Jed H. Shugerman
@jedshug.bsky.social
Prof Boston U. Law. JD/PhD History & dad jokes.
5th most-cited legal historian, 2019-23
Book: The People’s Courts. Next: A Faithful President: The Founders v. the Originalists
http://shugerblog.com
http://ssrn.com/author=625422
5th most-cited legal historian, 2019-23
Book: The People’s Courts. Next: A Faithful President: The Founders v. the Originalists
http://shugerblog.com
http://ssrn.com/author=625422
I didn't clerk for Thomas or Scalia, or for that matter, any SCOTUS Justice.
And frankly, the way things are going, I sincerely appreciate this essay. I know many people won't think of it as courageous, but I've seen enough in the law school world to know that it is.
And frankly, the way things are going, I sincerely appreciate this essay. I know many people won't think of it as courageous, but I've seen enough in the law school world to know that it is.
October 13, 2025 at 7:26 PM
I didn't clerk for Thomas or Scalia, or for that matter, any SCOTUS Justice.
And frankly, the way things are going, I sincerely appreciate this essay. I know many people won't think of it as courageous, but I've seen enough in the law school world to know that it is.
And frankly, the way things are going, I sincerely appreciate this essay. I know many people won't think of it as courageous, but I've seen enough in the law school world to know that it is.
I think too many originalists cherry-pick from the First Congress, ignore overwhelming contrary evidence, and assume the First Congress is reliable evidence of original meaning.
@kexelchabot and I are both primarily fact-checkers who cautiously see some value from this evidence.
@kexelchabot and I are both primarily fact-checkers who cautiously see some value from this evidence.
October 5, 2025 at 5:58 PM
I think too many originalists cherry-pick from the First Congress, ignore overwhelming contrary evidence, and assume the First Congress is reliable evidence of original meaning.
@kexelchabot and I are both primarily fact-checkers who cautiously see some value from this evidence.
@kexelchabot and I are both primarily fact-checkers who cautiously see some value from this evidence.
Here’s the song- just the intro echoed the Police. 2/
open.spotify.com/track/53iuhJ...
open.spotify.com/track/53iuhJ...
The Fate of Ophelia
open.spotify.com
October 5, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Here’s the song- just the intro echoed the Police. 2/
open.spotify.com/track/53iuhJ...
open.spotify.com/track/53iuhJ...
Sorry, this is the correct link to the Trump v. Cook amicus brief the SCOTUS site:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov
September 26, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Sorry, this is the correct link to the Trump v. Cook amicus brief the SCOTUS site:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
SCOTUS link to amicus brief (Trump v. Cook) here:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
September 25, 2025 at 10:01 PM
SCOTUS link to amicus brief (Trump v. Cook) here:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Offices can be both property and have sureties. It was not either/or.
The transition was so gradual, no one has identified when or even if offices are no longer protected as a form of property.
The transition was so gradual, no one has identified when or even if offices are no longer protected as a form of property.
September 19, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Offices can be both property and have sureties. It was not either/or.
The transition was so gradual, no one has identified when or even if offices are no longer protected as a form of property.
The transition was so gradual, no one has identified when or even if offices are no longer protected as a form of property.
Marshall says Marbury is unremovable three times.
In 1803.
Why?
Because protected offices were still property, as I have explained in many places and publications, building on Manners and Menand,
In 1803.
Why?
Because protected offices were still property, as I have explained in many places and publications, building on Manners and Menand,
September 19, 2025 at 10:36 PM
Marshall says Marbury is unremovable three times.
In 1803.
Why?
Because protected offices were still property, as I have explained in many places and publications, building on Manners and Menand,
In 1803.
Why?
Because protected offices were still property, as I have explained in many places and publications, building on Manners and Menand,
I've been writing against this nonsense for almost a decade:
scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scho...
scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scho...
The Creation of the Department of Justice: Professionalization without Civil Rights or Civil Service
This Article offers a new interpretation of the founding of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1870 as an effort to shrink and professionalize the federal government. The traditional view is that Cong...
scholarship.law.bu.edu
September 19, 2025 at 6:32 PM
I've been writing against this nonsense for almost a decade:
scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scho...
scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scho...
The entire unitary project is bunk.
Ahistorical myth.
Anti-rule-of-law absurdity.
But there's debunked bunk, and then there's bunker bunk.
The Roberts Court won't admit error about the bunker bunk they've already decided, but will 5 Justices approve this round of authoritarianism?
I don't know.
Ahistorical myth.
Anti-rule-of-law absurdity.
But there's debunked bunk, and then there's bunker bunk.
The Roberts Court won't admit error about the bunker bunk they've already decided, but will 5 Justices approve this round of authoritarianism?
I don't know.
September 19, 2025 at 6:31 PM
The entire unitary project is bunk.
Ahistorical myth.
Anti-rule-of-law absurdity.
But there's debunked bunk, and then there's bunker bunk.
The Roberts Court won't admit error about the bunker bunk they've already decided, but will 5 Justices approve this round of authoritarianism?
I don't know.
Ahistorical myth.
Anti-rule-of-law absurdity.
But there's debunked bunk, and then there's bunker bunk.
The Roberts Court won't admit error about the bunker bunk they've already decided, but will 5 Justices approve this round of authoritarianism?
I don't know.
1. The long-game. It took decades for "Lochner" to discredit itself & become the label for ideological pro-corporate judges.
2. The short-game. There is a non-zero chance that these escalating abuses could make 2 or 3 Justices think twice. They already tried (weakly) to carve out a Fed exception.
2. The short-game. There is a non-zero chance that these escalating abuses could make 2 or 3 Justices think twice. They already tried (weakly) to carve out a Fed exception.
September 19, 2025 at 5:36 PM
1. The long-game. It took decades for "Lochner" to discredit itself & become the label for ideological pro-corporate judges.
2. The short-game. There is a non-zero chance that these escalating abuses could make 2 or 3 Justices think twice. They already tried (weakly) to carve out a Fed exception.
2. The short-game. There is a non-zero chance that these escalating abuses could make 2 or 3 Justices think twice. They already tried (weakly) to carve out a Fed exception.