Jake Charles
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social
Law prof, Pepperdine Law; Affiliated Scholar, Duke Center for Firearms Law. I write about constitutional law, especially the Second Amendment.
Bio: https://t.co/yVUcs14NoK
Papers: http://bit.ly/3HleQND
Bio: https://t.co/yVUcs14NoK
Papers: http://bit.ly/3HleQND
Pinned
Very excited that @gelbach.bsky.social & I will be publishing "Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem" in the @uchilrev.bsky.social!
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
For my new project I'm in that exciting phase where I set what seem like impossible research goals. Right now it is to review all 1,840 law review articles that cite Dames & Moore. Fun stuff!
February 18, 2026 at 5:13 PM
For my new project I'm in that exciting phase where I set what seem like impossible research goals. Right now it is to review all 1,840 law review articles that cite Dames & Moore. Fun stuff!
Imagine being the lawyer who’s gotta stand up in court and say “about 54 times, your honor—give or take”
NEW: DOJ told a judge in New Jersey that it had violated court orders about 54 times between Dec. 5 and this week — the latest accounting of a phenomenon that used to be rare and is now rampant. www.politico.com/news/2026/02...
February 18, 2026 at 4:41 PM
Imagine being the lawyer who’s gotta stand up in court and say “about 54 times, your honor—give or take”
Reposted by Jake Charles
CA3 issued a fascinating opinion last week on the interplay between the first amendment and computer code in the context of 3d printing firearms. Seems like a more competent lawyer could have put together a complaint that actually passed muster.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov
February 18, 2026 at 2:59 PM
Okay is this is quite different (bc of all the pure hackery), but when I was a baby attorney, the DC US attorney office was also pretty reticent to tell us the charge for which they were investigating our clients — for that reason, one of my 1st assignments was writing a memo on all the potentials.
Appalling: During Trump's effort to indict Dems for the video warning against carrying out illegal orders, one of their lawyers asked prosecutors to say what statute was allegedly violated, I'm told. They failed to name one. Then they tried to indict anyway.
New:
newrepublic.com/article/2066...
New:
newrepublic.com/article/2066...
February 18, 2026 at 2:42 PM
Okay is this is quite different (bc of all the pure hackery), but when I was a baby attorney, the DC US attorney office was also pretty reticent to tell us the charge for which they were investigating our clients — for that reason, one of my 1st assignments was writing a memo on all the potentials.
Best commentating line of the day, in the Iowa State vs Houston game: “It’s president’s day so why not, it’s Jefferson to Buchanan for the bucket.” (Both Iowa State players.)
February 17, 2026 at 3:46 AM
Best commentating line of the day, in the Iowa State vs Houston game: “It’s president’s day so why not, it’s Jefferson to Buchanan for the bucket.” (Both Iowa State players.)
Reposted by Jake Charles
Charles and Gelbach on Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem /
lawlit.blogspot.com/2026/02/char...
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social @gelbach.bsky.social
lawlit.blogspot.com/2026/02/char...
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social @gelbach.bsky.social
Charles and Gelbach on Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem
Jacob D. Charles, Pepperdine University School of Law, and Jonah B. Gelbach, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, have publish...
lawlit.blogspot.com
February 16, 2026 at 4:55 PM
Charles and Gelbach on Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem /
lawlit.blogspot.com/2026/02/char...
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social @gelbach.bsky.social
lawlit.blogspot.com/2026/02/char...
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social @gelbach.bsky.social
For the nerds who think about executive power through a Youngstown lens (and who focus on doctrinal obscurities to avoid screaming about practical realities): in light of congressional failure to approve the SAVE Act, would this be a Youngstown Zone 2 or 3 case?
“There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”
February 13, 2026 at 9:48 PM
For the nerds who think about executive power through a Youngstown lens (and who focus on doctrinal obscurities to avoid screaming about practical realities): in light of congressional failure to approve the SAVE Act, would this be a Youngstown Zone 2 or 3 case?
I don’t know why I’ve never read this before (Trouillot may have some guesses), but wow it is so good.
Highly recommend for anyone like me who’s interested in historical knowledge but never had formal training in history.
Highly recommend for anyone like me who’s interested in historical knowledge but never had formal training in history.
February 13, 2026 at 3:13 PM
I don’t know why I’ve never read this before (Trouillot may have some guesses), but wow it is so good.
Highly recommend for anyone like me who’s interested in historical knowledge but never had formal training in history.
