Marty Lederman
@martylederman.bsky.social
Professor at Georgetown University Law Center; former DOJ/OLC attorney
I can't recommend this highly enough. The work @brianwolfman.bsky.social and his Clinic do is second-to-none, and it's a great opportunity to collaborate with very fine, extremely wise (and very hard-working) attorneys.
GREAT JOB ALERT: The Appellate Immersion Clinic at Georgetown Law is accepting applications for fellows!
This is an incredible opportunity to do great work with incredibly smart, good people. @immersionclinic.bsky.social @brianwolfman.bsky.social
www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential...
This is an incredible opportunity to do great work with incredibly smart, good people. @immersionclinic.bsky.social @brianwolfman.bsky.social
www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential...
Graduate Fellowships
www.law.georgetown.edu
February 3, 2026 at 3:50 AM
I can't recommend this highly enough. The work @brianwolfman.bsky.social and his Clinic do is second-to-none, and it's a great opportunity to collaborate with very fine, extremely wise (and very hard-working) attorneys.
Link to Gillian's article, which is (characteristically) terrific.
harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...
harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...
Disqualification, Immunity, and the Presidency - Harvard Law Review
Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States were two momentous decisions in a momentous Supreme Court term. Sharing then-former — and now current — President Trump as...
harvardlawreview.org
February 2, 2026 at 3:01 PM
Link to Gillian's article, which is (characteristically) terrific.
harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...
harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...
Pop quiz: What does the briefing in the Birthright Citizenship case (Trump v. Barbara) have in common with "The Fate of Ophelia"?
February 2, 2026 at 2:07 PM
Pop quiz: What does the briefing in the Birthright Citizenship case (Trump v. Barbara) have in common with "The Fate of Ophelia"?
Reposted by Marty Lederman
“This ought to be the final nail in the coffin of congressional Republicans’ breathless efforts to gin up impeachment charges against a judge whose only actual sin, as it turns out, was to decline to roll over when the government defied one of his orders, and then lied about it.”
Me @ “One First”:
Me @ “One First”:
207. The Justice Department Beclowns Itself (Again)
The denouement of DOJ's misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg provides useful lessons relating to both the Department's continuing misbehavior and the emptiness of calls for impeachment.
www.stevevladeck.com
February 2, 2026 at 12:31 PM
“This ought to be the final nail in the coffin of congressional Republicans’ breathless efforts to gin up impeachment charges against a judge whose only actual sin, as it turns out, was to decline to roll over when the government defied one of his orders, and then lied about it.”
Me @ “One First”:
Me @ “One First”:
"I have read different things."
Can it really still be the case that folks go into a Chotiner interview unaware ...?!
Also, this in response to "I could be [Ratner's] father.":
"I read that Roman Polanski is a father figure to him. So that role might already be filled."
Can it really still be the case that folks go into a Chotiner interview unaware ...?!
Also, this in response to "I could be [Ratner's] father.":
"I read that Roman Polanski is a father figure to him. So that role might already be filled."
February 1, 2026 at 11:46 PM
"I have read different things."
Can it really still be the case that folks go into a Chotiner interview unaware ...?!
Also, this in response to "I could be [Ratner's] father.":
"I read that Roman Polanski is a father figure to him. So that role might already be filled."
Can it really still be the case that folks go into a Chotiner interview unaware ...?!
Also, this in response to "I could be [Ratner's] father.":
"I read that Roman Polanski is a father figure to him. So that role might already be filled."
Is there a more vivid illustration of the collective impacts of the Trump Administration--and of the Senate's refusal to lift a finger to address the foreseeable cruelty and devastation (e.g., by voting to reject the RFK nomination)?
It appears there is now a measles outbreak at the Dilley family detention facility. www.sacurrent.com/news/san-ant...
Source: Measles outbreak reported at ICE's Dilley family detention facility
DPS troopers stand guard in front of the Dilley detention center during a protest last weekend. After a week of public outcry over the Dilley, Texas South
www.sacurrent.com
February 1, 2026 at 11:35 PM
Is there a more vivid illustration of the collective impacts of the Trump Administration--and of the Senate's refusal to lift a finger to address the foreseeable cruelty and devastation (e.g., by voting to reject the RFK nomination)?
Most legal academics do thank their research assistants, and sometimes editors, in the starred footnote. But there's no obligation to do so, any more than novelists and nonfiction authors must attribute certain passages to their editors/colleagues who recommended them.
February 1, 2026 at 5:16 PM
Most legal academics do thank their research assistants, and sometimes editors, in the starred footnote. But there's no obligation to do so, any more than novelists and nonfiction authors must attribute certain passages to their editors/colleagues who recommended them.
... was to reveal to the Chief and others that DOJ had improperly obtained confidential notes of the Conference that it *referred to* but refused to disclose! It's difficult even to imagine what the conversations in the AG's Office could have been like before they decided to do this.
February 1, 2026 at 4:18 PM
... was to reveal to the Chief and others that DOJ had improperly obtained confidential notes of the Conference that it *referred to* but refused to disclose! It's difficult even to imagine what the conversations in the AG's Office could have been like before they decided to do this.
What's especially astounding about what Bondi did here is that CJ Roberts obviously *knows* what Boasberg said at the Conference (he was probably there), and knows that there was nothing remotely inappropriate about it.
Therefore, the only practical effect of the complaint ...
Therefore, the only practical effect of the complaint ...
February 1, 2026 at 4:18 PM
What's especially astounding about what Bondi did here is that CJ Roberts obviously *knows* what Boasberg said at the Conference (he was probably there), and knows that there was nothing remotely inappropriate about it.
Therefore, the only practical effect of the complaint ...
Therefore, the only practical effect of the complaint ...
Well, of course, if the author acknowledged using A.I. to write the first draft of the article--and didn't edit it--or that she used A.I. to elicit *information* that she didn't subsequently check--then disclosure wouldn't be the remedy; nonpublication would be. This statement isn't about that.
February 1, 2026 at 3:46 PM
Well, of course, if the author acknowledged using A.I. to write the first draft of the article--and didn't edit it--or that she used A.I. to elicit *information* that she didn't subsequently check--then disclosure wouldn't be the remedy; nonpublication would be. This statement isn't about that.
You don't disclose that you used spellcheck?
February 1, 2026 at 3:04 PM
You don't disclose that you used spellcheck?
This is silly. Any concerns with using AI in writing articles (I don't, but mostly because of my technological ignorance) don't involve improving the writing and identifying grammatical errors. Would you disclose that you used Westlaw, or spell-check, or your spouse or friend, for such purposes?
I honestly and sincerely appreciate this disclosure. It tells me I don’t need to waste my time in this article. (It may be valuable. It may not be valuable. But if the writers don’t care enough about cleaning up their writing without AI I don’t care enough to read it.)
February 1, 2026 at 3:02 PM
This is silly. Any concerns with using AI in writing articles (I don't, but mostly because of my technological ignorance) don't involve improving the writing and identifying grammatical errors. Would you disclose that you used Westlaw, or spell-check, or your spouse or friend, for such purposes?
Not your everyday judicial order to the federal government.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com
February 1, 2026 at 1:34 PM
Not your everyday judicial order to the federal government.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Opinion here. Standing recognized only for the lateral faculty hiring claim--and as to that, the judge holds that it fails as a matter of law given CTA7 precedents on Titles VI, VII and IX.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Memorandum Opinion and Order – #52 in Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP) v. Northwestern University (N.D. Ill., 1:25-cv-01129) – CourtListener.com
Memorandum Opinion and Order
storage.courtlistener.com
February 1, 2026 at 2:25 AM
Opinion here. Standing recognized only for the lateral faculty hiring claim--and as to that, the judge holds that it fails as a matter of law given CTA7 precedents on Titles VI, VII and IX.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The important question going forward is when, if at all, SCOTUS and courts of appeals will begin more broadly treating the Trump DOJ as the sort of unprofessional and dishonorable institution reflected so vividly in this episode. Any "presumption of regularity" has long ago been thoroughly rebutted.
January 31, 2026 at 9:58 PM
The important question going forward is when, if at all, SCOTUS and courts of appeals will begin more broadly treating the Trump DOJ as the sort of unprofessional and dishonorable institution reflected so vividly in this episode. Any "presumption of regularity" has long ago been thoroughly rebutted.
... and then proceeds to explain that, in any event, the (uncorroborated) conduct alleged would be par for the course (indeed, similar to things the Chief Justice has said) and not remotely unethical. And that the Judicial Council obviously lacks jurisdiction over the further (frivolous) claims. [2]
January 31, 2026 at 9:58 PM
... and then proceeds to explain that, in any event, the (uncorroborated) conduct alleged would be par for the course (indeed, similar to things the Chief Justice has said) and not remotely unethical. And that the Judicial Council obviously lacks jurisdiction over the further (frivolous) claims. [2]
It's difficult to overstate what a brutal and unequivocal rebuke this is, by a very sober and respected judge, of deeply unprofessional and meritless conduct by the AG. It begins by pointing out that DOJ offered no evidence at all to support its claim--even after being requested to do so-- ... [1]
We finally know what happened to DOJ's (frivolous) misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg:
It was transferred by Chief Justice Roberts from the D.C. Circuit to Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeff Sutton, and Sutton dismissed it in a ... direct ... memorandum and order just two weeks later:
It was transferred by Chief Justice Roberts from the D.C. Circuit to Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeff Sutton, and Sutton dismissed it in a ... direct ... memorandum and order just two weeks later:
www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov
January 31, 2026 at 9:58 PM
It's difficult to overstate what a brutal and unequivocal rebuke this is, by a very sober and respected judge, of deeply unprofessional and meritless conduct by the AG. It begins by pointing out that DOJ offered no evidence at all to support its claim--even after being requested to do so-- ... [1]
In case you haven't seen it, here's the grand jury indictment of Don Lemon, Georgia Fort and others.
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/...
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/...
January 31, 2026 at 5:40 PM
In case you haven't seen it, here's the grand jury indictment of Don Lemon, Georgia Fort and others.
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/...
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/...
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net
January 31, 2026 at 5:39 PM
Oh!, and, especially:
Yeats, (Henry) James and Joyce
Yeats, (Henry) James and Joyce
January 30, 2026 at 11:45 PM
Oh!, and, especially:
Yeats, (Henry) James and Joyce
Yeats, (Henry) James and Joyce
European Intellectual History
Freud
The New York Intellectuals
Hegel
American Intellectual History
Freud
The New York Intellectuals
Hegel
American Intellectual History
January 30, 2026 at 11:40 PM
European Intellectual History
Freud
The New York Intellectuals
Hegel
American Intellectual History
Freud
The New York Intellectuals
Hegel
American Intellectual History
Reposted by Marty Lederman
A reminder that she was in her early 20s when she completely upturned the world of sketch comedy, creating literally dozens of characters and inhabiting dozens more celebrities with her look and voice.
January 30, 2026 at 6:26 PM
A reminder that she was in her early 20s when she completely upturned the world of sketch comedy, creating literally dozens of characters and inhabiting dozens more celebrities with her look and voice.
Also, the SG won't embrace IW's absurd implied argument that the U.S. federal government may deny all legal "protection" to diplomats, tribal members, and undocumented foreigners.
You're giving IW and JE much more credence than they warrant.
You're giving IW and JE much more credence than they warrant.
January 30, 2026 at 6:33 PM
Also, the SG won't embrace IW's absurd implied argument that the U.S. federal government may deny all legal "protection" to diplomats, tribal members, and undocumented foreigners.
You're giving IW and JE much more credence than they warrant.
You're giving IW and JE much more credence than they warrant.
Yes, but Eastman argues that the Court should overrule even the holding in WKA. Again, that's not where the action will be.
January 30, 2026 at 6:31 PM
Yes, but Eastman argues that the Court should overrule even the holding in WKA. Again, that's not where the action will be.
Really? He sure didn't make that case in his brief--and what could he possibly cite in support of the argument that children of visitors weren't subjects in England? That's a nonstarter with the Court.
January 30, 2026 at 6:30 PM
Really? He sure didn't make that case in his brief--and what could he possibly cite in support of the argument that children of visitors weren't subjects in England? That's a nonstarter with the Court.