Adam Tucker
@adam.publiclaw.space
Constitutional lawyer at University of Liverpool & Bingham Centre.
Interested in legislative power and its limits. Currently finishing book on parliamentary sovereignty
But easily distracted esp by delegated legislation, and statutory interpretation.
Interested in legislative power and its limits. Currently finishing book on parliamentary sovereignty
But easily distracted esp by delegated legislation, and statutory interpretation.
1+2: unis should really be more tolerant of protest than the law requires them to be, but this firm is promoting (and universities are receptive to) a strategy of being even less tolerant than the law requires.
Authoritarian legal advice is not the way to define "the future for universities"
Authoritarian legal advice is not the way to define "the future for universities"
July 1, 2025 at 11:11 AM
1+2: unis should really be more tolerant of protest than the law requires them to be, but this firm is promoting (and universities are receptive to) a strategy of being even less tolerant than the law requires.
Authoritarian legal advice is not the way to define "the future for universities"
Authoritarian legal advice is not the way to define "the future for universities"
2. In any event, the strategy this firm is selling - indeed actively promoting - permits/encourages unis to go further than ordinary protest law would require. The law generally requires universities to tolerate (some) protests without permission, the strategy is to shift the boundary to permission
July 1, 2025 at 11:11 AM
2. In any event, the strategy this firm is selling - indeed actively promoting - permits/encourages unis to go further than ordinary protest law would require. The law generally requires universities to tolerate (some) protests without permission, the strategy is to shift the boundary to permission
WTAF?
None of these would be a legitimate target of sanctions.
The UK government should not cooperate.
And it should also be preparing to take measures itself to protect their finances (even if not publicly at this stage), not just "advising" them to do so.
None of these would be a legitimate target of sanctions.
The UK government should not cooperate.
And it should also be preparing to take measures itself to protect their finances (even if not publicly at this stage), not just "advising" them to do so.
April 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM
WTAF?
None of these would be a legitimate target of sanctions.
The UK government should not cooperate.
And it should also be preparing to take measures itself to protect their finances (even if not publicly at this stage), not just "advising" them to do so.
None of these would be a legitimate target of sanctions.
The UK government should not cooperate.
And it should also be preparing to take measures itself to protect their finances (even if not publicly at this stage), not just "advising" them to do so.
This new case is a remarkable argument, taken alongside his recent judicial review - which turned (amongst other things) on the unavailability of alternative arrangements for detaining him.
The cumulative logic of the two (yes, there are nuances etc) is that he is currently un-detainable.
The cumulative logic of the two (yes, there are nuances etc) is that he is currently un-detainable.
![extract from paragraph 51 of [2025] EWHC 695 (Admin): "there is no obvious or feasible way of detaining him which would give a lesser interference."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jhiqod7sylph22g2g35pq7pm/bafkreieu6bmg4wodnrxixz4mm4rfymzxkfn6ols2jfwtzbv3m2owdytacy@jpeg)
April 11, 2025 at 4:07 PM
This new case is a remarkable argument, taken alongside his recent judicial review - which turned (amongst other things) on the unavailability of alternative arrangements for detaining him.
The cumulative logic of the two (yes, there are nuances etc) is that he is currently un-detainable.
The cumulative logic of the two (yes, there are nuances etc) is that he is currently un-detainable.
Bonjour le Sénat!
I'm in (cloud-free) Paris to spend a day talking about referendums.
I'm in (cloud-free) Paris to spend a day talking about referendums.
April 7, 2025 at 6:41 AM
Bonjour le Sénat!
I'm in (cloud-free) Paris to spend a day talking about referendums.
I'm in (cloud-free) Paris to spend a day talking about referendums.
No, panopto. That is not the what the topic is called.
March 28, 2025 at 5:42 PM
No, panopto. That is not the what the topic is called.
I genuinely don't think there's a sound basis to distinguish between the citizenship elements in the PRCBC case (2022, where the principle of legality "is not in play") and in the N3/ZA case (this week, where the principle of legality is decisive).
February 28, 2025 at 1:13 PM
I genuinely don't think there's a sound basis to distinguish between the citizenship elements in the PRCBC case (2022, where the principle of legality "is not in play") and in the N3/ZA case (this week, where the principle of legality is decisive).
Ooh - a Valentine's treat for public lawyers
On this bit: we should at least go as far as: "all executive-initiated legislative ... limitation of judicial review is necessarily at least constitutionally 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵"
(I'll explain why, and the doctrinal consequences of this, in my forthcoming book 😀)
On this bit: we should at least go as far as: "all executive-initiated legislative ... limitation of judicial review is necessarily at least constitutionally 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵"
(I'll explain why, and the doctrinal consequences of this, in my forthcoming book 😀)
February 14, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Ooh - a Valentine's treat for public lawyers
On this bit: we should at least go as far as: "all executive-initiated legislative ... limitation of judicial review is necessarily at least constitutionally 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵"
(I'll explain why, and the doctrinal consequences of this, in my forthcoming book 😀)
On this bit: we should at least go as far as: "all executive-initiated legislative ... limitation of judicial review is necessarily at least constitutionally 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵"
(I'll explain why, and the doctrinal consequences of this, in my forthcoming book 😀)
It's (i) an abuse of the power to issue guidance, which (ii) is being misrepresented by the government
You can't claim political credit for repealing the IMA whilst disingenuously reintroducing its substance
(Others are better placed than me to comment on the performative cruelty itself)
v4 v v5:
You can't claim political credit for repealing the IMA whilst disingenuously reintroducing its substance
(Others are better placed than me to comment on the performative cruelty itself)
v4 v v5:
February 12, 2025 at 12:52 PM
It's (i) an abuse of the power to issue guidance, which (ii) is being misrepresented by the government
You can't claim political credit for repealing the IMA whilst disingenuously reintroducing its substance
(Others are better placed than me to comment on the performative cruelty itself)
v4 v v5:
You can't claim political credit for repealing the IMA whilst disingenuously reintroducing its substance
(Others are better placed than me to comment on the performative cruelty itself)
v4 v v5:
A substantive change in the rules is not a "clarification"
The predecessor text had different content with different consequences - calling it a "clarification" is deliberately misleading i.e. lying.
