An honor to talk to Dahlia Lithwick about the policy + legal history of US citizenship & migration. It is horrifying that my book drops as SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship stripping EO. What U don't know about this history can shape your support for present law. 1/
Might be relevant for current war crimes. Even if it is too little too late.
I just found out about this place in the Delmar Loop! www.sakatanoya.com
Or AI chatbot granny-sitters.
A clip of a weather forecast that shows Monday will be windy with a high of 26 and low of 14. Tuesday will be a high of 35.
This is some upcoming bullshit.
I'll stop for now, but let me know if you want East or South Asian recommendations, too.
Nearer to Forest Park (in the Central West End), there are lots of good places, including the Kingside Diner. maps.app.goo.gl/gw6PwmHXBncX...
The Schlafly (no the good ones) Tap Room is a good bet. maps.app.goo.gl/HDXBjKfDJGD1...
Other family favorites include Blueberry Hill and Fitz's in the Delmar Loop area. visittheloop.com/delmar-loop-...
A fun place and icon is Crown Candy kitchen. maps.app.goo.gl/3ZL2GFpFtCw8...
Also decent but a little pricier is Katie's Pizza and Pasta. There is one in Ballpark Village. maps.app.goo.gl/goXaH9EXbxyR...
Downtown, Sugarfire BBQ is good, and so is Bogart's in Soulard.
Is that at the convention center downtown? If the not-too-far burbs are ok, Balkan Treat Box is fantastic. maps.app.goo.gl/ntwPGQK3AHCK...
There are so many! What kind of food do you like--or what kind of vibe?
Congratulations, @jocelynsimonson.bsky.social!
Ranked No. 4 in the list of most-cited legal scholars in the U.S. from the years 2019 through 2021.
The recent timeframe is intended to capture the most “impactful legal scholarship right now, regardless of career stage or institutional pedigree.”
8. The ruling comes as Heritage openly pushes adult care bans. After Kevin Roberts said the goal was to “outlaw it” through “radical incrementalism,” this decision appears to hand that movement a ready-made legal framework for dismantling trans adult care step by step.
This is extremely awful. At the risk of a bad analogy, this seems just like saying that surgery and chemo for cancer treatment can be banned by states who can compel people to appreciate their tumors instead.
Amen
In my experience, this is half true. Chivalry is half the fantasizing, and the other half is working with or cheering on the warrior princess. They don't have to be the one always saving the day.
New paper out in ecology letters! with @andylee.bsky.social @allydefduf.bsky.social
We synthesized the active debate on how scientists define sex, including limitations and assumptions. We believe this discussion will lead to more accurate science.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Congratulations!!
![In the first line of his opinion for the Court in United States v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice Roberts writes that the issue in the case is “whether a Tennessee law banning certain medical care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” That opening acknowledgment that the Tennessee law singles out transgender minors makes perfect sense given that the law only prohibits medical care when it has the purpose of “[e]nabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” In other words, as Justice Sotomayor puts it in her dissent, the law targets the very “definition” of being transgender. Yet,
notwithstanding the Chief Justice’s seeming acknowledgment of this obvious point at the outset of his majority opinion in Skrmetti, he ends up concluding in a brief section towards the end of his opinion that the law “does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”
The whiplash-inducing progression of the majority opinion in Skrmetti is reflective of a larger trend of credulity-straining decisions in constitutional cases dealing with the interests of LGBTQ people. In a trilogy of recent cases—303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Skrmetti—the Court has issued opinions that are difficult to imagine being written in similar ways had the interests of LGBTQ people been replaced by those of other minority groups. In 303 Creative, the Court held for the very first time that a](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:iv73mapy52ilxfjnetqatnvu/bafkreieb5efxacjujlia65imcb4qzj7lb55ekabi3xebmy2f2q72nnbcfa)
In the first line of his opinion for the Court in United States v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice Roberts writes that the issue in the case is “whether a Tennessee law banning certain medical care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” That opening acknowledgment that the Tennessee law singles out transgender minors makes perfect sense given that the law only prohibits medical care when it has the purpose of “[e]nabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” In other words, as Justice Sotomayor puts it in her dissent, the law targets the very “definition” of being transgender. Yet, notwithstanding the Chief Justice’s seeming acknowledgment of this obvious point at the outset of his majority opinion in Skrmetti, he ends up concluding in a brief section towards the end of his opinion that the law “does not classify on the basis of transgender status.” The whiplash-inducing progression of the majority opinion in Skrmetti is reflective of a larger trend of credulity-straining decisions in constitutional cases dealing with the interests of LGBTQ people. In a trilogy of recent cases—303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Skrmetti—the Court has issued opinions that are difficult to imagine being written in similar ways had the interests of LGBTQ people been replaced by those of other minority groups. In 303 Creative, the Court held for the very first time that a
New Draft Essay:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
"An Originalist Critique of Fetal Personhood" w Chip Carter is officially online (& forthcoming in U. Penn. L. Rev.)! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... We scour 19th cen. dictionaries & the context in which the 14A was ratified to discover the original public & legal meaning of "person" in 1868.
A narrow but important win in Indiana. Cracks in abortion bans start small, then they grow.
The state’s interest issuing IDs is to have an accaurate way to ensure a person is who they purport to be. Mandating licenses that inaccurately reflect a person’s appearance and public presentment undermines the state’s interest because of a bare desire to harm. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...
This is fine, right? I mean pizza is one of those luxury dinner items . . . .
For a story: looking to speak with Mizzou Law 2013 graduates about a certain classmate who went on to a statewide position in Missouri and now a role in the Trump administration.
Reach out to us on Signal:
susanrinkunas.73
garnethenderson.12
Missouri AG strikes out in case against Starbucks as federal court sketches roadmap for a DEI plan to be upheld: "aspirational goals, open-access affinity groups, mentorship without exclusion, and...no employment decisions you can't tie to legitimate, non-discriminatory criteria." [Jon Hyman]
Up next, pants!
