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.
Josh Blackman
Latest from Josh Blackman
Where does the Judicial Conference Get the Authority To Mandate Case Assignments?
A general power to issue orders to judicial employees does not trump a specific power for district courts to make their own rules about case assignments.
How Many Judges Sit In Single Judge Divisions?
And how many of those judges have issued national injunctions?
Senators McConnell, Cornyn, and Tillis Send Letters To Chief Judges About Judicial Conference "Policy"
"It is Congress that decides how cases should be assigned in the inferior courts and Congress has already spoken on this issue in an enacted statute."
The Judicial Conference's New "Policy" Demonstrates Why Judges Should Not Make Policy
The way to depoliticize the courts is to depoliticize the courts.
The Judicial Conference Legislates From The Shadow Docket
The Chief Justice and his associates target only one type of forum shopping in response to political criticism through a secret policy that will not be released for months.
Events on Section 3 in Texas, before and after Trump v. Anderson
Last week I spoke at UT about the case before it was decided. Today I spoke at A&M after the case was decided.
If Trump Prevails, How Will Section 3 Be Litigated On Or After January 20, 2025?
Even under the Trump v. Anderson per curiam opinion, Section 3 can be raised as a defense without the need for federal implementing legislation. But the Supreme Court may still avoid ruling on the merits.
The Modern Supreme Court Agrees With Chief Justice Chase: Trump Cannot Be Removed From The Presidential Ballot
From the outset of the litigation, Blackman & Tillman's argument was that Griffin's Case bars the relief sought by the Colorado voters.
Part II - 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.
SCOTUS will announce opinions on Monday "on the homepage."
But the "Court will not take the Bench."
Harlan Institute-Ashbrook Virtual Supreme Court Semifinalists
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.
A Response to Professor John Mikhail on "Officers of the United States" - Part II
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.”
A Response to John Mikhail on "Officers of the United States" - Part I
The issues, arguments, and evidence raised by Mikhail has already been addressed by our scholarship. This evidence was not "ignored or overlooked."
Griffin's Case (1869) and The Enforcement Act of 1870
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.