(from www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...)
The predecessor text had different content with different consequences - calling it a "clarification" is deliberately misleading i.e. lying.
(from www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...)
February 12, 2025 at 12:52 PM
A substantive change in the rules is not a "clarification"
The predecessor text had different content with different consequences - calling it a "clarification" is deliberately misleading i.e. lying.
(from www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...)
The predecessor text had different content with different consequences - calling it a "clarification" is deliberately misleading i.e. lying.
(from www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...)
👏👏👏👏
Don't forget - this is simply asking the government to honour its own manifesto commitment.
A commitment which can only be achieved through:
- changing the funding settlement
- investment
Don't forget - this is simply asking the government to honour its own manifesto commitment.
A commitment which can only be achieved through:
- changing the funding settlement
- investment
February 11, 2025 at 5:34 PM
👏👏👏👏
Don't forget - this is simply asking the government to honour its own manifesto commitment.
A commitment which can only be achieved through:
- changing the funding settlement
- investment
Don't forget - this is simply asking the government to honour its own manifesto commitment.
A commitment which can only be achieved through:
- changing the funding settlement
- investment
This (55-page) book is a joy. A hugely successful example of doing lots, well, in a small space.
And surely the world needs more books where (see its opening sentence!) authors get to "just" pursue an inkling that has bothered them for a while.
"Download it while it's....free!" I guess.
And surely the world needs more books where (see its opening sentence!) authors get to "just" pursue an inkling that has bothered them for a while.
"Download it while it's....free!" I guess.
December 2, 2024 at 6:28 PM
This (55-page) book is a joy. A hugely successful example of doing lots, well, in a small space.
And surely the world needs more books where (see its opening sentence!) authors get to "just" pursue an inkling that has bothered them for a while.
"Download it while it's....free!" I guess.
And surely the world needs more books where (see its opening sentence!) authors get to "just" pursue an inkling that has bothered them for a while.
"Download it while it's....free!" I guess.
For what it's worth, I think this is clear on the face of what Grieve says, in that the examples he proposes to establish its unacceptable breadth plainly don't make it a skeleton bill.
They are not "key issues". There is not "a very large number" of them:
They are not "key issues". There is not "a very large number" of them:
November 29, 2024 at 10:36 AM
For what it's worth, I think this is clear on the face of what Grieve says, in that the examples he proposes to establish its unacceptable breadth plainly don't make it a skeleton bill.
They are not "key issues". There is not "a very large number" of them:
They are not "key issues". There is not "a very large number" of them:
This one qualifies in all three ways for me.
Enjoy it for yourself at (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18.
(Unless like me you are an advocate of - even modest - limits on legislative power, in which case it will haunt you. Forever.)
Enjoy it for yourself at (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18.
(Unless like me you are an advocate of - even modest - limits on legislative power, in which case it will haunt you. Forever.)
November 28, 2024 at 2:27 PM
This one qualifies in all three ways for me.
Enjoy it for yourself at (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18.
(Unless like me you are an advocate of - even modest - limits on legislative power, in which case it will haunt you. Forever.)
Enjoy it for yourself at (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18.
(Unless like me you are an advocate of - even modest - limits on legislative power, in which case it will haunt you. Forever.)
I'm not sure what kind of source would suffice, but their opposition was quite clear cut.
Wrecking amendment with catalogue of objections at 2nd reading in col 781 here: hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998...
And a bit further down in the debate, this summary of opposition's position:
Wrecking amendment with catalogue of objections at 2nd reading in col 781 here: hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998...
And a bit further down in the debate, this summary of opposition's position:
November 18, 2024 at 9:59 AM
I'm not sure what kind of source would suffice, but their opposition was quite clear cut.
Wrecking amendment with catalogue of objections at 2nd reading in col 781 here: hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998...
And a bit further down in the debate, this summary of opposition's position:
Wrecking amendment with catalogue of objections at 2nd reading in col 781 here: hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998...
And a bit further down in the debate, this summary of opposition's position:
It's a bold move to cite the 1999 New Labour government as you main source *against* enacting piecemeal constitutional change.
October 15, 2024 at 11:33 AM
It's a bold move to cite the 1999 New Labour government as you main source *against* enacting piecemeal constitutional change.
The focus on illegal migration in UK politics has got completely out of hand
It really is absurd - and based on the flimsiest of flimsy pretexts - to frame today's Chagos agreement as stopping the Indian Ocean (!) "being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK"
It really is absurd - and based on the flimsiest of flimsy pretexts - to frame today's Chagos agreement as stopping the Indian Ocean (!) "being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK"
October 3, 2024 at 1:19 PM
The focus on illegal migration in UK politics has got completely out of hand
It really is absurd - and based on the flimsiest of flimsy pretexts - to frame today's Chagos agreement as stopping the Indian Ocean (!) "being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK"
It really is absurd - and based on the flimsiest of flimsy pretexts - to frame today's Chagos agreement as stopping the Indian Ocean (!) "being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK"