More importantly, the Trump Administration hasn't even offered any argument that this isn't a war in the constitutional sense--because there is no plausible argument to that effect, even by the standards of this administration. It's patently unconstitutional, and no one seems to care.
Agreed. Although there probably *are* issues, as well, concerning which targeted officials and buildings they're deeming not to be "civilian."
I have a different view related to Sturgeon's Law: 90% of legal scholarship is crap, because 90% of everything is crap, and that's ok! You don't get 100% good anything; the soil that produces a Shakespeare has to have a lot of fertilizer.
Pete Hegseth just said on 60 Minutes that "we never target civilians." If only. It's the signal strategy of his DoD--a deviation from decades of sacrosanct norms and laws. Hegseth even boasts about targeting civilian boats in the Caribbean.
@justsecurity.org
www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-...
Never say never, but I'm fairly confident you'd be hard-pressed to find a better and more important legal article in the second Trump Administration than this one by @sbagen.bsky.social.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
She can do no wrong. A gorgeous Magnetic Fields cover (!) (reminiscent of Margaret Glaspy's, which I'll link below) to help raise $$ for children devastated by war. And the video, footage filmed by children in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen ... hope against hope.
www.instagram.com/reels/DVjA6_...
Very illuminating and important piece, though I wish they would have focused more on the JCPOA as being the proper offramp--and Trump/Netanyahu's unconscionable scuttling of it.
Wow, there's a *lot* to chew on here. Thanks for the tip.
I assume that's not what they have in mind here -- instead, they're thinking the Senate will confirm him by the end of the month for the office itself.
The government has stopped collecting the tariffs, in accord with the Court ruling. But the question now is about refunds of tariffs already collected, about which the Court said bupkis.
"binding" in what sense? The SCOTUS decision doesn't address refunds, let alone for nonparties.
The order itself requires Customs to "liquidate all entries" without regard to IEEPA duties, but at the hearing the judge said unequivocally that "I want to make it clear to the Customs Service that they have to refund any money that was unlawfully collected." [4]
Yup--I just listened to the hearing, and the Judge took the parties by surprise by indicating he'd issue such a judgment. USG counsel asked for some time to brief the merits and the judge responded: "There are no merits." [3]
... even though the plaintiff sought relief only for itself (see proposed order below).
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
If I'm reading this correctly, the CIT judge in this post-Learning Resources claim for a tariff refund just purported to issue universal relief on the ground that he's the only judge who'd adjudicate such claims, ... [1].
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Yes, that would be a “crucial problem.”
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
I am co-hosting an incredible event on AI & Music with Georgetown University's Music Sustainability Initiative on April 10-11, 2026. A full rundown of the event is available on the site (linked in the flyer below), and you can register (for free!) there as well.
... that the dicta in Myers--repudiated unanimously nine years later, even by those who signed on, and again by Rehnquist, et al.--is precedent, or worthy of respect. So why the attention? [2]
Why *is* everyone bothering with this guy now (other than, of course, Robert Post, who had good reason to do so)? For example, no one (by which I include CJ Roberts) actually believes ... [1]
Tafteta
An important piece showing that losses in court haven’t stopped Trump from seizing Congress’s spending power and targeting dissenters and “blue states.”
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
In case anyone’s still interested in the tariffs/IEEPA case …
And it's an anti-semitic trope at that! So they're now furiously trying to retract. Comeuppance.
Either the SG didn’t tell the WH before refusing to approve appeal in the law firm cases (almost unthinkable), or he did and then capitulated after Trump changed his mind last night. Either way, it’s difficult to imagine him retaining credibility and respect in his building or with the Court. Yikes.
Is it possible that Sauer decided not to authorize appeal without telling the WH? Seems very, very unlikely. But what other explanation is there?
Is it possible that Sauer decided not to authorize appeal without telling the WH? Seems very, very unlikely. But what other explanation is there?
Is it possible that Sauer decided not to authorize appeal without telling the WH? Seems very, very unlikely. But what other explanation is there?
YCMTSU.
Of course, it’s exactly what to expect from this crew. Which is why the lion’s share of the moral outrage should be directed at Senate Republicans, who facilitated this knowing full well what the results could be.
newrepublic.com/post/207263/...
YCMTSU.
Of course, it’s exactly what to expect from this crew. Which is why the lion’s share of the moral outrage should be directed at Senate Republicans, who facilitated this knowing full well with the results could be.
www.cnn.com/2026/03/03/p...
