5/25/1861: John Merryman arrested. Chief Justice Taney ruled that his detention was unconstitutional in Ex Parte Merryman.
The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent | Est. 2002
Open Thread
What’s on your mind?
Second Amendment Roundup: Virginia Bans "Assault Firearms"
The General Assembly tests the courts to see what it can get away with.
Just last year, Justice Elana Kagan wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos that "the AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country," adding that such rifles are "both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers." And while at the same time the Court denied cert in Snope v. Brown, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a statement that the Fourth Circuit "erred by holding that Maryland's ban on AR–15s complies with the Second Amendment" and predicted that "this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two."
The Virginia General Assembly apparently doesn't want to be outdone by California and the few other outlier states testing the Supreme Court to see if it really means it, as it stated in Heller, that the Second Amendment protects (at a minimum) "arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense." Virginia enacted HB 217/SB 749, effective July 1, making the transfer or purchase of an "assault firearm" (defined to include popular semiauto firearms) and magazines holding over 15 rounds a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by incarceration for one year. A second offense makes it unlawful to possess any firearm for three years.
In signing the bill on May 14, Governor Abigail Spanberger stated: "While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language." The governor is correct to concede a point that will be used in litigation challenging the new law, as the Virginia Constitution protects the right to hunt. I explain the origins of that recognition in "The Constitutional Right to Hunt: New Recognition of an Old Liberty in Virginia," published in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (2010).
But the governor ignores that the banned firearms are also "frequently used" for training, target practice, and self-defense. Besides being protected by the federal Second Amendment, the banned firearms are guaranteed under the Virginia Constitution, Art. I, § 13, which provides in part: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…."
The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 included the above language without the final "keep and bear arms" clause, although Virginia demanded language similar to what became the Second Amendment when it ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788. As I show in "St. George Tucker's Second Amendment," Tenn. J. of L. & Pol'y (2007), the arms right was considered fundamental by Tucker, who was Virginia's finest jurist at the Founding.
In 1964, the Virginia Senate, the House concurring, declared that the Second Amendment right is "an inalienable part of our citizens' heritage in this State," adding "that any action taken by the General Assembly of Virginia to interfere with this right would strike at the basic liberty of our citizens; that no agency of this State or of any political subdivision should be given any power or seek any power which would prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms by any citizen of standing for the purpose of personal defense, sport, recreation or other noncriminal activities…." In 1970, that statement was relied upon by proponents in the legislature for amending the Virginia Constitution to add the "keep and bear arms" clause, which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 1971. I trace this history in "The Right to Bear Arms in the Virginia Constitution and the Second Amendment," Liberty U. L. Rev. (2014). See also [now Justice, Va. Supreme Court] Stephen R. McCullough, "Article I Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution: Of Militias and an Individual Right to Bear Arms," U. Richmond L. Rev. (2013).
As an aside, unlike the redistricting amendment that the Virginia Supreme Court found to be illegal on May 8 in Scott v. McDougle, the 1971 amendment had been voted for in two separate legislative sessions, with an intervening election in between. And fully two-thirds of Virginia's voters approved it.
In DiGiacinto v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University (2011), the Virginia Supreme Court held that "the protection of the right to bear arms expressed in Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of Virginia is co-extensive with the rights provided by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution" concerning the "sensitive place" issues in that case. Pertinent to the gun-ban issue here, the Court repeated Heller's dictum: "Individual self-defense is 'the central component of the right itself.'"
In 2020, bills that would have made it a five-year felony to possess an "assault firearm" failed to pass the General Assembly. The proposals sparked a prairie fire by almost all Virginia counties, which passed resolutions reaffirming Second Amendment rights and refusing to enforce the unconstitutional proposals. The Virginia Attorney General opined that these resolutions were meaningless, disregarding that priorities in law enforcement are left to local sheriffs and police and that prosecution is in the discretion of the Commonwealth Attorneys. I addressed that issue in "Virginia's Second Amendment Sanctuaries: Do They Have Legal Effect?" Regent U. L. Rev. (2020-2021).
And now it's déjà vu all over again. Scores of Virginia jurisdictions, covering most of the state's land mass, have again passed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions. It's the population center of Northern Virginia that dominates the legislature and has the power to rule the rest of the Commonwealth. But don't hold your breath waiting for local sheriffs or prosecutors to ferret out who may have committed the crime of transferring a semiauto rifle with an adjustable shoulder stock. To exemplify the situation, Rob Cerullo, Commonwealth Attorney for Powhatan County, issued a directive stating that "my office will decline prosecution of criminal cases arising from violations of these sweeping bans until a court of competent jurisdiction rules on their legality."
Three lawsuits have already been filed seeking to have the gun ban declared unconstitutional and enjoined. McDonald v. Katz, filed in the U.S. district court for the Eastern District of Virginia, bases its challenge only on the Second Amendment. The other two rely on both the Second Amendment and Virginia's Art. I , § 13 – Black v. Hook, filed in Fauquier County circuit court, and Crump v. Katz, filed in Lancaster County circuit court.
Look for another challenge to be filed by the United States. On April 10, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote Governor Spanberger about the pending bills: "This letter provides formal notice that the Civil Rights Division will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans' individual right to bear arms."
Video of Cato Institute Online Event on the Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Case
I participated, along with prominent legal scholars Gabriel Chin and Paul Finkelman.

Last week, I participated in a Cato Institute an online event on "Trump v. Barbara: Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court." The other participants were prominent immigration law scholar Prof. Gabriel Chin (UC Irvine) and leading legal historian Paul Finkelman (Univ. of Toledo). Dan Greenberg of the Cato Institute moderated. I have embedded the video of the event below:
Part of my presentation for the online event was based on my recent article in Lawfare, where I explained why all the Trump Administration's rationales for denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants would, if applied consistently, also have had the effect of denying it to large numbers of freed slaves and their children and other Black Americans, thereby undermining the central objective of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This issue was raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the Supreme Court oral argument last month.
I also touched on my Volokh Conspiracy blog post where I explained why, although I believe birthright citizenship is superior to currently available alternatives, it is actually a "second-best" policy, not the optimal way to handle issues of migration and citizenship.
Today in Supreme Court History: May 24, 1870
5/24/1870: Justice Benjamin Cardozo's birthday.

Open Thread
What’s on your mind?
Judge Dismisses Author Michael Wolff's Lawsuit Over Melania Trump's Defamation Litigation Threat
A short excerpt from yesterday's 15K-word opinion by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil (S.D.N.Y.) Friday in Wolff v. Trump:
In this case, a chronicler of the First Family sues the First Lady because she threatened to sue him for defamation. While Plaintiff and the First Lady have a real dispute, they must litigate it according to the same procedures as everyone else.
Plaintiff asks for a declaration that, if the First Lady sues him, he deserves to win. That is not how the federal courts work. He also contends that he should not be in federal court at all. But, while it may have started in state court, this case was properly removed. Plaintiff and the First Lady are citizens of different states, and the lawsuit she threatened seeks a billion dollars in damages.
There are many features of this case that make it complicated: the prominence of the personalities involved, the scandalizing content of the underlying statements, and, frankly, an inappropriate level of tactical gamesmanship. But the outcome is simple. The Court will not be conscripted to oversee an abusively presented spat and so declines to reach the merits here….
From the Complaint, here are Melania Trump's allegations of what statements are defamatory (the emphasis appears to originate in her demand letter):
Texas Juries Decide Child Custody Cases
UPDATE: I've included a reader's pragmatic perspective on why many Texas parents choose not to ask for jury trials.
In most states, child custody matters are decided by judges; but in Texas, they are in large part decided by juries. Here's a Texas Supreme Court decision from yesterday, Gopalan v. Marsh (written by Justice John Devine), that illustrates this and reaffirms the primacy of the jury as to some such matters:
In this divorce proceeding, the jury found that the father should have the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence. But the trial court awarded the mother more time with the children under the divorce decree's possession order.
The central issue is whether the court's possession order contravened the jury verdict. We hold that it did. The ordinary meaning of "primary residence" does not encompass a home where the child lives less time than elsewhere, and the statutory context supports that understanding….
Section 105.002(c) of the Family Code provides that "[i]n a jury trial":
(1) a party is entitled to a verdict by the jury and the court may not contravene a jury verdict on the issues of: …
(D) the determination of which joint managing conservator [generally a parent] has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; … [but]
(2) the court may not submit to the jury questions on the issues of: …
(B) a specific term or condition of possession of or access to the child; or
(C) any right or duty of a conservator, other than a determination under Subdivision (1)(D), (E), or (F).
The Art of the Deal
The Trump/DOJ Settlement Agreement:—"Utterly stupid, morally wrong."
Just when you think there is no further outrage that the President of the United States can perpetrate to top all of the preceding outrages, along comes the Great Settlement Agreement of 2026.
Read it for yourself. It's only three pages long. It's titled "Settlement Agreement." It is, however, not a "Settlement Agreement" within the usual and ordinary meaning of that term. You can call a duck a goose, but it's still a duck.
Let's review how we got here. Trump, on January 26, 2026 (while serving as President) filed suit in federal court (SD FL) against the IRS, alleging negligent conduct by an IRS contractor which led to the release of the confidential tax records of millions of people (including Trump), and seeking $10 billion in damages.
This claim is nonsensical and worthless; a reasonable valuation of this claim—i.e., the amount a reasonable person in the claim valuation business would have offered to buy this claim were he allowed to do so—is $0.00. You can't sue yourself; the President runs the IRS; he can fire any or all of the IRS employees, and he can determine IRS policies (including its litigation policies); the President and an Executive Agency wholly within the scope of Presidential control cannot be legal "adversaries." So there is no Article III "case or controversy" where the President is on one side of the case, and the IRS is on the other, and without a case or controversy the court has to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
It would be a good question for a Con Law I exam. The short answer portion; it's too easy for a longer essay.
Trump's lawsuit was going to be dismissed. Everyone—you, me, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Donald Trump—knew that. Read More
Today in Supreme Court History: May 23, 1991
5/23/1991: Rust v. Sullivan is decided.

Open Thread
What’s on your mind?
FBI Director Kash Patel's Girlfriend's Defamation Suit Over Allegations She Was Israeli Spy Can Go Forward
From Judge David Alan Ezra (W.D. Tex.) today in Wilkins v. Seraphin:
This case arises from allegedly defamatory statements made by Defendant Kyle M. Seraphin on his podcast show, the Kyle Seraphin Show, about Plaintiff Alexis Wilkins ….
Plaintiff Alexis Wilkins [alleges she] "is a patriotic, conservative, Christian, country music artist and published writer, who also works for a conservative advocacy and educational company, PragerU." Since January 2023, Plaintiff has been in a long-term relationship with Kashyap "Kash" Patel, the Director of the … FBI ….
Defendant Kyle M. Seraphin is a U.S. Air Force veteran and former FBI special agent in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. A self-proclaimed "Podcaster," "Whistleblower," and "Recovering FBI agent," Defendant hosts the Kyle Seraphin Show, during which he "trades on his insider knowledge of the FBI and his experience in law enforcement" to tell his audience the "uncomfortable truth."
The show, which is livestreamed on YouTube, "Rumble," and Defendant's website, garners wide reach. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant has over 271,800 followers on X, and his posts frequently reach tens of thousands of views and numerous re-posts. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant receives income through his video sponsorships, paid membership through YouTube, and donations through YouTube.
On August 22, 2025, Defendant stated the following on the Kyle Seraphin Show:
[FBI Director Kash Patel] has had his own little 'honeypot' issue that's been going on of late, so we're just going to acknowledge it real publicly. He's got a girlfriend that is half his age, who is apparently is both a country music singer, a political commentator on Rumble, a friend of John Rich through Bongino, who also now owns a big chunk of Rumble, and she's also a former Mossad agent in what is like the equivalent of their NSA. But I'm sure that's totally because, like, she's really looking for like a cross-eyed, you know, kind of thickish built, super cool bro who's almost 50 years old who's Indian in America.
Like it has nothing to do with the fact that uh we're really close to the Trump administration. Anyway, I'm sure that's totally just like love.
That's what real love looks like.
Plaintiff alleges that, in making this statement, Defendant falsely and maliciously characterized her as a "honeypot"—which she defines as an agent of a foreign government who began a relationship with another for purposes of manipulating and compromising them—and accused her of "conduct[ing] espionage to undermine [] national security" and "committing treason." …
Professor's #TheyLied Defamation Case Against National Academy of Sciences (Related to Sexual Harassment Allegations) Can Go Forward
From today's D.C. Circuit decision in Butters v. Nat'l Acad. of Sciences, by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, joined by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Florence Pan:
This consolidated appeal involves claims of defamation, defamation by implication, and false light invasion of privacy relating to the rescission of Luis Jaime Castillo Butters's membership in the National Academy of Sciences. Castillo brought these claims against the NAS and its president, Marcia McNutt, after they made statements concerning Castillo's ouster….
