Linda Greenhouse on Clarence Thomas
Michael Ramsey
In the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse: Is Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court's Future? From the introduction: … I want to focus on Justice Clarence Thomas and specifically on the record he compiled during the past term. There is something almost discordant about including Justice Thomas in a discussion of “the future” because his highly personal […]
Amicus Brief in the CFPB Removal Power Litigation
Michael Ramsey
Ilan Wurman (Arizona State) recently filed an amici curiae brief (now posted on SSRN) on behalf of separation of powers scholars in the 5th Circuit CFPB removal power litigation, Consumer Financial Protection Board v. All American Check Cashing, Inc. I signed the brief, along with Steven G. Calabresi (Northwestern), Michael McConnell (Stanford), Saikrishna Prakash, (Virginia), Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason/Scalia) […]
Kennedy, Kavanaugh, and Recess Appointments
Mike Rappaport
The likely replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy is Brett Kavanaugh. Commentators have focused on what changes to the Court’s decisions this new appointment will make. While most Supreme Court observers focus on politically charged cases, such as cases involving abortion or affirmative action, I am very much concerned with methodology and with more mundane separation […]
Gail Heriot on Hate Crimes and the Thirteenth Amendment
Michael Ramsey
At Volokh Conspiracy, Gail Heriot (USD law/U.S. Commission on Civil Rights): Does the 13th Amendment's Ban on Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Give Congress the Power to Ban Hate Crimes? Here is the introduction: A few days ago, Peter Kirsanow and I submitted an Amicus Curiae Brief supporting the Defendant's Petition for Certiorari in Metcalf v. United States. In it, […]
William Baude & Eugene Volokh: Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment
Michael Ramsey
William Baude (University of Chicago – Law School) and Eugene Volokh (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) – School of Law) have posted Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment (132 Harvard Law Review (forthcoming 2018)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Sometimes the government compels people to pay money to organizations they oppose. A lawyer may […]
Seth Barrett Tillman: Merryman Redux
Michael Ramsey
Seth Barrett Tillman (National University of Ireland, Maynooth – Faculty of Law) has posted Merryman Redux: A Response to Professor John Yoo (22(2) Chapman L. Rev., Spring 2019, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: In a recent issue of Chapman Law Review, Professor John Yoo wrote: “While FDR did not join Lincoln’s blatant defiance in […]
Robert Natelson: “Advice” in the Constitution’s Advice and Consent Clause
Michael Ramsey
Recently published in the Federalist Society Review, Robert Natelson: “Advice” in the Constitution’s Advice and Consent Clause: New Evidence from Contemporaneous Sources (19 Fed. Soc. Rev. 96 (2018)). From the introduction: Legal commentators have spilled a fair amount of ink over the meaning of “Advice and Consent.” Some, although far from all, argue that the word […]
More on Originalism and Janus v. AFSCME
Michael Ramsey
At Balkinization, Marty Lederman: Exacerbating the real error in Abood: Is there any justification, "originalist" or otherwise, for the Court's holding in Janus that deducting agency fees abridges the freedom of speech? On the Court's thin originalist justification for its rule: Justice Alito [in the majority opinion] then simply asserts, as if night followed day, that "[c]ompelling a person […]
Aditya Bamzai: Taft, Frankfurter, and the First Presidential For-Cause Removal
Michael Ramsey
Aditya Bamzai (University of Virginia – School of Law) has posted Taft, Frankfurter, and the First Presidential For-Cause Removal (52 University of Richmond Law Review 691 (2018)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: In the fall of 1912—while one of the most consequential presidential campaigns in United States history raged around them—William Howard Taft, Felix Frankfurter, […]
More on Originalism and Birthright Citizenship
Michael Ramsey
John Eastman (Chapman) — one of the best scholars taking the limited view of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment — frames the issue well (for his side) in this post: … The language of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause contains two components. First, “all persons born . . . in the United States”; “and” […]