Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 10.12.2025 3:00 AM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Even With A Skewed Sample Size, The New York Times Survey Of Federal Judges Reveals A Brewing Judicial Crisis
Hide Comments (66)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Nothing to see here move along, move your fucking National Guard along. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15183959/Trumps-control-National-Guard-restored-court-Illinois-deployment-blocked.html
The Washington Post has published an article listing the likely next targets for criminal prosecution by the Trump/Blondie Department of Injustice. The list includes John Bolton in Maryland, California Senator Adam Schiff, also in Maryland, Lisa Cook in Georgia, John Brennan in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, former FBI director Christopher Wray in the Western District of Virginia and Fani Willis in the Northern District of Georgia.
Sounds like a good start. How many people can Abbe Lowell represent?
Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/11/trump-schiff-bolton-cook-brennan-prosecutions/
Sorry to have initially omitted it.
I looked at the Georgia Bar's ethics and discipline rules. They do not mention discipline based on indictment for a felony. Fani Willis may keep her job. If convicted of a felony she would be subject to bar discipline.
The reporting about Fani Willis puzzles me. The U.S. Attorney is reportedly looking into overseas travel around the time of the 2024 election. I don't know how that potentially involves a federal issue, unless perhaps there is a suggestion of public money being diverted for private use.
I personally wonder about separation of powers with Senator Schiff (investigated for potential mortgage fraud). Maybe the House rules allowed claiming two primary residences while he was in the House, I don't know. Did the House Ethics Committee ever consider it? Do they today?
I can't see how House ethics rules overrule the IRS and lending rules. The House members need to pay taxes like the rest of us. No ethics rules can overrule that. (You would need a law)
You can't have "two" primary residences.
In the case of the House and Senate, I have wondered about this, meaning the primary residences question. I don't think we intended to penalize Congress-critters for getting elected to office, and now must support two households on a Congressional salary. Yes, many are independently wealthy and can easily afford to maintain two homes, some are not. Senator Schiff appears to be a man of modest (not great) wealth.
It isn't about fraud, per se, it is about the ability of individual Congress-critters to do the job they were elected to do if they are not of great financial means.
They used to have a Congressional dormitory, they could go back to having one.
If these people have committed crimes, should they not be prosecuted? Or are they "above the law"?
That's not really the question. Should the Justice Department be investigating certain people to see if they committed crimes, rather than believing there to be crimes and then figuring out if there were and who committed them?
For an administration that was supposedly going to end the weaponization of the Justice Department, this is exactly the opposite of that. But of course a lot of us knew this was Newspeak the whole time...
These are people who went beyond the call of duty to contort the interpretation of laws and invent crimes when they investigated someone and didn't discover crimes that they could prosecute.
"Should the Justice Department be investigating certain people to see if they committed crimes"
That's not really what's going on though. From my recollection, motivated public citizens have been putting together evidence of the crime, and presenting it to the public and DoJ and saying "Look! There's a crime here this person is committing!"
Then what is the DoJ supposed to do. Just ignore what is in front of it? That starts to look like political favoritism. Ignoring obvious evidence of a crime BECAUSE of the person. Not selectively investigating the person.
Let's give you an analogy. The police aren't going to go around investigating every person for shoplifting. They don't have the resources. Nor are they going to devote intense resources to every incident of shoplifting. But, if the owner of the store has video footage that obviously shows the mayor's son going into the store, and dropping a bunch of stuff in his pockets, and leaving...then proceeds to release the video on the local news. What do the police do?
Do they say "well, that would be weaponization to investigate the mayor's son. Can't do it"? Of course not. That's actually the opposite...it's protecting people in power.
Likewise, many of these individuals in question are USED to getting away with these types of crimes. Because they "know" they won't be investigated. But faced with the public information, the DoJ almost has to investigate them. Else it looks biased the other direction.
