I’m excited to share that my latest article, “The Multidimensions of AI Chatbots as Evidence,” is now forthcoming in the U.C. Davis Law Review. The abstract is below, and I plan to have it up on SSRN soon.
Yale Law Journal (@yalelawjournal.bsky.social) will be publishing my latest, “The New Criminal Docket and the Clemency Court.”
It explores how SCOTUS is no longer using its criminal merits docket for broad constitutional reform, opting instead for targeted relief for the fortunate few.
SCOOP: Federal judiciary approves new Supreme Court defender office to help represent indigent defendants at #SCOTUS.
Its full-time director will serve as a counterweight to the U.S. solicitor general in federal criminal cases. The first will be former Kagan clerk and SG atty Ashley Robertson.
Thanks to @rachelbarkow.bsky.social, @bellinj.bsky.social, @kovarsky.bsky.social, @profrgold.bsky.social,
@cbhessick.bsky.social,
@racheljkincaid.bsky.social,
@erinmurphyslaw.bsky.social,
@richardre.bsky.social, @kannonshanmugam.bsky.social,
@meganstevenson.bsky.social, and many more!
I’m not quite ready to post the draft to SSRN, but happy to share it upon request.
Yale Law Journal (@yalelawjournal.bsky.social) will be publishing my latest, “The New Criminal Docket and the Clemency Court.”
It explores how SCOTUS is no longer using its criminal merits docket for broad constitutional reform, opting instead for targeted relief for the fortunate few.
If he retains assigning power, then he can assign it to the justice with the narrowest view (that he likes).
And don’t forget that the chief really likes to be in the majority so he can retain the opinion-assigning power.
I'll be live blogging this morning's oral argument in Hemani over at @scotusblog.com. Argument begins at 10 am ET.
Join me there!
www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/oral...
Check out my colleague @joeljohnson13.bsky.social’s fascinating post on how the Supreme Court’s analysis in the tariff’s case should impact the way Court decides the major Second Amendment case that will be argued next week 👇👇
open.substack.com/pub/divideda...
My thoughts on the Learning Resources and Hemani over at @dividedargument.bsky.social:
blog.dividedargument.com/p/guest-post...
Yeah, that’s probably right. I think you could say something similar about a lot of the early Chevron cases too—trying to establish the framework itself as the proper mode of analysis, so that lower courts go and do likewise.
Isn’t this just an implication of any front-end clear-statement rule? IOW, sometimes evidence of the textual meaning will overcome a preponderance standard but won’t overcome the clear-statement standard . Other times (as here) the evidence would fail under either standard.
Thanks for the shoutout, @espinsegall.bsky.social!
In addition to the amicus brief, I shared my views on Hemani here:
bsky.app/profile/joel...
She was a nominee! (And also in town because judged the moot court final at Pepperdine two days earlier.)
Hiring announcement for appellate attorney at the District of Puerto Rico Federal Public Defender's Office, available at https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/public/Employment/Vacancy-Files/2026-01-appellate-afpd.pdf (page 1)
Hiring announcement for appellate attorney at the District of Puerto Rico Federal Public Defender's Office, available at https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/public/Employment/Vacancy-Files/2026-01-appellate-afpd.pdf (page 2)
Another! The District of Puerto Rico FPD Office is hiring an appellate attorney! Your wardrobe will include sandals for San Juan and a parka for oral argument trips to Boston!
www.fd.org/sites/defaul...
Image of a law school library with the words "law reviews are opening!" and #LRSubmissions overlaid
Pepperdine Law Review - Annual Volume is now open and accepting submissions on Scholastica!
Submit your article here: https://pepperdine-law-review-essays.scholasticahq.com/for-authors #LRSubmissions
Very excited that the Pepperdine Law Review will be hosting a symposium @pepperdine.bsky.social Caruso School of Law on 3/27, "The Second Amendment After Bruen & Rahimi: Revisiting History & Tradition"!
We have a great lineup; register ⬇️ & stay tuned for updates.
law.pepperdine.edu/law-review/s...
Maybe there was less originalism-based elaboration in Case v. Montana than expected because the justices knew this case was coming down the pike?
BIG IN THE 4A WORLD: The Supreme Court has granted cert in Chatrie, the geofence warrant case, to decide the following Q: "Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment." (I assume this includes both whether a "search" happened and whether the warrant was lawful.)
How often can you read amicus briefs from colleagues at the same law school arguing for opposite sides in the same case?? Check out Joel’s super interesting brief urging the Court not to even reach the 2nd Am q.
My amicus brief (w/ other 2A scholars) is here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
By adopting that narrow reading on one of those bases, the Court can provide stable and enduring guidance to lower courts and also affirm the judgment below solely on a statutory ground, sidestepping the Second Amendment issues entirely.
/end
Both paths lead to the same result — a construction of “unlawful user” limited to those impaired while armed. 8/
Second, the Court could rely on “vagueness avoidance” to adopt a narrow construction, restricting the statute’s application to its conduct it clearly covers and avoiding constitutional vagueness concerns presented by the indeterminate text. 7/
First, the Court could embrace a rule of “major-questions lenity.” Borrowing from administrative law—and echoing the historic rule of strict construction—this rule would require a clear statement before a penal statute is construed to turn millions of Americans into felons. 6/
Rather than adopting either of these deficient and ad hoc constructions, I argue that the Court should employ a principled framework for construing penal statutes that respects the separation of powers and legislative primacy in defining crimes. Two options are available: 5/
The regulation is so broad that it potentially criminalizes tens of millions of Americans. The SG construction is narrower, but it fails to resolve the indeterminacy. Nor can either construction be squared with the rest of the relevant statutory language. 4/
The govt’s shifting positions highlight the lack of clear boundary. For decades, a federal reg has expansively construed “unlawful user” to cover those who’ve used a drug just once within the past year. The SG has pivoted to narrower construction requiring “habitual use.” 3/
🔗: tinyurl.com/hemaniamicus
Section 922(g)(3) criminally prohibits gun possession by an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. The phrase “unlawful user” is undefined and inherently indeterminate. Because it is vague, it requires judicial construction. 2/
