New Book: People v. The Court by David Sloss
Michael Ramsey
Recently published: People v. The Court – The Next Revolution in Constitutional Law, by David Sloss (Cambridge Univ. Press 2025). Here is the book description from the publisher: The Constitution divides power between the government and We the People. It grants We the People an affirmative, collective right to exercise control over the government through […]
Michael Rappaport: Reconciling the Unitary Executive and the Opinions Clause
Michael Ramsey
Michael B. Rappaport (University of San Diego School of Law) has posted Reconciling the Unitary Executive and the Opinions Clause (5 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: One of the most common arguments against the unitary executive interpretation of the Constitution is that it renders the Opinions Clause redundant. This essay argues that this claim […]
Ilan Wurman on Presidential Removal Power
Michael Ramsey
At Law & Liberty, Ilan Wurman (Minnesota): Removal Power and the Original Presidency. From the introduction: Caleb Nelson has recently weighed in with a long and thoughtful blog post on the so-called unitary executive debates and whether the president of the United States has a constitutional right to remove principal executive officers. Nelson is a famous […]
New Book: “Heritage Guide to the Constitution” (3rd ed.)
Michael Ramsey
Recently published, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Third Edition (Josh Blackman & John Malcolm, eds., 2025). Here is the book description from Amazon: A Neutral and Thorough Accounting of the Constitution’s Original Meaning Over the past two decades, the federal judiciary has increasingly grounded its cases in the Constitution’s original meaning. Students, […]
Arjan Heir: Originalism’s Stare Decisis Problem
Michael Ramsey
Recently published, in the UC Law Constitutional Quarterly, Arjan S. Heir (M.Phil. candidate and Gates Cambridge Scholar, University of Cambridge; J.D., Columbia Law School): Originalism’s Stare Decisis Problem: The Place of Precedent in Theories of Interpretation (52 UC Law SF Const. Q. 263 (2025)). Here is the abstract: Originalism is a prevalent approach to legal […]
Edward Foley on Originalism and Raced-Based Districting
Michael Ramsey
At SCOTUSblog, Edward Foley: Callais, originalism, and stare decisis. From the introduction: … Today, I want to accept [Justice] Barrett’s proposition that originalism is the correct way to interpret the Constitution and consider the implication of that proposition for one of the most important cases on the court’s docket this year: Louisiana v. Callais. As […]
Orin Kerr on Originalism and Case v. Montana
Michael Ramsey
At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr: Thoughts on Case v. Montana and the Standards for the Emergency Aid Exception. From the introduction: It’s been a long, long time since the Supreme Court heard argument in a real Fourth Amendment case. This Wednesday, the Court will finally break the spell with argument in Case v. Montana. … … William Case, […]
Amanda Tyler: Levels of Generality, the Limits of Originalism, and the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Jurisprudence
Michael Ramsey
Amanda L. Tyler (University of California, Berkeley – School of Law) has posted Levels of Generality, the Limits of Originalism, and the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Jurisprudence (78 SMU L. Rev. 265 (2025)) (29 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Just how originalist is the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence after United States v. Rahimi? […]
Haley Proctor on Judges and Historians
Michael Ramsey
At SCOTUSblog, Haley Proctor (Notre Dame): Are judges good historians? From the introduction: Three years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court announced a two-step test for Second Amendment challenges. A court must first ask whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct in which the challenger wishes […]
Caleb Nelson on Executive Removal Power [Updated]
Michael Ramsey
At NYU Law’s Democracy Project, Caleb Nelson: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President’s Pleasure? From the introduction: … Aside from its provisions about impeachment … the Constitution does not specifically address the removal of officers in the executive branch (which, for this purpose, includes the enormous variety of agencies that administer an enormous variety […]