Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Prof Caroline Mala Corbin @carolinemalacorbin.bsky.social · 21h

Hello!

I am your friendly neighborhood First Amendment professor here to provide some background on Chiles v. Salazar, to be argued in Supreme Court this morning.

At issue is whether Colorado can ban licensed therapists from inflicting the discredited practice of “conversion therapy” on minors

4 25 79

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 19h

Caldwell inadvertently shows us just how ideological Hegseth’s approach actually is. He is not making evidence-based decisions about military preparedness, but forcing his vision on an organization that, whatever its flaws, has sought to learn from its past failures to better do its job. (3/3)

7

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 19h

Has DEI made the military less able to do it’s job? This is contested but knowable. Contra Caldwell’s assertions, military DEI initiatives have been advanced on grounds of preparedness. SCOTUS buys it: it swayed O’Connor in Grutter and SFFA carved out service academies. (2/3)

2 3

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 19h

I am grateful for this oped by Caldwell in @nytimes.com for trying to steelman Hegseth’s speech. It nicely highlights the many weaknesses with his argument. In particular, it shows he never establishes the premise he relies on: that DEI initiatives have made the military less effective. (1/3)

Opinion | That Hegseth Speech Was Actually Pretty Good

www.nytimes.com

1 7

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 23h

Today: Posner, Calabresi, and Dworkin: oh my!

The late 1970s — truly another era

8

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 1d

Yes Siri I did mean lawn economics. You wouldn’t believe what the law professors have to say about plantings.

2 28

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

In light of Judge Immergut's ruling, there's a lot of noise today coming from the President's advisers and supporters about courts not having the power to provide prospective relief against domestic uses of the military.

Via "One First," me on the rather significant early precedent to the contrary:

181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.

www.stevevladeck.com

39 530 1.4K

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 3d

65 year old white woman alone at the cafe reading Dissident Practice New York is back baby

13

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

Would be curious to hear more if you feel like sharing!! (Or to listen to/ read something if it’s already out there)

1

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

I was thinking more the government, but I’m open to all takes!

2

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Moira Donegan @moiradonegan.bsky.social · 5d

A sex-blind admissions policy at selective universities will not go the way that the Trump administration thinks it will.

Under the compact, a mix of nine public and private universities would receive favorable terms for government aid if they agreed to conditions like banning consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, capping international undergraduate enrollment, requiring that applicants pass admissions examinations and suppressing grade inflation. Universities with large endowments would be asked to waive tuition for students interested in the hard sciences.

6 17 190

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

Thanks for weighing in @jadler1969.bsky.social; I really appreciate it — and thank you too for the adorable dog photo

1 3

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

Genuine question for my center/right friends: does the current political moment feel like (1) a simple correction to Democratic overreach, and so nothing to worry about; (2) business as usual in the new world of US politics; (3) a sign that we need structural reforms; (4) something else?

10 5 16

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

Gotcha. I’m agnostic on #1 and #2, but #3 is what I’m upset about now.

My sense is that there are multiple different possible rationales for the court’s actions — some more defensible, some more plausible, with the most plausible not necessarily being the most defensible. For now we’re in the dark.

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

Yes, I think so. At a minimum, it undermines trust in the judiciary. And it deprives us of our right to know what the law is (as opposed to what it might be) which has lots of real consequences for lawyers and policy entrepreneurs.

FWIW I don’t think your premise obtains here. Do you?

1 4

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

I had never read this before and I regret it. It’s very good.

Plenary Popehat Power @kenwhite.bsky.social · 6d

Every few months now I re-read this "Who Goes Nazi?" piece from 1941 and am blown away by how it captures the people we are dealing with 80 years later.

harpers.org/archive/1941...

Who Goes Nazi?, by Dorothy Thompson

harpers.org

3 10 34

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Kevin M. Kruse @kevinmkruse.bsky.social · 6d

Had the pleasure of hearing John talk about this forthcoming book today.

Really terrific — check it out!

John Fabian Witt @johnfabianwitt.bsky.social · 6d

Countdown 13, the Scottsboro 9: young Black men convicted of rape in farcical 1931 Alabama trials. The Garland Fund financed campaigns by both sides of the bitter NAACP-Communist Party rivalry, transforming the NAACP-Fund litigation campaign in the process. @simonandschuster.bsky.social

23 120

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

This Yom Kippur, I start with atoning for missing Kol Nidre

5

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

May the old year and its curses end;
May the new year and its blessings begin.

1 17

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

The third option — unstated. I think the Court has repeatedly failed to give us the real grounds for its decisions. This has a bunch of harms. In particular, it makes it very difficult for litigants to actually argue their points. And it shields the judges’s reasoning from scrutiny.

2 1 6

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

Love all the replies that are like: “This is bad they need to follow the Constitution and not make things up.”

To which I say: you’re right, I’m sorry. They really should just apply the Separation of Power Clause as written.

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

It just cannot be emphasized enough, as the differential treatment of Slaughter and Cook illustrate yet again, the Roberts Court’s vision of separation of powers is not the Founders’, nor the Constitution’s, but just their own. This isn’t necessarily bad; it’s just disingenuous. (1/2)

1 1 9

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

I know I know everything is terrible, why focus on any one example. But this statement is both mendacious and designed to chill. A prosecutor reminding ICE to follow the law does not show bias. And ICE does not always follow the law.

This is bullshit. It should have no place in government.

In a statement, Mr. Bovino said, "The former Acting US Attorney's email suggesting that the United States Border Patrol does not ALWAYS abide by the Constitution revealed a bias against law enforcement."

2 4 7

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

It’s clear that they are making decisions on the basis of their policy preferences and their evaluation of different functional considerations. But they refuse to join argument or craft thoughtful decisions on these grounds. This is the part that’s bad! (2/2)

8 26 140

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

It just cannot be emphasized enough, as the differential treatment of Slaughter and Cook illustrate yet again, the Roberts Court’s vision of separation of powers is not the Founders’, nor the Constitution’s, but just their own. This isn’t necessarily bad; it’s just disingenuous. (1/2)

23 80 350

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Nick Bednar @nicholasbednar.bsky.social · 6d

I suspect we are getting two opinions in June: (1) Slaughter v. Trump holding that Humphrey's Executor is overruled and the only exceptions that remain are those recognized at the Founding. (2) Cook v. Trump holding that protections for the Fed are permissible because of the Bank of the US.

Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 6d

NEW: The Supreme Court *refuses* to let Trump fire the Fed's Lisa Cook—for now. Instead, the court agrees to hear the case in January. Cook may continue to serve in the meantime.

(ORDER LIST: 606 U.S.)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2025

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

25A312 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. COOK, LISA D.

The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and
by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument in
January 2026. The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing
schedule for amici curiae and any supplemental briefs responding
to amici.

5 16 55