One of the generals who needs to go? "In testimony before an Oregon State Senate Veterans and Emergency Preparedness subcommittee last week, Brigadier General Alan R. Gronewold, the state’s top military official, told lawmakers that National Guard troops “will be protecting any protesters at the [Portland] ICE facility. That’s my desire.” https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/10/oregons-top-military-official-testifies-national-guard-will-protect-protesters-at-ice-facility/
The state picks the leaders of the state national guard, if the get federalized then of course the federal government can alter the chain of command.
But really what would you expect the leader handpicked by Oregon politicians to say?
Saying nothing beyond a vague reference to complying with the UCMJ?
Can't the Pentagon yank his commission as an officer -- which was granted by the US Congress, not the state of Oregon.
Isn't the whole point of the state militias to defend its citizenry?
No, that's the point of the Second Amendment.
I know you guys like to ignore the militia part of the Second Amendment, but this seems like a particularly egregious example.
Happy traditional Columbus day.
Happy Charlie Kirk Day...
The Phillies lost their division series to the Dodgers in the most devastating way possible, with two outs tied in the 11th inning, runners on 2nd and 3rd, the relief pitcher vapor locked on a come hacker back to the mound.
Despite a slight bobble he had plenty of time to throw to first and get the 3rd out and take it to the 12th still tied. Instead he uncorked a wild throw the catcher had no chance at, and of he had caught it very unlikely to get the tag down if the runner slid, and the winning run easily scored from 3rd.
It's no guarantee the Phillies would have managed to win the game and get back to Philly for game 5 but it had to be absolutely heartbreaking for the team and the fans, not to get the opportunity to keep playing at least one more inning.
How long before there are East Coast Japanese pitchers (or players), is my question. Will we see Taiwanese pitchers or players? It makes baseball a global melting pot, which is good. Americans see a positive role model of a team of players from different countries join together to achieve a common goal, playing a uniquely American game. It is good for business, too; an international audience.
Does that effect the locker room? Specifically, does the nature of locker room interactions change when a team has players from multiple countries (and multiple languages) on it? Do you lose the inspirational speech, b/c of language differences?
What's the difference between Dominican or Venezuelan players and Japanese or Taiwanese players?
None that I can see, it is just a bigger linguistic melting pot in the team locker room. A bigger coaching challenge, too. (How) Is the qualitative aspect of speech (i.e. an inspirational speech) affected when the team linguistic melting pot goes beyond three languages, versus two? Ohtani has an interpreter.
First: there's been East Coast Japanese pitchers, going back as far as Irabu, Kashiwada and Yoshii in the late 90s. The Nats, Orioles, Mets and Yankees all had Japanese pitchers on their rosters in 2025.
Second: thanks for your discussion of the benefits of DEI to a business, with special emphasis on the diversity and inclusion portions.
Indeed - I was just reading an article last week about how nothing shows the benefits of a broad talent retention and inclusion program like baseball.
By targeting areas of the world for development and inclusion that were not traditionally big in baseball talent, they've got a more talented set of players than ever before. And more diverse.
It did take them about 100 years to build this network, so DEI takes some patience to pay dividends.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/09/23/how-to-spot-a-genius?itm_source=parsely-api
Braves had Kenshin Kawakami in 2009-2010 (and spent 2011 at AA Mississippi) Went 8-22 with 4.32 ERA Braves paid him $22million, which works out to $2,750,000/win
Frank
A morbid question about MAID -- the Canadian suicide law.
Can the US prevent an American from going to Canada to die? Before answering, can Mississippi prevent a woman from coming to Massachusetts to murder her child? i.e. abortion.
Congress has broad power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress can prevent people from having sex in a foreign country. A law banning overseas suicide would likely be upheld.
A different legal regime governs the abortion hypothetical. At least one judge has recently ruled in favor of abortion tourism.
The outcome of such cases depends on the preferences of judges. Judges generally don't care for sex tourism. A lot of judges feel strongly one way or the other about abortion and will find a way to make the decision come out for or against abortion. What do judges think about suicide?
