Yesterday, the Trump Administration secured two clear victories after the United States Supreme Court issued two orders lifting the lower court injunctions imposed on the travel ban. I have written repeatedly on the travel ban (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and my view that the case law supported the Trump Administration. I thought that the appeal that reached the Supreme Court on the second round seemed likely to succeed while the third round was even stronger for the Administration. The Administration had already secured an order with the Ninth Circuit reversing the trial courts in critical respects. Now the Supreme Court restored the travel ban in its entirety pending appeal. The orders issued shortly before appellate arguments on the merits this week is a further indication that the Administration is likely to prevail on the merits. Indeed, while the orders do not dictate an outcome, they send a strong message to the lower courts on the skepticism of the Court.Continue reading “Supreme Court Reinstates The Trump Travel Ban In Full Depending Appeal”
Former Donald Trump campaign chairman 
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the case this week before the Supreme Court on cellphones and privacy. As discussed below, the government’s argument in Carpenter v. United States represents one of the greatest threats to privacy in a generation. 
Texas State University is this week’s ground zero in our campus speech debate. The most recent controversy was triggered by an 
One of our graduates on the judicial bench is in hot water this week. Justice Barbara Pariente (GW Class of 1973) is facing demands from Florida Gov. Rick Scott that she be disqualified in a case over judicial appointments due to a comment caught on a live microphone. On November 1st, Pariente was caught pointing to a document listing members of the Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission and saying “crazy.” Update: 
Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, is the latest focal point for the growing free speech crisis on college campuses. University student Lindsay Shepherd, 22, teaches tutorials on language use for first year communications students in a class called “Canadian Communication in Context”. She showed brief clip featuring psychology professor Jordan Peterson who is against forced use of genderless and “made-up” pronouns. Shepherd said that the clip spurred a lively and beneficial discussion in the class. However, one student filed a compliant and now Shepherd is facing an investigation for creating a “toxic environment” for showing the clip without publicly denouncing the views expressed in the clip. It appears that the school’s motto, 
We have hit another milestone today with over 33,000,000 views. We are also expected to reach 35,000 followers on Twitter. That hardly makes us competition for the largest sites but it is still an impressive collection of people seeking a place for civil but passionate discourse on legal and policy issues of our time (and perhaps a few wacky stories). We often use these milestones to look at the current profile of the blog and its supporters around the world.
Below is my column on the rather transparent calls for ethics investigations of Roy Moore and Al Franken despite the limited scope of potential discipline and the checkered history of congressional ethics.
Below is my column in USA Today on the plan to bar Roy Moore from taking his Senate seat, if he is elected in Alabama. For once in his checkered career, Moore would actually have the constitution on his side in challenging such efforts. Like the Kübler–Ross model of the stages of grief, the Senate may have to move from exclusion to expulsion to acceptance of a Senator Moore.
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the need to end “blue slipping” in the United States Senate. I have long criticized the “courtesy” allowing a single senator to block a nominee as inimical to our constitutional system. I have maintained this position throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations.
On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit restored the latest travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump. I previously criticized (
We 
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the allegations against Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Yesterday, the controversy surrounding the Russian dossier deepened after it was 
Ok, maybe counsel over shot the jury a bit in the trial of Senator Robert Menendez. The Senator is facing allegations of bribes from Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen ranging from luxury vacations to luxury flights to campaign contributions. After presenting a fairly complex case of gifts, influence peddling, and nuanced criminal standards, a question can back from the jury. The juror asked the judge