Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List 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 Rahman sabeel.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 Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Census Citizenship Question Re-do? Part I: Moment of Truth (and Integrity) for the Office of the Solicitor General
|
Sunday, July 07, 2019
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.
* * * *
But then suddenly, late Wednesday afternoon, July 3, Jody Hunt, the head of the DOJ Civil Division, informed Judge Hazel that everything had changed: "We at the Department of Justice have been instructed," we explained, "to examine whether there is a path forward, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census." Notwithstanding Hunt's strange use of the passive voice to obscure the identity of the official doing the "instructing," it was obvious to everyone what had happened: The President instructed DOJ [and, as it turns out, the Commerce Department] to find a path to allowing the Census Bureau to use the citizenship question, if at all possible. This was news to the lead DOJ Federal Programs lawyer in the case: "The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the President's position on this issue," he told Judge Hazel. "I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture other than what the President has tweeted." Later that day, however, that lawyer confirmed Hunt's account in a letter to Judge Furman: The Departments of Justice and Commerce have now been asked to reevaluate all available options following the Supreme Court’s decision and whether the Supreme Court’s decision would allow for a new decision to include the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census. The agencies are currently performing the analysis requested, and, if they determine that the Supreme Court’s decision does allow any path for including such a decision, DOJ may file a motion with the Supreme Court seeking further procedural guidance for expediting litigation on remand.
* * * *
First, in order to issue a new directive to the Bureau to add a citizenship question on the census questionnaire--a "new final agency action," as DOJ explained--Ross would have to rely upon a new rationale, and that rationale would have to be one (i) that neither the Constitution nor any statute prohibits; (ii) that is not "contrived," or pretextual, i.e., that reflects Ross's actual reason for acting; and (iii) that is (in the Supreme Court's words) "reasonable and reasonably explained," or "within the range of reasonable options," in light of the significant risk of a substantial diminution in census response rates that such a question will cause, and the attendant inaccuracy in the "tabulation of total population by States" that federal law requires the Department to make. That's a very tall order, at best--something I'll discuss in a follow-up post. Second, even if Ross were able to come up with a lawful rationale, and even his new directive could withstand the weeks and months of judicial scrutiny that would inevitably follow, there remains that pesky June 30 deadline. To put it bluntly: It's too late, even if they really did try to make it, because it's now impossible for the Census Bureau to change the content of the questionnaire that's already being printed. Or is it? The DOJ attorneys' representations late last week that they and Commerce are "reevaluating all available options" suggests that perhaps they do not actually believe that the deadline for changes to the questionnaire has passed. This prompted the NYIC/ACLU attorneys to file an extraordinary motion to Judge Furman late Friday, asking him to make permanent his injunction against addition of a citizenship question, based upon the numerous representations DOJ has previously made about the June 30 deadline. The plaintiffs' "motion to amend" cites chapter and verse--many chapters and many verses--of the ways in which DOJ has insisted to Judge Furman and to the Supreme Court (among others) that June 30 was a hard-and-fast deadline. The motion also explains that the courts and the parties relied upon those representations. DOJ's assertion of a June deadline was the reason that Judge Furman himself, for instance, expedited discovery, trial, and briefing schedules. "[T]ime is of the essence," he wrote, "because the Census Bureau needs to finalize the 2020 questionnaire by June of this year.” See also id. at page 191. The Solicitor General also invoked the June 30 deadline as the basis for his extraordinary request for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari "before judgment" (i.e., to take the case before the court of appeals could consider it). "[T]he Census Bureau must finalize the census forms by the end of June 2019 to print them on time for the 2020 decennial census,” the SG explained to the Court. Accord id. at 13–14 (“the government must finalize the decennial census questionnaire for printing by the end of June 2019”), id. at 16 (referring to “the June 2019 deadline for finalizing the census form”). Again in his motion for an expedited briefing and oral argument schedule, the SG told the Court that "the questions presented must be resolved before the end of June 2019, so that the decennial census questionnaires can be printed on time for the 2020 census" (emphasis added). The June 30 deadline was also an essential part of the grounds on which the government successfully urged the Supreme Court to add the Enumeration Clause question to the case well after cert. had been granted. If you want further details, go read the plaintiffs' motion. For present purposes, however, I'd like to focus on just one, very recent and especially significant example of the government's invocation of the June 30 deadline. Strangely, most of DOJ's representations to the courts about the June deadline have not explained what the source of the deadline was. Is it a legally imposed deadline? A budgetary constraint? A matter of the terms of the contract with the printer (and, if so, could the contract be amended)? Would it be technologically infeasible to complete the printing for timely distribution if the printing started later? There is, however, one important exception--a recent filing in which the Solicitor General indicated to the Supreme Court that any changes to the questionnaire after June 30 would require further congressional appropriations. On June 10, the NYIC/ACLU plaintiffs made a motion to the Supreme Court to partially remand the case back to Judge Furman for further fact-finding in the wake of newly discovered information concerning Republican political strategist Thomas Hofeller. In that motion, plaintiffs argued that such a remand would not undermine the Bureau of the Census's ability to distribute the census in a timely manner because the census questionnaire didn't have to be finalized until October 31. The basis for this assertion was this trial testimony by Bureau of Census official John Abowd: Q. [by Dale Ho, counsel for plaintiffs]: Dr. Abowd, the 2020 census questionnaire will be finalized by June of 2019, correct? A. That’s when the final artwork is due at the printers, yes. Q. With existing resources the Census Bureau can lock down the content of the census questionnaire by June 30, 2019, correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Under the current budget, if there are changes to the paper questionnaire after June of 2019, that would impair the Census Bureau’s ability to timely administer the 2020 census, correct? A. That is correct. Q. With exceptional resources, the final date for locking down the content of the census questionnaire is October 31, 2019, correct? A. That is correct. Q. Changes after October 31, 2019, would require major redesigns and might require congressional authorization, in your understanding, right, Dr. Abowd? A. That is correct.
The plaintiffs construed this testimony (see p.2 of their motion) to mean that although the cost of the printing would increase after June 30, the Bureau could use additional, already appropriated funds to pay for the extra expenses.
On June 20, mere days before the Court was expected to decide the case, the Solicitor General filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a fact-finding remand. In that filing the SG represented to the Court that there was no time for such a remand. In particular, he argued that the plaintiffs' contention that the census forms could be finalized "without additional congressional appropriations" as late as October 31 "is unsupported by the record," and that "[t]he district court thus correctly found that for all practical purposes, 'the Census Bureau needs to finalize the 2020 questionnaire by June of this year.'”
In support of these assertions, the SG cited to John Abowd's deposition, in which he attested, immediately after consulting with the Bureau's Acting Director regarding the timing question, that "[w]ith existing resources, June 30th of 2019 is the content lock-down date."
The SG thus represented to the Court that in order to change the form after June 30, "existing resources" were inadequate, and that the record did not support the view that it could be done without a further congressional appropriation.