CAN MAiD deaths (per NLRC - Nat Right Life Comm): 2021: 10, 092 2022: 13,241 2023: 15,343 2024: 16,500 (est)
The US has 9X larger population; those are potentially very big numbers when projected to the US. There is a truly ghoulish business opportunity there, meaning, assisted suicide. I understand there are clinics in Europe that charge big dollars to 'check out' in style. And some very interesting wealthy people have availed themselves of that service in Europe. Americans can do it better. Should they?
Longer term, I worry how it will be applied in an institutional setting here in the US. We currently have 11 states that allow it. I don't even know if the states themselves track this metric directly (the number of people in institutional setting vs MAiD chosen autonomously by individual).
"Congress has broad power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress can prevent people from having sex in a foreign country. A law banning overseas suicide would likely be upheld."
Who would be prosecuted for committing suicide?
Although I agree that, if there is a conviction therefor, it is unlikely to be overturned on appeal.
"Who would be prosecuted for committing suicide?"
It's the "assisted" part that gets the individuals in trouble. Since some may consider "assisted" suicide a form of murder, there may be US laws that address that.
For example, if the Canadian doctor was also a US National, 18 U.S.C. § 1119 may apply to any assisted suicides that doctor helped perform on US citizens.
18 U.S. Code § 2332 might apply to foreign nationals killing us nationals outside the us.
"Before answering, can Mississippi prevent a woman from coming to Massachusetts to murder her child? i.e. abortion."
A murder and a lawful abortion are mutually exclusive. Like red and green or a circle and a rectangle, one cannot be the other.
The "born alive" rule applied to murder as far back as the common law.
OK, in MA you're just killing an unborn baby, not murdering he/she.
What is the difference between what Candice Owens is saying now about Charlie Kirk and what Alex Jones said about Newtown? https://freebeacon.com/america/ai-giant-perplexity-is-sponsor-of-candace-owens-podcast-suggesting-conservative-commentator-involved-in-kirk-assassination/
Kirk's own security was telling him he was likely to get assassinated, he didn't know that was a real possibility?
One of these people has not yet been hit with a billion dollar sanction for annoying a judge.
Listening to what Candace Owen is saying today and seeing the legal impact it will eventually have on her is like listening to the controlled demolition of a 50-60 story building in a city.
Some considerations about the filibuster and the current continuing resolution.
One way out of the current government shutdown would be for the Senate to simply say that CR's can't be filibustered. Then pass it. While short and easy, it represents an erosion of norms. It represents a path for the next party in the senate to say that "their bill" can't be filibustered. And that's not necessarily ideal.
For these purposes. I believe we need to go to the filibuster and what it actually is, and the purpose it is truly meant to serve. The filibuster is really a motion to end debate on a bill. It is meant to give Senators more time to debate and think about a bill, without just "forcing it through" as quickly as possible. In these days where 1,000 page bills get thrown through, without being read...it's actually useful to have a device to be able to say..."wait, give us a day or 3 to actually read the bill".
So, how can we apply that to the current situation? Well, rather than just say "CR's can't be filibustered", consider an alternate solution. The goal is to give people time to think about the bill, and time to think about the consequences. So, I'd propose the following language in regards to debate in the senate.
-Regarding funding bills, at current funding levels, time is to be considered essential to deciding funding bills. Debate on the bill and only on this bill must be considered for at least 1 day for every 7 days the bill's funding takes effect, with a minimum of 2 days. The Senate must be in session during these days. No other bills can be voted on or debated by the senate during this time. Once this consideration for debate is complete, further debate will be considered unneeded, given the short time of funding needed.
In effect, such wording means that the Senate will need to debate a bill...and only the bill...for at least 1 day a week the bill is meant to take effect. The current period (12 days) would lead to at least 12 weeks of funding. And it meets the essential criteria on debate.
This means it will be far more difficult for more extreme measures to be passed.
Arm, I suggested an alternative model last Friday to address this. 🙂
We should consider the example of the Roman Catholic Curia and the rules they have in place to force compromise more quickly in picking a Pope. The physical conditions get grimmer over time for the College of Cardinals. So confine Congress to the Capital Building until they compromise and vote something out. Fed employees not getting paid? Neither do you, Congress. Sleep on a cot in your office. Congressional cafeteria has food. After 6-9 months, maybe the digital equivalent of 'bread and water only' = no amazon or uber deliveries, no cell coverage.
If it worked for the Curia (for hundreds of years now), it will certainly work for Congress. Make their personal environment increasingly inhospitable and that collective duress will help focus the Congressional mind and erode intransigence. And Congress would eventually compromise and pass legislation. I don't know how the country could actually do that, constitutionally, but there is a workable historical precedent to consider in addressing the problem, meaning, make Congress live with the consequences of deliberate inaction.
Each body makes it own rules. And I think it is a hugely bad idea to nuke the filibuster on partisan lines. I disagree with POTUS Trump (and others) about this. The minority part(ies) in the Congress must have strong protections. Why?
One day, Team R and Team D will both be the minority parties. Why do we continue to assume the House remains at 438 and the Senate 100, in perpetuity? The House could be expanded rather substantially to account for population growth. New states can be admitted (not looking at you at all, CAN and GL, heh), or subdivides (not looking at TX or OR at all, either). I'd want to be sure minority protections are in place, like the ability to filibuster.
Ho about a return to actual filibusters?
Require an actual, continuous speech -- the reading of the phone book, etc.
You have to consider whether or not a rule is generalizable, and what new abuses it might enable.
In this case, you would enable a minority to indirectly obstruct the passage of something widely popular by filibustering something minor and unrelated. (Maybe even some unpopular something they arranged for themselves!) Creating a new form of log rolling.
I'd suggest that instead, have several requirements:
1. Full text of bills must be published publicly a week in advance of any votes, unless this rule is waived by a 3/4 supermajority. To allow for genuine emergency legislation.
2. The maximum length of a filibuster should scale with the length of the bill, perhaps one day per page. You could filibuster an omnibus bill for years, a one page bill would be guaranteed almost immediate action.
3. Allow parallel action on different bills, again to prevent indirect filibusters. But if you're filibustering a bill, you're barred from introducing any legislation yourself; Obviously you're too busy with debate for that!
1. "In this case, you would enable a minority to indirectly obstruct the passage of something widely popular by filibustering something minor and unrelated. "
If it's minor and unrelated, it can be pulled from debate. Then the popular bill can be passed
2. "The maximum length of a filibuster should scale with the length of the bill, perhaps one day per page."
That leads to too many shenangins.
A day of debate for a week of funding seems excessive. That would imply a minimum of 52 in-session days dedicated to an annual budget, or 104 days for a two-year military budget.
The Senate has been "in session" eight days during this shutdown, because they don't work on weekends. They also don't work most Fridays.
Also, a filibuster is the way to extend debate on a bill when a majority wants to move it to a vote. Cloture is the name for "a motion to end debate on a bill".
"A day of debate for a week of funding seems excessive."
It's designed as a maximum. Most (almost all) cases would be below it.
"The Senate has been "in session" eight days during this shutdown, because they don't work on weekends. They also don't work most Fridays."
8 * 7 = 56. That would basically get us to the current CR line.
The Supreme Court has put itself in a pickle hard to get out of. What if it did this:
As soon as possible take an appeal of the Comey Case, if that does not get tossed first. Or any other of Trump's vengeful prosecution cases. Hear the case on the merits. Then announce it lacks jurisdiction to decide, because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct, which lies within the jurisdiction of Congress.
Presto! SCOTUS off the hook. Do it again and again for various other Trump abuse-of-power cases. Clear the whole Trump docket that way.
That way the Roberts Court gets to be remembered for cowardice, and dereliction of duty, instead of for wrecking American Constitutionalism. Probably the best outcome they can hope for.
Then everybody's attention turns to a Congress which the Supreme Court has about 50 times said ought to consider impeachable misconduct by Trump. Presumably the Congress does nothing. Then Trump proceeds to wreck American constitutionalism by election tampering and suborning the military.
Stephen, you are trying too hard, too early on a Sunday. Instead, make some pancakes or johnnycakes, turn off the computer, and chill before the nor'easter hits.
What would be the hook for the Supreme Court to expedite the Comey case?
I don't think there is much controversy over the idea that lying to Congress is a crime, so there is no issue of law to decide.
And once the jury decides the facts then I don't see that being something the Supreme Court would get excited about.
Obviously Comey's lawyers will look for a hook if he gets convicted, and an appeals court will definitely look at it, but it I don't know why the Supreme Court would care.
Recognition that groundless criminal prosecutions of political opponents are fascist poison for a republic, and must be stopped fast.
[I here stipulate MAGA whatabout(s)]
Everyone is accustomed to mindless Trump/MAGA own-the-libs politics. Everyone understands they substitute for Trump/MAGA's abiding political void, so incapable to facilitate governance.
Your commentary, Kazinski, shows not only that same MAGA tendency, but also its mirror image: whatever political action you most fear, you pretend to denigrate as inconsequential. You would be enraged if the corruptly partisan right-wing Supreme Court suggested that impeachment of Trump was a duty Congress ought to consider.
Or you would feign solace, so long as protective right-wing congressional control promised inaction on impeachment. You would excuse election tampering to keep it that way. If domestic military interventions promised to facilitate election tampering, you would back those too, while conjuring rationalizations.
Your advocacy does not show you to be a passive fascist. It shows you to be the all-in kind. Show me any good reason to tender you an apology, and I will do it. But I am not going to apologize to a pseudonym. Include your real name.
"because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct,"
They are NOT going to announce that, precisely because whether or not it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct lies within the jurisdiction of Congress, and they aren't Congress.
So they're not going to please you by advising the House that it should impeach a President you happen to dislike.
A federal judge Thursday temporarily blocked federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security from using riot control weapons against journalists covering protests and immigration enforcement operations in the Chicago area.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/09/judge-orders-halt-dhs-agents-targeting-journalists-chicago/
This should go without saying. Are the Andy Ngo defenders going to say this is wrong?
I think whether people who call themselves journalists, (Who have no rights not shared by everybody else, it should go without saying.) get riot control weapons used on them should be dependent on their conduct, the same as for everybody else present at a riot.
I got bad news for you about ICE's practice in using those weapons.
Feel free to look up the many, many examples. Antifa is just so good at staging these, it sure looks like ICE just loves profligate use of nonlethal force against protestors!
The picture of the priest getting sprayed is Pulitzer-worthy, and the video shows nothing requiring that use of force. Later, they shot him in the head from the roof.
Protectionism, Europe-Style!
On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted to ban the use of meat-related terms for imitation-plant-based products, arguing that shoppers should never mistake tofu for tenderloin.
A majority of conservative and right-leaning lawmakers backed the move, adopting it with 355 votes in favor to 247 against, with 30 abstentions. The proposal still needs to be grilled by the E.U’s 27 member states before coming into effect.
The amendment follows an initiative by Europe’s largest center-right political family, the European People’s Party (EPP), that backers say aims to protect farmers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/10/08/imitation-meat-labeling-europe-vegetarian-vegan/
This weekend, festivals celebrating Acadian and Creole culture will take over the Lafayette area, but some Canadians won’t be coming. Louisiana Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser, a Republican, says their absence is because of rhetoric from the White House, and he’s asking President Donald Trump for an apology.
Since taking office in January for his second term, Trump has made several comments about Canada becoming the 51st state and has chastised the country in his ongoing international trade war. Just this week, in a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump cracked a joke about a “merger” of the two countries.