Highly recommend for anyone like me who’s interested in historical knowledge but never had formal training in history.
What a depressing read. Hard to comprehend this level of ego, incompetence, lack of all pretense of concern for others—to say nothing of the country or constitution you’ve sworn to uphold—& cruelty.
February 13, 2026 at 5:39 AM
What a depressing read. Hard to comprehend this level of ego, incompetence, lack of all pretense of concern for others—to say nothing of the country or constitution you’ve sworn to uphold—& cruelty.
Reposted by Jake Charles
CA3 rejects 1A challenge to NJ law that limits sharing of computer code used to make ghosts guns, per Krause. Splitting w/ other circuits: 1A regulates only expressive uses of code, and plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts relevant to expressive use.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
February 13, 2026 at 4:58 AM
CA3 rejects 1A challenge to NJ law that limits sharing of computer code used to make ghosts guns, per Krause. Splitting w/ other circuits: 1A regulates only expressive uses of code, and plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts relevant to expressive use.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/233...
The court here draws on 2nd Am case law to support this holding
This is interesting. Federal court finds a woman faced with serious harm from pregnancy but not death has a right to terminate the fetus not b/c abortion is a constitutional right but because of the ancient and well-recognized right to self-defense! Yes! storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
February 12, 2026 at 2:05 PM
The court here draws on 2nd Am case law to support this holding
Teaching Loving, Korematsu, Yick Wo, Bakke tmw so I’m deep in prep on govt use of race right as I read this—& whataya know…the 14th Am is meant to prohibit exactly what DHS is doing, unless it’s somehow got a very good reason to do it & only if this is the narrowest way to meet that.
This is the second account - the first being in Chicago - of DHS agents mass detaining people and then *sorting them by race*.
More than 400 people, including hundreds of citizens, were “sorted” at gun point into racial and ethnic groups by 200 ICE agents who fired flash-bang grenades into cars with people inside, pointed guns at children & demanded their zip tied parents not comfort them. apple.news/Ausdx6kWtT0e...
February 12, 2026 at 3:25 AM
Teaching Loving, Korematsu, Yick Wo, Bakke tmw so I’m deep in prep on govt use of race right as I read this—& whataya know…the 14th Am is meant to prohibit exactly what DHS is doing, unless it’s somehow got a very good reason to do it & only if this is the narrowest way to meet that.
Reposted by Jake Charles
Thrilled that my article Private Governance and Originalism will be published in the Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social! The article explains why private groups including schools, corps & other orgs create unique challenges (and opportunities) under originalist "history & tradition" tests
February 11, 2026 at 5:31 PM
Thrilled that my article Private Governance and Originalism will be published in the Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social! The article explains why private groups including schools, corps & other orgs create unique challenges (and opportunities) under originalist "history & tradition" tests
Geometry was always my worst subject, but I think even I understood the smart points @slukemorgan.bsky.social is making in this thread about Bruen’s death funnel. ⤵️
I've (unsurprisingly) been thinking about the intersection of this and Tribe's constitutional geometry all day. In that spirit:
The clash is clear--Bruen says every law today must find support in past positive law. It erases past powers simply because they went unexercised, infringing on the 10th Am's express reservation of those same powers.
February 10, 2026 at 11:24 PM
Geometry was always my worst subject, but I think even I understood the smart points @slukemorgan.bsky.social is making in this thread about Bruen’s death funnel. ⤵️
Very excited that @gelbach.bsky.social & I will be publishing "Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem" in the @uchilrev.bsky.social!
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
February 10, 2026 at 4:59 PM
Circulating this to my students to justify my bulky reading assignments
“At some point over the past 15 years, kids stopped reading”—but that’s because not enough teachers are asking them to, Walt Hunter writes:
C’mon, Professors, Assign the Hard Reading
College kids aren’t reading novels—but that’s because not enough teachers are asking them to.
bit.ly
February 10, 2026 at 6:57 AM
Circulating this to my students to justify my bulky reading assignments
Reposted by Jake Charles
Very excited that @gelbach.bsky.social & I will be publishing "Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem" in the @uchilrev.bsky.social!
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
February 9, 2026 at 4:14 PM
Very excited that @gelbach.bsky.social & I will be publishing "Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem" in the @uchilrev.bsky.social!
