Link to Gillian's article, which is (characteristically) terrific.

harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...

"I have read different things."

Can it really still be the case that folks go into a Chotiner interview unaware ...?!

Also, this in response to "I could be [Ratner's] father.":

"I read that Roman Polanski is a father figure to him. So that role might already be filled."

Most legal academics do thank their research assistants, and sometimes editors, in the starred footnote. But there's no obligation to do so, any more than novelists and nonfiction authors must attribute certain passages to their editors/colleagues who recommended them.

... was to reveal to the Chief and others that DOJ had improperly obtained confidential notes of the Conference that it *referred to* but refused to disclose! It's difficult even to imagine what the conversations in the AG's Office could have been like before they decided to do this.

What's especially astounding about what Bondi did here is that CJ Roberts obviously *knows* what Boasberg said at the Conference (he was probably there), and knows that there was nothing remotely inappropriate about it.
Therefore, the only practical effect of the complaint ...

Well, of course, if the author acknowledged using A.I. to write the first draft of the article--and didn't edit it--or that she used A.I. to elicit *information* that she didn't subsequently check--then disclosure wouldn't be the remedy; nonpublication would be. This statement isn't about that.

You don't disclose that you used spellcheck?

Opinion here. Standing recognized only for the lateral faculty hiring claim--and as to that, the judge holds that it fails as a matter of law given CTA7 precedents on Titles VI, VII and IX.

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

The important question going forward is when, if at all, SCOTUS and courts of appeals will begin more broadly treating the Trump DOJ as the sort of unprofessional and dishonorable institution reflected so vividly in this episode. Any "presumption of regularity" has long ago been thoroughly rebutted.

... and then proceeds to explain that, in any event, the (uncorroborated) conduct alleged would be par for the course (indeed, similar to things the Chief Justice has said) and not remotely unethical. And that the Judicial Council obviously lacks jurisdiction over the further (frivolous) claims. [2]

Here it is.

d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/...

Oh!, and, especially:

Yeats, (Henry) James and Joyce

European Intellectual History
Freud
The New York Intellectuals
Hegel
American Intellectual History

Also, the SG won't embrace IW's absurd implied argument that the U.S. federal government may deny all legal "protection" to diplomats, tribal members, and undocumented foreigners.

You're giving IW and JE much more credence than they warrant.

Yes, but Eastman argues that the Court should overrule even the holding in WKA. Again, that's not where the action will be.

Really? He sure didn't make that case in his brief--and what could he possibly cite in support of the argument that children of visitors weren't subjects in England? That's a nonstarter with the Court.

That's the whole point of those two paragraphs--the essential move in the government's argument, without which they'd have nothing. It's why they argue that the dozens of pages of WKA to the contrary are dicta the Court should disregard.