Below is my column in the Hill on the effort to declare an “invasion” along the Texas border to allow the state to take greater control along the border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. This week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an order allowing Texas law enforcement to return illegal immigrants apprehended in the state back to the U.S. border. The Biden Administration has already indicated that it will oppose such efforts. Whether such state enforcement is constitutional will be hashed out in the courts in light of the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States.  Texas can legitimately raise the obligations of the federal government to protect the border under Article IV and even refer to this influx as an invasion in the colloquial sense. However, the argument that it constitutes an invasion in the constitutional sense would not be a compelling argument in federal court.

Here is the column:

Continue reading “Invasion or Evasion? Crisis at the Border is a Political, not a Constitutional Problem” →

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent cancel campaign targeting Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. It was always doubtful that a law school would take the unprecedented step of barring a sitting Supreme Court justice. However, the decision to stand with free speech and academic freedom was still a refreshing departure from the trend toward increasing viewpoint intolerance and orthodoxy. The problem is that most targets of these campaigns have neither the status nor the day job of a Supreme Court justice. Most do not have the option of securing a seat on the Supreme Court to guarantee their free speech and academic freedom. For every Thomas, there are a thousand other “contingency professors” who have little protection or expectation in the current intolerant environment.

Here is the column:

Continue reading “Doubting Thomas: Why The Failure to Cancel a Supreme Court Justice May Not Mean Much for Other “Contingent” Faculty” →