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Reposted by Jake Charles
This is a super smart take on Bruen. SCOTUS has essentially declared that because a state declined to enact a particular gun regulation in the past, it’s constitutionally barred from enacting that regulation today. Impossible to square with the 10th Amendment.
The clash is clear--Bruen says every law today must find support in past positive law. It erases past powers simply because they went unexercised, infringing on the 10th Am's express reservation of those same powers.
February 9, 2026 at 6:33 PM
This is a super smart take on Bruen. SCOTUS has essentially declared that because a state declined to enact a particular gun regulation in the past, it’s constitutionally barred from enacting that regulation today. Impossible to square with the 10th Amendment.
This is why you co-author with a PhD economist, friends!
It looks simple, but consider the mathematical reasoning that went into designing -- and, most important, proving the correctness -- of this chart
The clash is clear--Bruen says every law today must find support in past positive law. It erases past powers simply because they went unexercised, infringing on the 10th Am's express reservation of those same powers.
February 9, 2026 at 6:28 PM
This is why you co-author with a PhD economist, friends!
Very excited that @gelbach.bsky.social & I will be publishing "Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem" in the @uchilrev.bsky.social!
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
February 9, 2026 at 4:14 PM
Very excited that @gelbach.bsky.social & I will be publishing "Bruen's Tenth Amendment Problem" in the @uchilrev.bsky.social!
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Our central arg is that Bruen's erasure of unexercised powers violates the 10th Am's preservation of existing State power. Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
It takes a special kind of sicko to be excited to wake up and dive right into a chapter like this. But, hey, that’s me.
February 9, 2026 at 2:31 PM
It takes a special kind of sicko to be excited to wake up and dive right into a chapter like this. But, hey, that’s me.
Every Scalia opinion we read I feel like I have to tell my students—don’t be like this guy. You can write smart and well without being a jerk.
gosh scalia was a turd
February 9, 2026 at 5:16 AM
Every Scalia opinion we read I feel like I have to tell my students—don’t be like this guy. You can write smart and well without being a jerk.
Just like we can’t let Trump define what it means to be American, we can’t let jerks like this define what it means to be or act like a man. Not only is commenting on a student’s looks wrong, it’s disturbing to suggest that *of course* you must do that bc men would only want one thing from a woman.
This is not "how men behave."
This is Gelernter's version of Trump saying "locker room talk"— a projection of his own pathologies onto a whole gender in order to buff up his own manly-man credentials in his mind.
This is Gelernter's version of Trump saying "locker room talk"— a projection of his own pathologies onto a whole gender in order to buff up his own manly-man credentials in his mind.
February 5, 2026 at 7:24 PM
Just like we can’t let Trump define what it means to be American, we can’t let jerks like this define what it means to be or act like a man. Not only is commenting on a student’s looks wrong, it’s disturbing to suggest that *of course* you must do that bc men would only want one thing from a woman.
Fact check: true
D.C. gun laws are famously not something the Supreme Court has ever weighed in re: the Second Amendment.
Pirro: "You bring a gun into the District, you mark my words, you're going to jail. I don't care if you have a license in another district and I don't care if you're a law abiding law owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail. And that makes all the difference"
February 2, 2026 at 9:26 PM
Fact check: true
Reposted by Jake Charles
Chemerinsky is right, but he overlooked my favorite case in the post-Heller mess, Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 US 411 (2016), the unanimous per curiam opinion finding a right to have a stun gun.
It is inscrutable. Do you have a right to brass knuckles? A mace? The One Ring? An infinity stone? 🤷♂️
It is inscrutable. Do you have a right to brass knuckles? A mace? The One Ring? An infinity stone? 🤷♂️
I missed this when it popped up a few days ago, but Erwin is definitely right on the mess Bruen made.
www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/seco...
www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/seco...
Second Amendment jurisprudence is a mess
The Supreme Court has made a mess of the law concerning the Second Amendment. Two years ago, in the last Supreme Court decision about the Second Amendment, United States v. Rahimi, […]
www.scotusblog.com
February 2, 2026 at 6:07 PM
Chemerinsky is right, but he overlooked my favorite case in the post-Heller mess, Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 US 411 (2016), the unanimous per curiam opinion finding a right to have a stun gun.
It is inscrutable. Do you have a right to brass knuckles? A mace? The One Ring? An infinity stone? 🤷♂️
It is inscrutable. Do you have a right to brass knuckles? A mace? The One Ring? An infinity stone? 🤷♂️