Sam J. Merchant

I appreciate the helpful feedback I have received so far. There is plenty of time to incorporate more (comments welcome!), and I will add an analysis of Slaughter and Cook as needed. I can send a copy via e-mail, and it will be on SSRN…when they approve the upload.

These questions have been floating around for some time, and were raised directly in the recent Slaughter and Cook cases. The issues haven’t been meaningfully been examined since Mistretta, and a lot has changed since 1989.

My piece, “The Constitutionality of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in a Formalist Era” is forthcoming in the Washington Law Review.
Is the USSC the next independent agency to fall? Can the President fire Sentencing Commissioners if he disagrees w/ them? No, even in this formalist Era. 1/3

I love what Islander is doing. But once I went tritium I never went back. (For daily wearers.) If Islander had literally anything in tritium, I’d likely buy it.

Texted my better half the killer in Ep 2. Not horribly shot, directed, or acted, but the script made it a little too obvious.

At least last year it took an email. I think of it like an expedite.

Planes cover more ground than ships, extending the President’s taxing power.

MQD only got three votes.
(Though it will be cited as law by pro MQD folks anyway, along with Gorsuch’s treatise.)

I have never seen this argument before. (Given the number of citations to McConnell, I assume it came from him?) Seems wildly atextual and ahistorical, but perhaps I (and 8 sitting justices and every prior justice) are missing something.

Thomas dissent is…something.

Gold banner; maroon block M; Faculty in the News: “[One proposed change to the guidelines] is an incentive for defendants to establish that they are redeåemable, they are coachable and they're receptive to treatment.” - Prof. Sam Merchant; Law360 logo

@sammerchant.bsky.social was interviewed by @law360.bsky.social about the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines. The proposed new amendments could lead to shorter prison terms for many offenders. z.umn.edu/b2lm

Resuscitated Oct. 6, 2026

Next admin and Congress need to bring huge numbers of these people back. “Fast Track Back” if you’ve been here before without issue.

My summary of Tranche 2 of the proposed amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In a nutshell, these: (1) encourage more probation sentences, and (2) offer alternatives to the infamous “categorical approach” (crim/immigration folks know).

sentencing.substack.com/p/sentencing...

Whoa hold on there, I can’t think of one MN prof who agrees with him on this. Please do not conflate.

(And FWIW, I teach Somerset and other key English cases in almost all of my courses.)

It would also be improper. Much of his letter complains about not knowing any facts and just winging it based on what he does know. So the letter is not conclusive or suggestive.

Being in Crim and in MN, I have turned down a huge number of interview requests in the past few weeks for being outside of my expertise.

Crazy to think how much of this would stop if the Supreme Court would say the obvious: officers can’t recklessly create the danger that preceded excessive force.
They move in days when the issue is trans kids or the President firing people. But they pass on this, which is literally killing people.

I like the link to Unitary Executive Theory. If the theory is true, immigration judges granting warrants are not neutral, so the warrants are invalid. A great way to challenge all such proceedings (e.g., habeas “alternatives”). (Will ultimately fail at SCOTUS, of course.)

The only consistent external influence moderating his discretion: big red days in the stock market.

Relatedly, the justices joking with him (repeatedly) is not a bad sign for him.

After getting Sauer to affirm the virtues of independent agencies. Interesting.

I need to finish reading but I assume this will be violated tomorrow. Contempt proceedings —> SCOTUS.

I’ve wondered this: if an originalist J agrees on the outcome but isn’t writing, must they file and originalist concurrence in the judgment or just go along? (This is not limited to originalism.) Kagan and Jackson writing today, we wouldn’t expect originalism as the majority op.

Thanks! TM should be on the site soon with some structure/ideas. (I can also e-mail it.) And even if it's not adopted as a supplement, I regularly have students ask "where should I start?" So it makes a great recommended text.

Finally out! Shipping (free) from publisher now, Amazon in a couple of weeks.
bsky.app/profile/samm...

I hope you will pick up a copy for yourself or as a gift, and utilize it in class or add it to your syllabi as a "recommended" text. (TM will be released next week, and I'm happy to discuss incorporation into classes/give slides or notes.) Please repost/share with anyone you think is interested! 6/6

Annotated docs include Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), Articles of Association (1774), Olive Branch Petition (1775), DOI (1776), Articles of Confederation (1777), Northwest Ordinance (1787), the Confederate Constitution (1861), and many more. Redlined: DOI, AOC, and Const. 5/6

It's a great standalone read/reference tool, and I worked to keep it affordable enough (it is full color) to adopt as a contextual supplement in many classes (Con Law/related.) We look at redlines when relevant, and the included clean versions when not. There is plenty of room for student notes. 4/6