There is a curious resolution of a civil right complaint against University of Minnesota Law School over a diversity fellowship sponsored by the law firm of Jones Day. Despite being created by a law firm and administered by a law school, the fellowship violated federal law in excluding white and male applicants. The law school finally threw in the towel, but there remains an uncertainty over whether the school is engaging in a subterfuge by opening up the scholarship while retaining its original purpose. Continue reading “Minnesota Law School Drops Exclusion of Whites and Males from Diversity Scholarship”
Category: Constitutional Law
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has blocked border enforcement by the state under Texas’s SB 4. Many of us had predicted this result given the prior precedent of the Supreme Court on the federal preemption of state immigration laws. However, the opinion also rejected the invasion theory made by states under Article 1, Section 10 and the “State War Clause.” I also previously discussed how this interpretation would fail due to the text, intent, and history of the underlying constitutional provision. Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Blocks Texas SB 4 and Rejects the Invasion Theory Under State War Clause”
Below is my column on Fox.com for the hearing this week on the corruption scandal involving the Biden family. For years, the Democrats have opposed any effort to investigate the Bidens, including as part of the current impeachment inquiry. Various members misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in saying that there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Dripping Away of the Democratic Party: Sir Thomas More and the Biden Corruption Scandal”
We previously discussed New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s effort to effectively ban guns (both open carry and concealed) with a flagrantly unconstitutional public health emergency order last year. After triggering a court fight, Grisham backed down and scaled down her order to ban concealed weapons in parks and playgrounds. The park ban was enjoined by U.S. District Kea W. Riggs as presumptively unconstitutional, leaving only a small fraction of Grisham’s original effort. Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected her bid to lift that injunction in a key decision on appeal. Continue reading “New Mexico Loses Another Key Fight Over Ban on Concealed Weapons in Public Parks”
Today is the birthday of our greatest Framer and the genius behind our Constitution: James Madison. He would have been 273 years old. We will be celebrating tonight with a traditional Virginia dinner (with the required Virginia ham), a three-layer cake, and Madison’s favorite dessert of ice cream (I recommend the tripartite Neapolitan). Continue reading “HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JEMMY!”
Below is my column in USA Today on the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to reject the disqualification of former president Donald Trump from the 2024 election. Some Democrats are now seeking to resume the effort through Congress to prevent voters from being able to vote for the leading candidate for the presidency.
Here is the column: Continue reading “A Moment of Supreme Clarity: How the Court Delivered a Blow to the Lumberjack School of Constitutional Law”
Calling it “one on a huge list of priorities,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) announced that he will be reintroducing a prior bill with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell to disqualify not just Trump but a large number of Republicans from taking office. Continue reading “Raskin and the Agents of Chaos: Democrats Prepare to Resume Disqualification Efforts in Congress”
We have been discussing the alarming shift in higher education in favor of censorship and speech regulations. These voices have been amplified on media platforms like MSNBC which has championed efforts to censor people and groups on social media and other forums. The most recent example is the interview of University of Michigan Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade by Rachel Maddow. In the interview, McQuade explains how the First Amendment is the “Achilles Heel” of the United States and why the public needs to embrace greater limitations on free speech. Continue reading “MSNBC Legal Analyst: Free Speech Could Be America’s “Achilles Heel””
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted review of the presidential immunity question, but set an expedited schedule for the review of the question with oral argument scheduled for April. Former president Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that “Legal Scholars are extremely thankful for the Supreme Court’s Decision today to take up Presidential Immunity.” As I mentioned last night in the coverage, legal scholars are hardly doing a conga line in celebration. Indeed, this morning had the usual voices attacking the Court as “craven” and partisan for granting review in the case. Despite the Court (including three Trump appointees) repeatedly ruling against Trump and conservative causes in past cases, the same voices declared that the Court was a cabal of politically compromised lickspittles.
One of the most interesting dynamics in this election is the impact of third party candidates from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Cornel West to a yet-to-be-named candidate with the No Labels ticket. Both Democratic and Republican operatives have been actively dismissing the ability of any third party candidate to win, including claims that the No Labels group has waited too long to get on ballots. I do not believe that is true. There is a path for a third party alternative to both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. However, that path is rather narrow and rocky.
President Joe Biden held a press event to brag about a major accomplishment this week. That itself is hardly surprising in an election year, but the boast itself was rather curious. In announcing the writing off of another $1.2 billion owed to the government in student loans, Biden gloated that the Supreme Court could not stop him from acting unilaterally to cancel the debt. For an Administration running on saving democracy from his political opponent, the chest-thumping brag that no one can stop him was a moment of impressive political dissonance. Continue reading ““That Didn’t Stop Me”: President Biden Brags that the Supreme Court Cannot Stop Him from Canceling Student Debt”
Below is my column in The Hill on the applicability of the 25th Amendment to remove President Joe Biden in light of the Special Counsel report detailing his “diminished faculties.” Despite the various calls for using the amendment, it is neither practically likely nor factually warranted on the basis of his report.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Can Biden Be Removed Under the 25th Amendment? Don’t Bet on It”
It has been 65 years since Hawaii became a state, but the Hawaiian Supreme Court appears to be having second thoughts. In an extraordinary ruling, the unanimous Supreme Court rejected the holdings of the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment as inapplicable to the 50th state. Hawaii apparently is controlled not by the precedent of the Supreme Court but the “spirit of Aloha.” While Queen Liliʻuokalani would be pleased, the justices on that “other” Supreme Court may view such claims as more secessional than spiritual.
This morning I will be joining the live coverage of the Supreme Court of the arguments over the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment. When I am not on air, I will be doing my usual running analysis on Twitter/X. I have been a vocal critic of the theory under Section 3 as textually and historically flawed. It is also, in my view, a dangerously anti-democratic theory that would introduce an instability in our system, which has been the most stable and successful constitutional system in the world. Continue reading “Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect”