Today is the 112th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v. New York. Never has the republic needed the type of judicial engagement that was on display in Lochner more than it does today. Professor Barnett explains.
These views are mine alone, but they should be yours, too.
Not only are the three DAs’ concessions substantive and meaningful in their respective counties, the stipulations they put into the record, although legalistically drafted, are all but concessions that they were on the losing side of the merits of the case. (Keep reading)
In the following open letter to my new congressman, Rep. Mark Green, I explain why I think it is important for him to cosponsor and vote for passage of Rep. Justin Amash’s Ending Qualified Immunity Act. Thank you for reading. (Keep reading)
As long as a court can conceive of a justification for some challenged laws, then it will decline to intervene. This conceivable justification does not have to be a good one, and the government does not even have to offer, much less prove, one! This is an extremely deferential, pro-government standard of review. (Keep reading)
I founded my website on this day, Constitution Day, in 2010, but I shuttered it four years ago when I went to law school. Now, I’m moving on to the next chapter of my professional life, so I’m going to try to write somewhat regularly again. (Keep reading)
That’s the title of a scholarly article I wrote as a third-year law student that the Oregon Law Review published, and which was cited approvingly in a federal court case, earlier this year. (Keep reading)
Today is the 112th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v. New York. Never has the republic needed the type of judicial engagement that was on display in Lochner more than it does today. Professor Barnett explains.
Senate Republicans did not “steal” a seat from Merrick Garland, President Obama, or the Democrats. They simply declined to consider him at all, which they are well within their prerogative to do under the Constitution. (Keep reading)
The “original public meaning” philosophy of interpreting the Constitution is quite different from interpretation based on the original “intent of the Founders.” (Keep reading)
I have joined a legion of other advocates of the freedom to marry in an amicus curiae brief to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow. (Keep reading)
Getting excited about stuff like this only adds volume to the steady drumbeat between my ears that keeps telling me I should have pulled the proverbial trigger and gone to law school upon completing my undergraduate work. (Keep reading)