William Baude
@williambaude.bsky.social
Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor, University of Chicago Law School. Podcaster and Blogger at Divided Argument.
1, Im not sure, but 2, shouldn’t it be the state law of interpretation?
January 21, 2026 at 4:48 PM
1, Im not sure, but 2, shouldn’t it be the state law of interpretation?
Are those all pre-Grzegorczyk?
January 13, 2026 at 1:17 AM
Are those all pre-Grzegorczyk?
I’m not sold that it was either! I am describing …
January 7, 2026 at 4:48 PM
I’m not sold that it was either! I am describing …
And I won't give away the ending, but I will tell you the last sentence: "Does the Roberts Court have the will and the power to do what the Marshall Court could not?"
January 7, 2026 at 4:38 PM
And I won't give away the ending, but I will tell you the last sentence: "Does the Roberts Court have the will and the power to do what the Marshall Court could not?"
You have to subscribe online or find a place that sells journals to read it. But an excerpt from the heart:
January 7, 2026 at 4:38 PM
You have to subscribe online or find a place that sells journals to read it. But an excerpt from the heart:
Reposted by William Baude
"Perhaps the Court is moving back to assessing irreparable harm with more nuance and precision, as it should." If only. Here, however, there's no injunction against effectuating a Trump policy--let alone a statute--so I'm afraid this wasn't a recognition that that's not invariably "harm" to the U.S.
December 20, 2025 at 10:36 AM
"Perhaps the Court is moving back to assessing irreparable harm with more nuance and precision, as it should." If only. Here, however, there's no injunction against effectuating a Trump policy--let alone a statute--so I'm afraid this wasn't a recognition that that's not invariably "harm" to the U.S.