Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the President of the Harlan Institute. Follow him @JoshMBlackman.
Latest from Josh Blackman
20 Teams of HS Students presented oral argument in Moody v. NetChoice
Part I—A Response to Professor Jed Shugerman on Slate in 2017, and his most recent 2024 Tweet Thread(s), About The 1793 Hamilton Document!
Professor Shugerman's argument that the 1793 Hamilton Document, that is, a list of "every person holding any civil office or employment under the United States, (except the judges)," was intended to ensure compliance with the Constitution's Sinecure Clause lacks support.
The issues, arguments, and evidence raised by Mikhail have already been addressed by extant scholarship, including our scholarship. Mikhail’s arguments and evidence were not “ignored or overlooked.”
The issues, arguments, and evidence raised by Mikhail has already been addressed by our scholarship. This evidence was not "ignored or overlooked."
Justice Kavanaugh was right. Chief Justice Chase's decision in Griffin's Case "forms the backdrop against which Congress" legislated The Enforcement Act of 1870.
Mark Graber: “Instead, justices on both the left and right made deeply problematic historical assertions unaware of their foundations in the white supremacist commitments of the history profession for most of the twentieth century.”
SCOTUS on Friday: "The Court Will Convene for a Public Non-Argument Session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m."
What does this notation mean?
These are important opportunities for law students.
Rescind 28 CFR § 600.9(c)—Eliminate Any Expectation That The AG Will Publicly Release The Special Counsel's Report
Nothing good comes from releasing a declination report for a person who will not be indicted.
If the Court kicks the insurrection issue to the election, the Court may also kick the immunity case to the election.
Earlier in the Constitutional Convention, the legislature had the power to appoint judges, ambassadors, and the treasurer. But that power was later stripped.
Our position is consistent with the "legal drafting culture" at the Constitutional Convention.
"Some more scholars" talk about Section 3
Oral Arguments in Trump v. Anderson Part IV: Justice Sotomayor and Kagan get the line between national power and federalism
The states do not need Section 3 to impose qualifications on state-created positions. But only the national government should decide questions about the President.
Oral Arguments in Trump v. Anderson Part III: Justice Kavanaugh Gets Griffin's Case and Justice Barrett gets FedCourts
Why did Jonathan Mitchell not vigorously defend Griffin's Case and Chief Justice Chase? And Mitchell missed Justice Barrett's question about direct/collateral challenges due to his refusal to accept the sword-shield dichotomy.
Justice Jackson explained that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in favor of expanding democracy. But Mitchell's concern about Foreign Emoluments Clause "boomerang" could have cut off a path of complete victory.
Justice Gorsuch demonstrates that he is the Court's most careful, consistent textualist.
Not exactly what I expected, but a very rewarding experience.
All Blackman-Tillman Articles, Presentations, Amicus Briefs, Commentary, and Blog posts on Section 3 and Insurrection
We started thinking about the topic on January 6, 2021, and have been writing since.
Keisler and Bernstein contradicted Luttig's position.
"The Legal Issues Behind the Colorado Ballot Disqualification Case"
"When the Supreme Court considers whether Donald J. Trump is barred from appearing on Colorado’s ballot, a professor’s scholarship, long relegated to the fringes, will take center stage."