During a recent trip to the country to promote Louisiana tourism, Nungesser said many Canadians upset by Trump’s remarks told him they’re staying away from the U.S. — and Louisiana. Nungesser is now asking the president to apologize to Canadians in hopes of stopping the loss of tourism and diplomatic relations.
https://www.wrkf.org/local-regional-news/2025-10-08/trumps-comments-are-hurting-canadian-tourism-in-louisiana-lt-gov-nungesser-wants-an-apology
Nungesser is deranged if he thinks that an apology from Trump will prompt a significant number of Canadians to make last minute travel plans to Louisiana.
Plus, there's nothing to apologize for. If they are such sensitive snowflakes nothing will make them happy.
Trump said he deserved a cut for brokering the TikTok deal, and at once there was agreement that his son Baron would have a top executive slot... though he hasn't asked for it, and has no apparent qualifications to hold it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/10/10/barron-trump-tipped-top-tiktok-job/
No one on the right ever cared about corruption. There is no principle left in these people other than own the libs.
"No one on the right ever cared about corruption."
This is categorically untrue. Of course we care about corruption.
If you only care about corruption as an unsupported accusation against the other side, you don't care about corruption.
See also e-mails, security, and dodging FOIA/federal records retention laws.
"If" is doing a lot of work in that reply.
The layers and layers of fact checkers and editors at the Washington Poo agree with a scribbler than "trimester" means a third of a month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/10/11/weather-washington-drought-rain-fairfax/
We used to teach people English in elementary school, but apparently these "elites" missed out.
I got the meaning from context ('first trimester of October.') Intended or not, I thought it a cute off-label use of the word.
Also, what a petty thing to care about.
Last night I ate a trimester of a pizza.
More "nothing" happening in Portland:
Emergency flights diverted from Portland hospital amid 'laser party' threats at ICE facility: report Air ambulance providers redirect to airports after anarchist group encourages laser strikes on aircraft
In part: "A call to shine laser lights into the sky in an effort to disrupt federal helicopters flying over South Portland has prompted serious safety concerns and forced a key trauma hospital to reroute air ambulances.
The online flyer, posted on the homepage of Rose City Counter-Info, a self-described "anarchist counter-info platform in so-called Portland, Oregon," encourages participants to take part in a "laser tag" event aimed at federal aircraft.
The post urges individuals to mask up, coordinate with others, and take steps to avoid identification – including cleaning laser pointers with alcohol, wearing gloves, and removing potential DNA traces before disposal."
"As a result of the planned activity, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) reported that multiple air ambulance providers declined to land at the hospital’s rooftop helipad on Saturday night, according to KGW.
"Instead, they redirected their helicopters to nearby airports, requiring patients to be transferred to OHSU by ground ambulance — a process estimated to add 45 to 60 minutes to travel time.
"For most patients, that will be an acceptable delay. However, for some sensitive situations, such as unstable trauma patients, STEMIs and strokes, the delay could have real impacts," OHSU said in an email to KGW. "
https://www.foxnews.com/us/emergency-flights-diverted-from-portland-hospital-amid-laser-party-threats-ice-facility-report
Oh, and this from an organization that doesn't exist, is just an idea:
https://rosecitycounterinfo.noblogs.org/
I'm not sure you know what planned activity is, but a post on a website, without more, isn't that.
Again, you need to get your story straight about is Antifa a vast and secret network covered for by judges and police, or is it public books and websites that people can read?
The second is more like MAGA. And, like MAGA, it's not an organization one can go after, it's just speech.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Travis Kitchens | 10.12.2025 7:00 AM
Nick Gillespie | From the November 2025 issue
C. Jarrett Dieterle | 10.11.2025 7:00 AM
Peter Suderman | From the November 2025 issue
C.J. Ciaramella | 10.10.2025 5:20 PM
