E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Following on from their triumph last term in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case), Akhil and Vik Amar have an amicus brief in this term's Moore v. United States. Petitioners in the case are shareholders in a company in India that retained and reinvested profits rather than distribute them to shareholders. A 2017 federal tax law imposes a Mandatory Repatriation Tax on the petitioners/shareholders even though (they say) their income has not been “realized.” Petitioners contend that absent income realized, the tax falls outside the Sixteenth Amendment and the Constitution therefore requires, under Article I, section 2, that the tax be apportioned, which it is not. The Amars—whose brief begins, “Most of the other briefs in this case have missed the point”—argue that everyone’s focus in Moore on the Sixteenth Amendment is misplaced because, as a matter of original public meaning, only head taxes and real-estate taxes are “direct taxes” requiring apportionment under Article I, section 2, and the MRT is obviously neither. Hylton v. United States (1796), a case that (as Akhil showed in his blockbuster book, The Words That Made Us) demands much greater attention than it has received, even from Supreme Court experts, makes a starring appearance in the brief. Principled, clear-headed, deeply-grounded, and case-shifting, the Amars’ brief is the one with which both sides--and the Court--in Moore must reckon. Stop what you are doing and read it. Read also Vik's column this week on the case.