Jonathan H. Adler

@jadler1969.bsky.social

14K followers 670 following 1.6K posts

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

Videos

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%

Posts Replies Media Videos

Reposted by Steve Peers, Jonathan H. Adler, Anders Nilsson , and 2 more Steve Peers, Jonathan H. Adler, Anders Nilsson, Daniel W. Drezner, Robert C. Richards

Shayan Sardarizadeh @shayan86.bsky.social · 2d

THREAD: Verified videos of anti-establishment protests currently unfolding in Iran

Protesters push back police and security forces on Tehran's Jomhouri Street.

Location: maps.app.goo.gl/LKZH6YbnT2WE...

@geoconfirmed.org

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 2d

Do I have to?

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 3d

#details

Reposted by Anna O. Law, Jonathan H. Adler

Paul Cohen @paulecohen.bsky.social · 3d

"You think your pain and your heartbreak are unprecedented in the history of the world, but then you read."
-- James Baldwin

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler

Orin Kerr @orinkerr.bsky.social · 3d

Some people think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test in Fourth Amendment law is just made up, and that it's inconsistent with the constitutional text and original public meaning.

They're wrong.

I explain why in this 2022 article, "Katz as Originalism":
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 6d

Agree if reference is to "the constitution." I think that's less clear when the reference is to specific provisions (though to your point, here reference was to 14A, not a specific section or clause).

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 6d

That all makes sense. I just took "The Amendment says what it says," to indicate something narrower.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 6d

But i took your first tweet to indicate that the law is what the Constitutional text says, not how courts interpret it. Did i misunderstand? And if "what it says" is not about text, what's it about?

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 6d

So text and OPM trump Supreme Court decisions?

Reposted by Shannon Vallor, Axel Bruns, Brendan Nyhan , and 33 more Shannon Vallor, Axel Bruns, Brendan Nyhan, David Dunning, Jamie Hannaford, Steve Peers, Andrew Scott, Ben Barr, Jonathan M. Gilligan, Martin Paul Eve, Ralf Michaels, Jonathan H. Adler, Johan P. Olsen, Tuomas Mattila, Charles W. Smith, Lindsay M. Tedds, Alan Richardson, R. M. Wilson, David M. Bailey, Michael Zimmer, Daniel Huppmann, Andrew L. Whitehead, Stacy D. VanDeveer, Christine Kooi, Alessandro Nai, Stephen Ryan, Brian Keegan, Peter Jacobsen, Anders Sundnes Løvlie, Mark Robinson, Christopher Barrie, Johannes Breuer, Ben Kaden, Siegfried Hekimi, Nicole Guenther Discenza, Pádua Fernandes

James Vincent @jjvincent.bsky.social · 6d

another robot highlight for 2025: man wearing humanoid mocap suit kicks himself in the balls

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler, Robert C. Richards, Tom Griffin

Internet Archive @archive.org · 7d

When the clock strikes midnight on January 1, creative works from 1930 & sound recordings from 1925 will enter the public domain in the US, like:

💄 Dizzy Dishes, first Betty Boop cartoon
🕵️♀️ First 4 Nancy Drew novels
🚂 The Little Engine That Could
🎩 Morocco
🍑 Georgia on My Mind
and many more!

🧵👇

Montage of creative works entering the public domain in the US in 2026.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 9d

reason.com/volokh/2025/...

Welcome to the "Interim Docket"

Speaking to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's Judicial Conference, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that the "interim…

reason.com

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 9d

cc: @amandafrost.bsky.social

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler, Nathan Richardson

Julian Davis Mortenson @jdmortenson.bsky.social · 9d

this @jadler1969.bsky.social post is a great summary of the Frost-Eason paper’s findings

reason.com/volokh/2025/...

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

And?

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

There are also examples of cases that the administration deliberately slow walked in ways that suggest they were trying to keep them from getting to SCOTUS too quickly.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

Last time I ran the numbers there were over 400 suits brought against the government and approximately 120 adverse decisions in District Courts of which approximately two dozen were brought to scotus.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

There are several relevant populations worth comparing them to:
- administration actions (some of which can't be challenged)
- cases challenging administration actions
- administration losses in district courts

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

Yes. Those were the cases that came before the court because the SG brought them before the court, and the SG chose approximately 1 in 6 cases to bring before the court and chose carefully.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

And I have at length before.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

It just means that the significance of the Court's early judgments and the uniformity of results didn't have the implications that many people claimed (but that doesnt mean they were decided correctly).

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

What I mean is that they are not representative of the cases that have been brought against the administration, nor are they representative of cases likely to ultimately come before the Court.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

Look man, you're the empiricist. I'm just the guy making casual observations.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

I agree.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

They were a small fraction of the cases the administration lost in the district courts (about 1/6) and a disproportionate share of those were filed in carefully chosen districts.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

Today's decision in Trump v Illinois is the second Trump Administration loss on the interim docket this week. It's almost as if the administration's early victories were not a representative sample.

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

Source:
x.com/i/status/200...

x.com

Jonathan H. Adler @jadler1969.bsky.social · 10d

Bad news

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler, Daniel W. Drezner, Aaron Sojourner , and 1 more Jonathan H. Adler, Daniel W. Drezner, Aaron Sojourner, Charles T. Mathewes

Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias.bsky.social · 12d

Love the kinder, gentler social media site

Reposted by Jonathan H. Adler

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney.bsky.social · 16d

A unanimous D.C. Circuit panel clears the way for Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., staying a lower court's order that foudn the deployment illegal. The panel

Millett: Obama
Rao: Trump
Katsas Trump.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Add to Home Screen

Light up
your news

Add to Home Screen

Light upyour news

Sign in to Lightnews

Sign up to start reading

Connect Bluesky

Connect with Bluesky

Light up
your news