Upcoming Virtual Panel on Trump v. Anderson [updated]

I will be on a panel with Prof. Neil Siegel (Duke) and Prof. Derek Muller (Notre Dame) in a webinar sponsored by the Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

On October 17, 12-1 PM central time/1-2 PM eastern time, I will be participating in a virtual panel on the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Anderson, which held that states cannot disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election on the basis that he was ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The panel is sponsored by the Loyola University Chicago School of Law.  The other participants will be  Prof. Derek Muller (Notre Dame), a prominent election law scholar, and Prof. Neil Siegel of Duke Law School, a prominent constitutional law scholar. The event will be moderated by Prof. Tyler Valeska (Loyola).

Free registration available here. And here is the official description of the panel:

This panel will examine the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Trump v. Anderson. That decision prevented states from barring Donald Trump from their presidential ballots under Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment on the grounds that he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021. The panelists will debate the Court's outcome and reasoning, explore the case's implications for our democracy, and consider how Congress and other institutions might respond.

Both Neil Siegel and I have written articles about the case, and both are available on SSRN. Here are the links:

Neil Siegel, "Narrow But Deep: The McCulloch Principle, Collective-Action Theory, and Section Three Enforcement."

Ilya Somin, "A Lost Opportunity to Protect Democracy Against Itself: What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Trump v. Anderson,"

Part II of my article includes a brief critique of Siegel's.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

|/dev/null

[Voize]

That's harsh. Prof. Somin has always spoken highly of your mop and bucket work.

[Kazinski]

Somin, of course will explain why a unanimous court was wrong, and he was right, rather than reexamine his thinking to figure out why he was so out of step with the court, including Kagen, Jackson, and Sotomayor.

You will excuse me if I say I doubt rehashing his posts here on a.webinar will persuade me.

[Sarcastr0]

He will criticize the decision, as is a pretty fine and normal thing in a democracy.
I expect he will acknowledge it is good law and must be followed.

One should not shift one's opinions to align with the Supreme Court's opinion, that's more of a monarchy thing.

[Kazinski]

If you are a law professor and your position loses 9-0, at least a little introspection would be appropriate.

Heh, by your lights a concensus has been reached by the 9 most prominent legal experts in the country.

Ilya sticking to his position sounds perilously close to being a law denier, doesn't he know the there is a concensus?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, this is monarchy shit.

The Supreme Court has been wrong, will be wrong, and are Supreme because they are final, not because they are infallible.

I'm not saying I agree with Prof. Somin, but your criticism is based on a profound misunderstanding of how a free people interact with their government.

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case, "a little introspection" might involve, oh, perhaps having somebody on the panel who actually AGREED with the 9-0 decision.

That's the lack of humility here: The Court rules 9-0, and they can't even be bothered to include anybody on the panel who agreed with the Court. That's remarkably arrogant.

[SMP0328]

In this case, “a little introspection” might involve, oh, perhaps having somebody on the panel who actually AGREED with the 9-0 decision.

Professor Siegel goes down as concurring in the judgment. He disagrees with the Court's reasoning but agrees with the holding (Colorado couldn't disqualify Trump from the ballot) on different grounds.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, he completely disagrees with the Court's reasoning, everybody on the panel disagreed with the Court.

He just liked the outcome, on a basis nobody on the Court agreed with.

ALL these guys are on a different page from the Court.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be clear, I don't have a problem with individual people disagreeing with the Court, either as to result or reasoning.

But if you're putting together a panel on a 9-0 Court decision, you should have SOMEBODY on it who didn't disagree with every single Justice.

[Sarcastr0]

So you noticed how you were indicting yourself, eh?

But no, there is no fairness doctrine for panel composition, nor is it necessarily a good policy to insist on balance in every panel.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the Supreme court rules one way, 9-0, Kagan and Thomas agreeing, and you can't find somebody who agrees with them to be on the panel, you're living in a bubble. Living in a bubble is bad.

If the Supreme court rules one way, 9-0, and you could find somebody who agrees with them, but don't want such a person on your panel, you're perpetuating a bubble. Perpetuating bubbles is bad.

That was not an intellectually healthy panel. How is it going to advance the audience's understanding of why the Court ruled that way, when absolutely nobody on the panel thinks it should have?

It's preaching to the choir, and it's not even a mainstream denomination choir, it's a cult's choir.