Dan Epps
@epps.bsky.social
Howard and Caroline Cayne Distinguished Professor of Law, WUSTL. Con law 📜, crim law/pro 👮, SCOTUSology 🏛. Cohost 🎤 @dividedargument.bsky.social.
Sorry I thought you meant a suit against the agent personally as an alternative to criminal charges against him. If FTCA I think the best path would be to style as an international tort subject to the law enforcement proviso
January 9, 2026 at 11:57 PM
Sorry I thought you meant a suit against the agent personally as an alternative to criminal charges against him. If FTCA I think the best path would be to style as an international tort subject to the law enforcement proviso
Why wouldn’t this be barred by the Westfall Act?
January 9, 2026 at 9:52 PM
Why wouldn’t this be barred by the Westfall Act?
If you entirely lack the relevant context, it might be best to sit this one out rather than jumping in to try to contradict based on vibes. I stand by what I said, I have good reason to say it, and my goal is to encourage my peers to engage in ways that are socially productive
January 8, 2026 at 12:12 PM
If you entirely lack the relevant context, it might be best to sit this one out rather than jumping in to try to contradict based on vibes. I stand by what I said, I have good reason to say it, and my goal is to encourage my peers to engage in ways that are socially productive
I took Mark's post as essentially saying it's not worth engaging even with folks left of center if they're not 100% with the program 100% of the time.
January 8, 2026 at 3:32 AM
I took Mark's post as essentially saying it's not worth engaging even with folks left of center if they're not 100% with the program 100% of the time.
But (1) we need also to keep our side honest and rigorous and (2) try to not only speak to our ingroup in a way that alienates good-faith folks with different values.
January 8, 2026 at 3:32 AM
But (1) we need also to keep our side honest and rigorous and (2) try to not only speak to our ingroup in a way that alienates good-faith folks with different values.
I am absolutely good with calling out low quality/politically motivated work and I hope I wasn't read as saying otherwise. I spend less time doing that because (1) much of it isn't in my core areas of expertise and (2) a lot of folks have that covered.
January 8, 2026 at 3:32 AM
I am absolutely good with calling out low quality/politically motivated work and I hope I wasn't read as saying otherwise. I spend less time doing that because (1) much of it isn't in my core areas of expertise and (2) a lot of folks have that covered.
🤷♂️I try to talk to a lot of folks outside that bubble, even if _policy_wise I'm more of a centrist. I think preferring one set of policies is not the same thing as preferring to live in a bubble where you don't interact with people who don't share your views.
January 7, 2026 at 10:42 PM
🤷♂️I try to talk to a lot of folks outside that bubble, even if _policy_wise I'm more of a centrist. I think preferring one set of policies is not the same thing as preferring to live in a bubble where you don't interact with people who don't share your views.
No...I think it's a genuinely hard question (what to do about X). I struggle with it. Sort of a collective action problem in that a lot of folks I respect are there still.
January 7, 2026 at 9:16 PM
No...I think it's a genuinely hard question (what to do about X). I struggle with it. Sort of a collective action problem in that a lot of folks I respect are there still.
Ok, in the sense that there are certain kinds of political principles that should be applied consistently?
January 7, 2026 at 8:45 PM
Ok, in the sense that there are certain kinds of political principles that should be applied consistently?
If that's the claim I think I agree with it! But accepting that claim means I can still take legal reasoning seriously on its own terms, right, even if sometimes I think it leads to bad outcomes?
January 7, 2026 at 8:38 PM
If that's the claim I think I agree with it! But accepting that claim means I can still take legal reasoning seriously on its own terms, right, even if sometimes I think it leads to bad outcomes?
Ok, I'm not trying to be deliberately dense, but I'm still confused. What _does_ change if we say law = politics?
January 7, 2026 at 8:29 PM
Ok, I'm not trying to be deliberately dense, but I'm still confused. What _does_ change if we say law = politics?
OK—but what does it mean for ordinary "law" cases if we think all law is "politics" even if not partisanship?
January 7, 2026 at 8:20 PM
OK—but what does it mean for ordinary "law" cases if we think all law is "politics" even if not partisanship?
I didn't take _that_ to be the argument; I thought the argument just that we should embrace the idea that law IS just politics?
January 7, 2026 at 8:17 PM
I didn't take _that_ to be the argument; I thought the argument just that we should embrace the idea that law IS just politics?
But isn't that the result if we just say law = politics? Or do you mean we should think only that *constitutional* law = politics?
January 7, 2026 at 8:14 PM
But isn't that the result if we just say law = politics? Or do you mean we should think only that *constitutional* law = politics?
Got it; I tend to think of reactionaries as decidedly right-wing, but I guess it's all relative to what things you want to change and what to preserve. I'm surely in the middle on that question.
January 7, 2026 at 8:13 PM
Got it; I tend to think of reactionaries as decidedly right-wing, but I guess it's all relative to what things you want to change and what to preserve. I'm surely in the middle on that question.
That's interesting—what is a "reactionary" center left though (genuine Q)?
January 7, 2026 at 8:03 PM
That's interesting—what is a "reactionary" center left though (genuine Q)?
But what would be spineless is not even trying. Because, in the end, trying to save the rule of law requires trying to preserve some middle—some space where we all have to try to take the other side's values seriously. In the end, that's all we have.
January 7, 2026 at 5:50 PM
But what would be spineless is not even trying. Because, in the end, trying to save the rule of law requires trying to preserve some middle—some space where we all have to try to take the other side's values seriously. In the end, that's all we have.
I do plenty of that on my podcast. But sometimes I also try to encourage rigor on my side of the aisle. That's hard. Maybe it makes everybody on both sides hate me!
January 7, 2026 at 5:50 PM
I do plenty of that on my podcast. But sometimes I also try to encourage rigor on my side of the aisle. That's hard. Maybe it makes everybody on both sides hate me!