consists of only a handful of "Never-Trumpers" who could (and have) fit comfortably into David Frum's foyer.  And however large this group might be, they have no political constituency within the Republican Party.  The one elected GOP member of Congress who's had the temerity to call Trump's tweets this morning for what they were--"racist and disgusting"--is, not surprisingly, no longer welcome in the Party.  Sadly, it's undeniably true that "[a]mong conservatives, NeverTrumpism is already a fringe and irrelevant movement."
Meanwhile, many officials and lawyers in the Executive branch--including a significant number who are likely horrified by Trump's racialist words and agenda--continue to work assiduously to "cure" the President's policies of discriminatory taint by dressing them up in facially nondiscriminatory dress.  And several Justices of the Supreme Court--sometimes even a majority--will, in at least some important cases (e.g., Trump v. Hawaii; Thomas's dissent in the census case), ignore what everyone knows to be the truth:  They will, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts in the census case, "exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,”  and defer to the pretextual bases that the professional lawyers have conjured to defend the policies in question, no matter how ugly their obvious genesis or what function they play with Trump's intended audience.  [UPDATE:  And then, once the Court has deferred to the President, those same executive branch lawyers and officers reflexively assume that's a green light to implement what they know to be unlawfully motivated policies, when in truth it should be anything but--their oath should compel them, in that case, to smoke out the President's manifestly illegitimate motives (cf. Sally Yates).  As Professors Aleinikoff and Pillard wrote in 1998, “[i]f the political branches parrot the courts’ lenient scrutiny, everyone has deferred to everyone else, and nobody has done the full-fledged constitutional analysis.”  The Court’s deference to the President “does not give the political branches a blank check to do as they please, but leaves them with a special responsibility to comply with constitutional norms in view of a diminished judicial backstop.”  I discussed this question in greater detail here in the wake of the Court's decision in the Travel Ban case.]

To reiterate:  By now none of this is newsworthy.  It's our new normal.

So why do I bother writing about it?  Mostly to lament something else we've all known for quite a while, even if we're understandably reticent to acknowledge it and say it aloud because it's so deeply disconcerting--namely, that our revered institutions are not, and will not be, bulwarks against what was once unthinkable.  And therefore the answer to "Can It Happen Here?" is now also manifest, unequivocal . . . and terrifying:  Of course it could--probably with barely a whimper, and with the acquiescence (or worse) of the entirety of one of our major political parties and a significant minority of Americans.  If virtually no one in the GOP so much as objects to Trump's litany of outrages, is there any reason to think a majority of that Party would suddenly put principle and the Nation's well-being ahead of partisan advantage if the authoritarian winds sweeping over Europe and other places in the world arrive at our shores?


Posted 9:01 PM by Marty Lederman [link]

Florida's New Poll Tax

Guest Blogger

Read more »
Posted 5:50 PM by Guest Blogger [link]

Why are we so docile as a polity? Reflections on David Super's post

Sandy Levinson

David Super's post, immediately below, is extremely important, at least as much, if not demonstrably more so, than any of my posts (or that of others) engaging in quasi-Talmudic exegesis of recent Supreme Court opinions.  As Fred Schauer demonstrated more than a decade ago, the Court has relatively little to say about the problems that most concern the majority of American citizens.  If one believes, as I do, that climate change is increasingly an existential challenge, it is absolutely necessary (and proper) for Congress to act.  The Court is a distinctly peripheral player.

So my question, which is entirely serious, is why the American public is so remarkably docile in the face of a legislative system that is, depending on one's own analysis, "broken," utterly "corrupt," "gridlocked," or otherwise incapable of responding to the challenges facing us as a republic, wherever one is on the ideological spectrum.  According to the latest Economist/YourGov poll, as listed in Realclearpolitics.com, 15% of the public "approves" of Congress, while 55% "disapprove."  Other polls, no doubt, would show some variation, but there is no reasonable perception that Congress enjoys the "approval" or even respect of the country at large.  This is a serious problem for any country that claims to be a representative democracy or to operate under a Republican Form of Republican.

Those some of us venerate as our "founders" engaged in truly active protest against what was described as the "illegitimate" system imposed on the colonists by the British.  The Boston Tea Party, of course, is the most dramatic single instance, though there were many others (including the burning down of Thomas Hutchinson's home in Boston).  1787, was, among other things, a dramatic repudiation of the "imbecilic" government established by the Articles of Confederation and the response of what Michael Karman describes as a "coup" by those in Philadelphia and the delegates at the various state conventions.

So the (altogether) serious questions for David and anyone else who is appalled by what he accurately describes as our basically somnolent Congress (save for the Senate's packing the judiciary with right-wing Republicans) are 1) whether the Congress should be frankly assessed as fundamentally "illegitimate" (especially if we add to the analysis the obscene roll played by money in determining who can, as a practical matter, participate in national-level politics); and 2) what is to be done?  Is it is some sense a fundamental error to continue to organize marches against Donald Trump, as truly egregious and march-worthy as he is, instead of organizing marches against Congress?  I believe that Jack agrees with my argument, set out in our new book Democracy and Dysfunctioni, that we would be fundamentally just as depressed had Hillary won, given the self-evident truth that she would be unable to get anything significant through Congress (especially if we assume, as we must, that even had she won the Senate would continue to be controlled by the awful Mitch McConnell).  (And, in addition, had she won we would be looking forward, as it were, to a Republican sweep in 2020, probably following devastating election defeats in 2018 by an invigorated GOP running against a demoralized Democratic Party.)

It's relatively easy to imagine organizing against a despicable president.  By definition, he can be personalized, and one can call not only for defeat at the next election, but even for impeachment sooner than that.  It's far harder to imagine organizing against Congress.  Mitch McConnell is indeed despicable, and everyone should be contributing to his opponent, but we should face the fact that even his removal would not solve the problems created in 1787.  Bernie, for example, is entirely unlikely to note that there is no defense for his and Patrick Leahy's having equal voting power to Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, even if most readers of Balkanization applaud that in the present situation.  Even if the filibuster is eliminated, as is increasingly being suggested, should Democrats retake the White House and Senate, in order to confront problems dealing with climate change, there is no reason at all to expect that the Democratic senators from the small coal-producing states like Montana and West Virginia will enlist in the necessary "war against coal" and in favor of renewable energy.  Do we really expect a Democratic Senator from Kentucky to do so?

David, of course, has consistently been a critic of my call for a new constitutional convention (as is true of most of my friends, family, and professional colleagues).  But, still, the question remains:  Is our only alternative to engage in "thought and prayer" when confronted with the horrible reality of the contemporary Congress (which obviously consists of both a House and a Senate)?  Or should we be thinking more imaginatively of new means of protest and direct action with regard to those who purport to govern us?
Posted 3:05 PM by Sandy Levinson [link] (95) comments

What is Congress Doing?

David Super

Posted 11:43 AM by David Super [link]

Gibberish in Supreme Court opinions:: Given that John Roberts is scarcely stupid, what explains the stupidity of part of his opinion in Rucho?

Sandy Levinson

Posted 4:06 PM by Sandy Levinson [link] (164) comments

Dear Judges Elrod, Engelhardt and King: Please Don't Confirm the Preposterous Reading of Section 5000A of the ACA

Marty Lederman

Read more »
Posted 10:08 AM by Marty Lederman [link]

Gerrymandering and the State Courts

Guest Blogger

Philip Bobbitt

Without getting into the merits of the North Carolina gerrymandering case, or the arguments presented in the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts for the majority, the way forward to curb this insidious practice seems clear.  In some states, of course, the electoral process itself will correct matters because the population is disgusted by attempts to rob it of its birthright as citizens and voters in a democracy.  But in some states the very success of partisan gerrymandering will make remedies by the state legislatures difficult to achieve.

Posted 9:30 AM by Guest Blogger [link]

Ideology, Not Republican Politics, Makes John Roberts Run – Again

Guest Blogger

Simon Lazarus
Read more »
Posted 8:30 AM by Guest Blogger [link]

The Census and Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment

Gerard N. Magliocca

In today's Wall Street Journal, David Rifkin and Gilson Grey have an op-ed arguing that Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment gives the President the authority to put a citizenship question on the census form. I have some expertise on this subject, as I wrote an article last year on the relationship between Section Two, the Census, and congressional reapportionment.

Rifkin and Grey are half-right. Section Two does give the President the authority to add a citizenship question, but only if the information required by Section Two about voting rights is also solicited. The model is the 1870 Census, which asked all of questions posed by Section Two. Rifkin and Grey are instead saying that one part of Section Two (citizenship) is mandatory while the other parts (on the denial or abridgment of suffrage) are optional. That cannot be right. They stand and fall together. (Indeed, their quote from John Bingham on Section Two confirms this point.)

Another problem, of course, is that they only thought of this argument today. The Government will be hard pressed under the APA to use Section Two as a lawful justification now. (Alas, neither the DOJ nor the Commerce Department ever cited my paper or asked me about the analysis.)

So nice try, but no cigar.
Posted 10:23 AM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link] (122) comments

Census Citizenship Question Re-do? Part I: Moment of Truth (and Integrity) for the Office of the Solicitor General

Marty Lederman

On Thursday, June 27, the Supreme Court held that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's March 2018 order, directing the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire, "rested on a pretextual basis," i.e., that it "cannot be adequately explained in terms" of the "sole stated reason" Ross offered--a purported request by the Department of Justice "for improved citizenship data to better enforce [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act]."  "Our review is deferential," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, "but we are 'not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.'" (quoting Judge Henry Friendly).  For a court to "[a]ccept[] contrived reasons" for an agency action, he explained, would "defeat the purpose of the enterprise" of administrative law and render judicial review no "more than an empty ritual."

The Court therefore affirmed Judge Jesse Furman's "remand" of the Ross directive back to the Secretary.

There's been some confusion about what it means to "remand" a directive back to the agency in this context.  Here, because Judge Furman also vacated the Secretary's directive (a vacatur the Supreme Court did not reverse), his additional "remand" order that the Supreme Court affirmed did not have much, if any, legal effect, as Judge Furman himself explained:

[I]t is not entirely clear what it would mean to refrain from remand in the circumstances of these cases.  By analogy to appellate litigation, a remand is arguably necessary to restore an agency's “jurisdiction” where an adjudicatory decision or formal rulemaking was under review.  Here, by contrast, Secretary Ross's “jurisdiction” over the 2020 census has presumably continued unabated throughout this litigation, and his ongoing obligation to execute his statutory duties with respect to the census will survive whatever remedy the Court orders.  Put differently, it is hard to see how the Court's decision whether or not to “remand” in these cases could affect the Secretary's ongoing statutory authority over the form and content of the census questionnaire.  Having said all that, and if only to avoid confusion, the Court will “remand” the case to the extent that such an order is necessary to restore the Secretary's jurisdiction over the census questionnaire.  It goes without saying that such remand is limited to further action not inconsistent with the Court's Orders.

In other words, the remand simply confirmed that "Secretary Ross retains the same statutory authority over the census that he had before the Court’s decision today, provided (as always) that he exercises it consistent with the APA and applicable law (and the Court’s order)."

That's how the government is (appropriately) interpreting the vacatur and remand, too (especially when read alongside Judge Furman's preliminary injunction against adding a citizenship question).  As DOJ lawyers told the Judge last Wednesday:  "Defendants can confirm that they are taking no action in contravention of the injunction of this Court, which vacated the Secretary’s March 2018 decision to place a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census, and which was affirmed in relevant part by the Supreme Court and remains in place to protect the interests of Plaintiffs in this matter."  Similarly, they wrote to Judge Hazel in Maryland on Friday that "the permanent injunction precluding the Commerce Department from 'implementing Secretary Ross’s March 26, 2018 decision and from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census,' remains in place."  (The way one DOJ attorney put the point to Judge Hazel on Wednesday is that Ross's "basis for the citizenship question is firmly enjoined, vacated, and does not exist.")

And so that ought to be the end of the matter, right?  Because even though Judge Furman and the Supreme Court nominally remanded the directive back to Secretary Ross, where he was free, at least in theory, to begin anew (i.e., to issue a new directive with a new rationale), the Department of Justice--including the Solicitor General--has repeatedly insisted to courts that last Sunday, June 30, was a hard deadline for finalizing the form of the census questionnaire.  Indeed, the Department of Justice represented to the courts that the form of the questionnaire could not be changed after June without an additional appropriation of funds--something that's obviously not going to happen.  (More on this June deadline issue below.)

Not only didn't Secretary Ross promulgate any new directive by June 30, but there was never any chance the Census Bureau might add the citizenship question to the census form by then--or any time soon thereafter.  As DOJ wrote to Judge Hazel on Friday, "any new decision by the Department of Commerce on remand providing a new rationale for reinstating a citizenship question on the census will constitute a new final agency action," and plaintiffs would be "fully entitled to challenge that decision at that time," followed by extensive discovery, perhaps trials, briefing, and several layers of judicial review.

And so, not surprisingly, by Tuesday, July 2, it appeared that the Commerce and Justice Departments had given up the ghost:  They'd determined that there was no way for Secretary Ross to promulgate another, new directive, supported by a new, supportable, not-contrived rationale--or, at the very least, that he couldn't do so now that the hard deadline had come and gone.  And DOJ officials reportedly "told the White House that the case was a dead-end and that pursuing it would be a waste of time."  Thus, late Tuesday afternoon, Department of Justice attorneys "confirmed" to counsel for the challenging parties in the New York case "that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process.”  Later that evening, another DOJ lawyer told Judge Hazel, in the District of Maryland, the same thing, and confirmed that the printer is now at work creating the questionnaire sans citizenship question.

Read more »
Posted 10:48 PM by Marty Lederman [link]

The Evenwel Gambit

Joseph Fishkin

I’m as surprised as everyone else that over the past 24 hours the Administration decided to flipflop, in such wildly Trumpian fashion, on whether to keep fighting to add a citizenship question to the Census. Our government’s clown show approach raises the usual questions of whether it is better or worse to temper malevolence with incompetence. (The Census fight seems to be one of those instances where the incompetence helpfully undermines the malevolence, rather than compounding it; other examples point the other way.)
Read more »
Posted 12:23 AM by Joseph Fishkin [link]

LGBT discrimination is still sex discrimination

Andrew Koppelman

Posted 7:24 PM by Andrew Koppelman [link]

Epistemic Closure at the Supreme Court

Mark Tushnet

Posted 4:59 PM by Mark Tushnet [link]