* * * *
Judge Furman has given DOJ until this Friday afternoon to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction--a motion predicated entirely on DOJ's repeated representations that June 30 was the last possible date for a change in the form of the census questionnaire. Unless I'm missing something, there are two basic possibilities for DOJ's response: Either there are appropriated funds available for a change in the questionnaire between now and October 31--or there aren't. 1. There are no funds. DOJ might reaffirm the SG's representation that there are no appropriated funds available to make any changes in the census form now that the June 30 deadline has passed and the forms are being printed without a citizenship question. True, it's always theoretically possible Congress could enact a new appropriation that could be used to add a citizenship question. But of course everyone knows that the House will never approve such funds. So that'd be the end of the controversy, whether or not Judge Furman issues a permanent injunction. 2. Oops, turns out there are funds, after all. Alternatively, DOJ could tell Judge Furman that the SG misrepresented the facts to the Supreme Court. In order to file that sort of brief, presumably DOJ would not simply say "We lied," or "Our fingers were crossed," or "You must have misunderstood us," or "Tricked you!: We merely said that plaintiffs' view that there were funds was 'unsupported by the record'; we didn't say it was wrong!" Instead, it would have to say something such as: Yes, as we explained to the Court, three weeks ago we thought a new appropriations enactment would be necessary, but guess what?: We misunderstood what Mr. Abowd meant when he attested under oath that "[w]ith existing resources, June 30th of 2019 is the content lock-down date." Silly us: We thought by "existing resources" he meant "resources that exist." We can now represent, after further inquiries with the Census Bureau, that (who knew?!) there are available appropriations that the Bureau has authority to "repurpose" to pay for the additional expenses the Bureau would incur if it were to jettison the current print-job and order a new one before October 31.I realize that by now nothing should surprise me, but I would be shocked if DOJ filed a brief such as this, because it would have a devastating impact on the credibility of the Office of the Solicitor General with the Supreme Court. As Sam Bagenstos emphasized a few days ago, the SG's briefs and oral arguments frequently make factual representations--often without any citations to underlying documents--about what the government is doing, can do, etc. And when the SG does so, it's typically based not simply upon an interpretation by the SG of some official's deposition testimony: As anyone who's worked with OSG knows, the Office exhaustively runs the question to the ground within the relevant agencies, until it's certain it can substantiate, and thus stand behind, the representations it makes to the Court. That explains why, as Sam wrote, "the Court absolutely trusts and depends upon OSG to play it straight on such matters" and to offer accurate information. And that's exactly what the Court did here, both when it granted the government's highly unusual petition for cert. before judgment, and when it decided the case: Chief Justice Roberts himself noted in his opinion that "the census questionnaire need[s] to be finalized for printing by the end of June 2019." The Chief didn't need to defend that proposition (even though the plaintiffs disputed it), nor did he feel the need to cite any authority: It was enough that the SG said so--a representation the Chief Justice could comfortably take to the bank. That's why if DOJ now were to say, in effect, "Oh, we forgot to mention [or: "It turns out"] that the real deadline is October 31; very sorry for the oversight/misunderstanding," such a bait-and-switch would (or at least should) significantly undermine the credibility the SG has cultivated with the Court over a period of decades. Which is why, until a few minutes ago, I thought for sure they'd do the right thing on Friday and confirm that June 30 was, indeed, "the content lock-down date," just as they've been representing to the courts, counsel and the public for many months. Just now, however, DOJ announced that tomorrow (Monday) it is "shifting" the census cases "to a new team of Civil Division lawyers going forward." That's deeply concerning. It almost certainly means that some or all of the lawyers involved in the cases are unwilling to contribute to or sign briefs that will contradict the representations DOJ, and the SG, have made to the courts. (The Post story reports that the Consumer Protection Branch--which has no obvious connection to the issues in the case--will be involved, which suggests that perhaps the entire Federal Programs Branch is refusing to have anything to do with it any longer. That would be, to say the least, a troubling portent--perhaps a harbinger of indefensible arguments to come. Why Consumer Protection? Watch for the name David Morrell, recently appointed to be Deputy Assistant AAG in charge of that Branch. He clerked for Edith Jones and Clarence Thomas, then worked at Jones Day and in the White House Counsel's Office. No surprise Barr would tap him to be in charge. The interesting question is whether any career lawyers agree to participate and, as I discuss in this post, whether OSG is on-board, despite its earlier representations regarding the June 30 deadline.) [UPDATE, July 8: In an interview with the Associated Press, Attorney General Barr said the Trump administration will take some action soon that will allow the Census Bureau to ask the citizenship question: He said he believes there's “an opportunity potentially to cure the lack of clarity that was the problem and we might as well take a shot at doing that.”]
* * * *
If DOJ on Friday does an about-face and now represents that October 31 is the "real" deadline, the Department of Commerce still won't be able to include a citizenship question on the census questionnaire unless and until Secretary Ross issues a new directive, based upon a new legal--and non-contrived--rationale. Reportedly, "[c]ensus officials and lawyers at the Justice and Commerce departments scrapped holiday plans and spent their Independence Day seeking new legal rationales for a citizenship question."
In my next post, I'll examine the possible rationales that the Secretary might invoke.
Posted 10:48 PM by Marty Lederman [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |