William Baude
@williambaude.bsky.social
Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor, University of Chicago Law School. Podcaster and Blogger at Divided Argument.
January 29, 2026 at 4:15 PM
‘The Justices Might Actually Have to Say No, Even to the President’ www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/o...
www.nytimes.com
January 22, 2026 at 12:39 PM
‘The Justices Might Actually Have to Say No, Even to the President’ www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/o...
Reposted by William Baude
I generally agree with this, but I also wonder how much of a convention it actually is. I'd guess that maybe 30-40% of my articles have had a "Part IV" in this sense, and that most or all of my most-cited pieces don't (and to the extent they do, that's not what they're cited for).
Today, @jocelynsimonson.bsky.social and @ksabeelrahman.bsky.social challenge the idea that law review articles should conclude with a set of actionable prescriptions.
This convention, they argue, constrains ambition, sidelines critique, and conflates near-term feasibility with rigor.
This convention, they argue, constrains ambition, sidelines critique, and conflates near-term feasibility with rigor.
Beyond Feasibility in Legal Scholarship
Law review articles are expected to conclude with a short section, often “Part IV,” that translates analysis into actionable prescriptions. Though well-intentioned, this convention constrains ambition...
lpeproject.org
January 21, 2026 at 4:50 PM
I generally agree with this, but I also wonder how much of a convention it actually is. I'd guess that maybe 30-40% of my articles have had a "Part IV" in this sense, and that most or all of my most-cited pieces don't (and to the extent they do, that's not what they're cited for).
Big and good news for the Constitutional Law Institute. Thanks to Deb Cafaro!
We’re pleased to announce a $1M gift from Debra A. Cafaro, '82, to support UChicago Law's Constitutional Law Institute. This generous donation strengthens the Institute’s mission to promote rigorous, nonpartisan constitutional scholarship and civil discourse. buff.ly/vO32zXo
January 13, 2026 at 11:08 PM
Big and good news for the Constitutional Law Institute. Thanks to Deb Cafaro!
I notice that I am confused by the GVR in Zielinski v. US. I had thought the Court had stopped GVR'ing i/l/o SG confessions of error after Grzegorzyk.
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding?
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding?
January 12, 2026 at 10:59 PM
I notice that I am confused by the GVR in Zielinski v. US. I had thought the Court had stopped GVR'ing i/l/o SG confessions of error after Grzegorzyk.
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding?
Am I misremembering/misunderstanding?
Reposted by William Baude
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.
January 7, 2026 at 5:50 PM
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)
My latest, “Marbury Now,” is published in the latest issue of Liberties! libertiesjournal.com/articles/mar...
January 7, 2026 at 4:36 PM
My latest, “Marbury Now,” is published in the latest issue of Liberties! libertiesjournal.com/articles/mar...
Reposted by William Baude
With all that is going on in the world, it might be easy to overlook that the D.C. Circuit appears to have changed its Special Panel (aka Motions Panel) so that it's no longer in place for a month.
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
January 6, 2026 at 4:31 PM
With all that is going on in the world, it might be easy to overlook that the D.C. Circuit appears to have changed its Special Panel (aka Motions Panel) so that it's no longer in place for a month.
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
Reposted by William Baude
Reposted by William Baude
"Perhaps the Court is moving back to assessing irreparable harm with more nuance and precision, as it should." If only. Here, however, there's no injunction against effectuating a Trump policy--let alone a statute--so I'm afraid this wasn't a recognition that that's not invariably "harm" to the U.S.
December 20, 2025 at 10:36 AM
"Perhaps the Court is moving back to assessing irreparable harm with more nuance and precision, as it should." If only. Here, however, there's no injunction against effectuating a Trump policy--let alone a statute--so I'm afraid this wasn't a recognition that that's not invariably "harm" to the U.S.
My first post on the Interim Docket blog is up:
December 20, 2025 at 3:52 AM
My first post on the Interim Docket blog is up:
Reposted by William Baude
NB: When I, a professor of law, profess that an act is unlawful, I am not doing it to inform the lawbreaker, but rather to inform you, the reader.
So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.
So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.
December 18, 2025 at 9:01 PM
NB: When I, a professor of law, profess that an act is unlawful, I am not doing it to inform the lawbreaker, but rather to inform you, the reader.
So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.
So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.
Reposted by William Baude
"Burkeanism and the Administrative State"
I really enjoyed doing this podcast episode with Sarah Isgur, @williambaude.bsky.social, and @davidfrenchjag.bsky.social. It was framed around separation of powers debates, but the conversation ranged much more widely. thedispatch.com/podcast/advi...
I really enjoyed doing this podcast episode with Sarah Isgur, @williambaude.bsky.social, and @davidfrenchjag.bsky.social. It was framed around separation of powers debates, but the conversation ranged much more widely. thedispatch.com/podcast/advi...
Burkeanism and the Administrative State
A debate on unitary executive power.
thedispatch.com
December 16, 2025 at 10:18 PM
"Burkeanism and the Administrative State"
I really enjoyed doing this podcast episode with Sarah Isgur, @williambaude.bsky.social, and @davidfrenchjag.bsky.social. It was framed around separation of powers debates, but the conversation ranged much more widely. thedispatch.com/podcast/advi...
I really enjoyed doing this podcast episode with Sarah Isgur, @williambaude.bsky.social, and @davidfrenchjag.bsky.social. It was framed around separation of powers debates, but the conversation ranged much more widely. thedispatch.com/podcast/advi...
Reposted by William Baude
The best moment in the History of the Word Caucasian came in a series of Supreme Court cases during the immigration panic of the 1920s.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 said that only "white" people could be naturalized as American citizens, but that only raised questions about what counted as white?
The Naturalization Act of 1790 said that only "white" people could be naturalized as American citizens, but that only raised questions about what counted as white?
It stems from a literal belief that white peoples descended from the Caucasus mountains after Noah’s ark
December 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM
The best moment in the History of the Word Caucasian came in a series of Supreme Court cases during the immigration panic of the 1920s.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 said that only "white" people could be naturalized as American citizens, but that only raised questions about what counted as white?
The Naturalization Act of 1790 said that only "white" people could be naturalized as American citizens, but that only raised questions about what counted as white?
Reposted by William Baude
I don’t write the headlines but I do like this one (post-Slaughter argument roundtable for @nytimes.com with @stevevladeck.bsky.social & @williambaude.bsky.social)
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Opinion | Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century
www.nytimes.com
December 9, 2025 at 1:01 PM
I don’t write the headlines but I do like this one (post-Slaughter argument roundtable for @nytimes.com with @stevevladeck.bsky.social & @williambaude.bsky.social)
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Shaw, Vladeck, and Baude ride again:
Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Opinion | Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century
www.nytimes.com
December 9, 2025 at 3:50 PM
Shaw, Vladeck, and Baude ride again:
Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Tom Stoppard might be the single writer who has most defined my life. R.I.P.
November 29, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Tom Stoppard might be the single writer who has most defined my life. R.I.P.
Northern Michigan man’s crossword puzzle to be published in the New York Times upnorthlive.com/news/local/n...
November 21, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Northern Michigan man’s crossword puzzle to be published in the New York Times upnorthlive.com/news/local/n...
New amicus brief with Steve: “Sovereign immunity is for sovereigns.”
Now online:
A new amicus brief by @williambaude.bsky.social and me, filed today in the Supreme Court in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., on sovereign immunity and the "arm of the State" doctrine:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
1/
A new amicus brief by @williambaude.bsky.social and me, filed today in the Supreme Court in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., on sovereign immunity and the "arm of the State" doctrine:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
1/
November 19, 2025 at 9:14 PM
New amicus brief with Steve: “Sovereign immunity is for sovereigns.”
Reposted by William Baude
Great exchange on Madisonian liquidation between @jrakove.bsky.social and @williambaude.bsky.social here.
Rakove: jach.law.wisc.edu/madisonian-l...
Baude: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
Rakove: jach.law.wisc.edu/madisonian-l...
Baude: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
Madisonian Liquidation Unliquidated
by Jack Rakove
William Baude’s provocative essay on “Constitutional Liquidation,” published five years ago, is the best treatment of the subject. Whether the liquidation of constitutional indeterminac...
jach.law.wisc.edu
November 15, 2025 at 1:27 AM
Great exchange on Madisonian liquidation between @jrakove.bsky.social and @williambaude.bsky.social here.
Rakove: jach.law.wisc.edu/madisonian-l...
Baude: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
Rakove: jach.law.wisc.edu/madisonian-l...
Baude: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
“Liquidation, Then and Now,” my end of an exchange with Jack Rakove is now published: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
November 14, 2025 at 11:34 PM
“Liquidation, Then and Now,” my end of an exchange with Jack Rakove is now published: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...