Micah Schwartzman
@micahschwartzman.bsky.social
5.6K followers 690 following 160 posts
Law professor at the University of Virginia.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Does blocking people on twitter because they asked some critical/clarifying questions violate the Rapoport Rules and the internal morality of reasoned disagreement? (Asking for everyone who isn't an integralist.)

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
How to Disagree
How should one respond to an argument that one believes to be wrong, or egregiously wrong? What is the proper tone? Does disagreement have an internal morality?
papers.ssrn.com
Reposted by Micah Schwartzman
payvandahdout.bsky.social
This from my incomparable colleague, Caleb Nelson, on originalism and the unitary executive theory.
rickpildes.bsky.social
At NYU's Democracy Project (more on that later), Prof. Caleb Nelson has a feature essay arguing that originalism does not support the unitary executive branch theory. Caleb is one of the country's leading originalist scholars, frequently cited by the Court.

democracyproject.org/posts/must-a...
Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President’s Pleasure?
A broad range of views on democracy to help break the stalemate caused by partisan conflict.
democracyproject.org
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
That's also what's happening here: employers must grant exemptions even if employees make fraudulent claims, and no matter how costly the exemption is for the employer. If Caldor is good law (a big if under this Court), this law goes too far and should be tested under the Establishment Clause. /3
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
This looks like a violation of the Establishment Clause under Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, which invalidated an exemption that gave "unyielding weight[] in favor of" religion over all other interests. www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt... /2
ESTATE OF Donald E. THORNTON and Connecticut, Petitioners, v. CALDOR, INC.
www.law.cornell.edu
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Kansas passed a law making it illegal for hospitals (or any employer) to require COVID vaccination unless they grant a religious exemption -- with no inquiry into the sincerity of those who claim it. Basically, employers must allow automatic exemptions. (h/t @doritreiss.bsky.social). /1
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
This looks like a violation of the Establishment Clause under Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, which invalidated an exemption that gave "unyielding weight[] in favor of" religion over all other interests. /2 www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt...
ESTATE OF Donald E. THORNTON and Connecticut, Petitioners, v. CALDOR, INC.
www.law.cornell.edu
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Pretty sure I got blocked on Twitter for asking a version of this question — back when it was still Twitter.
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Also exceedingly rare for a court to cite Schragger, Schwartzman, and Tebbe, but lo and behold.
mjsdc.bsky.social
Check out Justice Eddins’ complete repudiation of the Roberts Court here. It’s worth reading in full. It’s quite brave—and exceedingly rare—for a sitting judge to speak so candidly and scathingly about SCOTUS’ partisan contortions of law, history, and fact.
www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/u...
The Supreme Court devalues democracy. Thirty-seven state
constitutions block public funds from supporting religious
entities. Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe,
Reestablishing Religion, 92 U. Chi. L. Rev. 199, 211 (2025) .
The Court aims to federally-repeal these state constitutional
provisions.
The Court's beliefs meddle with local and state
governments. Forcing states to send public funds to religious
entities federalizes public policy. By unprincipled fiat. See
also New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597
U.S. 1 (2022) (zero to superpower).
Taxpayer funds now flow to religious institutions. So, the
government collects money from nonbelievers (under the threat of
jail), and uses some of it to support religion. And since not
all religions will receive public funds, the government forces
minority faiths to support other faiths, or else.
The Court twists text, history, purpose, precedent, and
public meaning to offend the First Amendment's character-of-
government structure and the Constitution's separate sovereignty
structure.
As it steamrolls both, the Court says nothing about church-
state separation and federalism principles. The Court's
nevermind stance to the structural features of the Constitution
"has unfolded with little engagement with, and occasional
Reposted by Micah Schwartzman
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Session 3 on Proof — philosophy and law of evidence, with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed Chang, Alex Stein, and Kim Ferzan.
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Sunstein seems to think it’s an open question in religious liberty cases whether the government’s interest in prohibiting discrimination against gay people is as strong as its interest in prohibiting animal cruelty. That does make me wonder if he thinks that’s also true for race discrimination?
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Registration is open for the NOMOS conference on Capitalism and Socialism. The Zoom and registration links, as well as the final schedule and paper titles are available at www.political-theory.org. With thanks to the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics @harvard.edu for hosting.
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
Blain is right that this isn’t responsive to the criticism. Rawls never claims there is no ask. Obviously there is. The issue is whether everyone has to answer it in the same way. So us political liberals olds don’t think nouveau-perfectionist liberals get to slide past this problem.
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
In Kluge, CA7 today reinstated a public school teacher's claim for a religious accommodation to avoid calling transgender students by their chosen names. Judge Rovner's dissent cites and quotes @profjdnelson.bsky.social's article, Disestablishment at Work, www.yalelawjournal.org/article/dise...:
Judge Rovner, citing James Nelson's article, Disestablishment at Work: "(noting that misgendering stu-dents- including the refusal to address transgender students by their gendered first names and pronouns - can be particularly harmful when carried out by a teacher and in front of classmates)."
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
That’s not how this works, unless you’re a legislator, and then this is how that works.
micahschwartzman.bsky.social
CA9 panel holds that Oregon policy requiring adoptive parents to respect a child's sexual orientation/gender identity favored one religion over another, citing the Court's recent Establishment Clause decision in Catholic Charities.

So if you tell the state that its abortion ban violates your faith?