Jonathan H. Adler
banner
jadler1969.bsky.social
Jonathan H. Adler
@jadler1969.bsky.social

Father, Husband, W&M LawProf, guy with opinions; @chkbal co-founder;
@volokhc.bsky.social contributor;
Law before policy before politics;
Philly sports always;
'the cowbell of Twitter'-N. Schulz
typos are part of the brand. .. more

Jonathan H. Adler is a conservative American legal commentator and law professor at William & Mary Law School. He has been recognized as one of the most cited professors in the field of environmental law. His research is also credited with inspiring litigation that challenged the Obama Administration's implementation of the Affordable Care Act, resulting in the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell. .. more

Economics 28%
Law 23%

Reposted by Scott A. Imberman

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but when a govt agent kills someone, I don't think gov't officials should make public statements about the lawfulness or justification of the killing prior to an actual investigation.

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler

NEW: The Supreme Court grants review in several new cases.

These (and likely next week’s grants) will be heard this term. Grants after that, unless expedited, will be heard sometime in the term that starts in October 2026.

What could go wrong?

Worthwhile thread
Pretty sure I'm one of the folks Mark's subtweeting. While I don’t feel compelled to respond, this actually provides a beautiful lesson for how academics and other serious observers might think about engaging with the Court and law. (thread)
There's a rising faction of the legal academy that stays quiet when their MAGAdemic colleagues produce fraudulent psuedo-scholarship in service to the cruelest aspects of Trump's agenda ... then leap in to police the discourse when their progressive colleagues criticize those MAGAdemics too bluntly.

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler

NEW: An ICE officer killed a person in broad daylight in Minneapolis today — with posted video appearing to contradict the DHS statement claiming self-defense, as the driver appeared to be attempting to drive away when shot.

MPR: www.mprnews.org/story/2026/0...

Video: bsky.app/profile/dani...
Pretty sure I'm one of the folks Mark's subtweeting. While I don’t feel compelled to respond, this actually provides a beautiful lesson for how academics and other serious observers might think about engaging with the Court and law. (thread)
There's a rising faction of the legal academy that stays quiet when their MAGAdemic colleagues produce fraudulent psuedo-scholarship in service to the cruelest aspects of Trump's agenda ... then leap in to police the discourse when their progressive colleagues criticize those MAGAdemics too bluntly.

I've written up some of my concerns with the study.
reason.com/volokh/2026/...
Does the Supreme Court Favor the Rich?
Today's New York Times reports on a new study by three economists purporting to show that the Supreme Court's decisions are…
reason.com

Just when you think RFK cant be any worse . . .

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler

The wildfire disaster caused billions in losses, and many homeowners are still waiting for insurance payouts and permits to rebuild. on.wsj.com/3Z2Xs84
A Year After Fires, L.A.’s Rocky Recovery Is Shaped by Wealth, Insurance and Red Tape
The wildfire disaster caused billions in losses, and many homeowners are still waiting for insurance payouts and permits to rebuild.
on.wsj.com

As always, it's compared to what.

Pretty close

I'm a big fan.

Because collective forms of decision-making can never reveal and actualize preferences?

You're attributing to me positions I have not taken in this context.

No.

About that NYT story on SCOTUS favoring the rich

I've learned quite a bot from legal scholars (incl. Some you mention), as well as from working on tribal cases, from seminars and empirical working these subjects, and time in and around reservations. Again, my focus is on institutional arrangements, not selecting particular voices.

It's not about anointing one set of perspectives but rather aspiring toward a set of institutional arrangements that will allow the relevant preferences to be revealed actualized in practice.

Yeah, the problem here is deeper though. Even on its own terms, this study is a mess.
reason.com/volokh/2026/...
Does the Supreme Court Favor the Rich?
Today's New York Times reports on a new study by three economists purporting to show that the Supreme Court's decisions are…
reason.com

More like: "I want you to have the autonomy and ability to pursue your own interest as you conceive of it."

I am very much so interested. I don't presume that public law scholars in the field are necessarily representative of such perspectives, or that the trust relationship s a good means of empowering or operationalizing those perspectives.

If you know my work, whether it aligns with the extant consensus in a field has never been a driving factor.

Well, that's part of the explanation.

That's probably the best way to do it, but either would likely be an improvement over the status quo. (PERC used to do a bunch of empirical work tjat bears on these questions.)

And how do you propose to make that happen?

I agree Calabresi should not have overlooked tribal lands, but they account for less than 10 percent of federal lands, so I dont think it affects his larger point. Federal land management has not been a good thing. Nor jas the trust relationship, in practice.

I think the trust relationship has been disastrous. I think giving tribal land back to tribes, for real, and letting them determine how to apportion, allocate, manage, etc would be an improvement, but obviously the details matter.

Individual title is not the only form property rights can take.