Castillo is a professor of archaeology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. The NAS, a "private, nonprofit organization of the United States' leading researchers," elected Castillo to be an international member in 2012. In the Spring of 2021, a former student of Castillo's filed a complaint with the NAS. She publicly accused Castillo of sexual harassment in Peru and asked the NAS to expel him.
The NAS rescinded Castillo's membership on October 9, 2021. On the 13th, President McNutt informed NAS members by email that Castillo's membership had been rescinded for a Code of Conduct violation. That email mentioned a password-protected website with further information for NAS members. On October 15, the NAS made the news of Castillo's ouster publicly available on the organization's website: "Luis Jaime Castillo Butters; NAS Code of Conduct violation, Section 4; membership rescinded." Section 4 not only requires members to treat others with respect and collegiality but also broadly prohibits all forms of discrimination, harassment, and bullying.
The court concluded that Castillo had adequately alleged that these statements were false and had a defamatory meaning:
President Trump Doesn't Need Congressional Approval for His Actions as to Iran
Congress can only stop Trump’s actions in Iran by passing a concurrent resolution of both Houses over Trump’s veto, or by declining to fund the war in next year’s budget.
President Donald Trump is taking a lot of heat for the military operations he launched unilaterally as Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces against the Iranian pirates/terrorists: (1) striking Iran militarily, (2) closing the Strait of Hormuz to Iranian oil exports, and (3) aiming (I expect successfully) to force Iran into capitulation. In fact, what President Trump is doing today with Iran is nothing more than a long overdue exercise of U.S. military power, of the sort that Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison engaged in, without congressional approval, against the Barbary Pirates from 1801 to 1815.
The Barbary pirates were an early 19th century analog of the modern-day Iranian terrorist regime. They preyed on American and European trading ships and enslaved their crews. It is estimated that over 1 million American and European sailors were sold into slavery by the Barbary pirates during the centuries in which they preyed on American and European shipping. Robert Davis, British Slaves on the Barbary Coast, BBC (February 17, 2011). The Barbary pirates sailed out of Libya and North Africa generally until France conquered Algeria in 1830.
Congress never declared war against the Barbary pirates, but Presidents Jefferson and Madison rightly used their executive Commander-in-Chief powers unilaterally to cause American ships and marines to subdue them with the use of U.S. armed force. This defeated the Barbary pirates, and the Framing generation, which was still mostly alive from 1801 to 1815, acquiesced in the constitutionality of this unilateral presidential use of military force. The United States has fought only five declared wars in our history since 1789—the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. But U.S. Presidents, acting as Commanders in Chief, have unilaterally deployed our armed forces many other times.
Presidents have deployed the U.S. military without congressional permission on at least 125 occasions like the one that subdued the Barbary Pirates (1801-1815). Some of those engagements have been quite bloody such as the Korean War (33,700 deaths in battle), the Vietnam War, for which congressional authorization was withdrawn from 1971 to 1975 (3,246 deaths in battle), and the overthrowing of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi by President Obama, in 2011 (4 deaths including of a U.S. Ambassador). These engagements were not authorized but were paid for by Congress. John C. Yoo & Robert J. Delahunty, The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorist Organizations and the Nations that Harbor or Support Them. In addition, the U.S. has fought four undeclared wars with congressional authorization in my lifetime: the Vietnam War (1964-1971), the Gulf War (1991), the Afghan War (2001-2021), and the Iraq War (2003-2011). The gloss of history on the constitutional text supports everything that President Trump is now doing.
It is settled constitutional law after 237 years of practice that presidents have the power to use the U.S. military without Congress's permission to subdue pirates, and terrorists, like the now dead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who was quite simply a modern-day pirate. Iran has been a huge problem for the U.S. since its Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Iran captured and held hostage the U.S. Ambassador to Tehran and more than 50 American embassy personnel from November 1979 to January 20, 1981. It killed 241 U.S. Marines with a terrorist attack on a U.S. military base in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. And for the last half-century, Iran has funded a host of Islamic terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East including Hezbollah (in Lebanon), Hamas (in the Gaza Strip), and the Houthis (in Yemen), all of which have attacked Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are American allies, as well as attacking U.S. military personnel in the Middle East.
Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal
SWAT damage, sloppy briefs, and forced confessions.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New case! Pennsylvania requires real estate brokers to maintain a physical office space even if they don't need one and never use it. Indeed, IJ client Kevin Gaughen's office has been visited more often by state inspectors—who ensure there is a conference table, a landline phone, a filing cabinet, and an outdoor sign—than by actual clients. The rule chiefly serves to impose unnecessary costs that are harder for small brokers to absorb than big firms. So this week Kevin teamed up with IJ to challenge the rule under the Pennsylvania Constitution, which protects the right to earn an honest living free of unreasonable regulations. Click here to learn more.
New on the Short Circuit podcast: We take a long drink from the Fifth Circuit's waters. Including those of the Panama Canal.
- In 2022, New York passes the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, banning the possession of firearms (1) on private property where the owner has not given express consent to the carrying of firearms, and (2) in public parks. Gun-rights advocates sue. Second Circuit: The private property restriction violates the Second Amendment, but there's enough of a historical basis to uphold the restriction in public parks. Dissent: No there isn't.
- Maryland prohibits renewable energy suppliers from advertising "green power" unless the electricity is at least 51% renewable or backed by renewable energy credits from within a specific geographic region. As a result, an energy company whose electricity is fully backed by renewable energy credits from outside that region cannot advertise its electricity as "green." Energy companies seek a preliminary injunction. Fourth Circuit: Granted. None of the regulated terms are inherently misleading, nor has the state shown the law will clear up consumer confusion. Read More
"Tennessee Man Jailed 37 Days for Trump Meme Wins $835,000 Settlement"
From the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Wednesday:
After spending 37 days in jail for nothing more than posting a meme, retired Tennessee law enforcement officer Larry Bushart has won a substantial settlement from the county and sheriff behind his arrest.
Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Phillips & Phillips, PLLC, Larry Bushart filed a federal civil rights lawsuit last December against Sheriff Nick Weems, Investigator Jason Morrow, and Perry County, Tennessee, for violating his constitutional rights in retaliation for his protected speech.
Today, the parties announced in a joint statement that Larry will receive $835,000 in exchange for dismissing his complaint.
"I am pleased my First Amendment rights have been vindicated," said Larry. "The people's freedom to participate in civil discourse is crucial to a healthy democracy. I am looking forward to moving on and spending time with my family."
After the September 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Larry commented on a Facebook post promoting a vigil in nearby Perry County by sharing a meme that accurately quoted Donald Trump's statement after a school shooting: "We have to get over it."
Law School Recommended Against Student's Bar Admission, Partly for Alleged "Celebration" of Charlie Kirk Assassination in Law School Clinic
The student sued seeking to undo the reprimand and report to the bar, but a federal court concluded that this particular remedy is barred by state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment/
From Judge Brantley Starr (N.D. Tex.) May 12 in Fisher v. Campbell:
This case stems from a Texas Tech University law student allegedly making a celebratory statement {in the clinic program offices} after Charlie Kirk's assassination while she was working at a legal clinic at the school. The school … reprimanded her and reported her to the state bar for acting unprofessionally, in violation of the school's honor code [on the grounds that she had] {"fail[ed] to uphold professional or fiduciary obligations including, but not limited to, performance related to clinical programs"}.
The alleged celebratory statements were said to be:
"I'm in such a good mood."
"That mother fucker got shot."
"I'm in the best mood ever."
"They got him."
"This is great."
The student, Fisher, denied making those statements, and the Honor Council report that initially considered the matter appeared ambivalent. But the Dean concluded that Fisher had made such statements; here's an excerpt from his letter to the bar:
The Dean's Office recommends against Ms. Ellen Fisher's admission to the Bar.
We do so for three related reasons. First, Ms. Fisher, as a clinical student with a supervised practice card, disrupted our clinical spaces with a celebration of a political assassination. Second, she has refused to take responsibility or show any remorse for her unprofessional actions. And, third, she has displayed dishonesty when discussing this incident in our Honor Code proceedings.
Today in Supreme Court History: May 22, 1807
5/22/1807: Aaron Burr is indicted on charges of treason. Chief Justice John Marshall would preside over Burr's trial.

