The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent | Est. 2002

From Silva-Steele v. Enghouse, decided Thursday by the N.M. Court of Appeals, Judge Jennifer Attrep, joined by Judges Megan Duffy and Katherine Wray:

Defendant Adrienne Enghouse appeals a district court order permanently enjoining her from entering Plaintiff Jamie Silva-Steele's private, residential property. Silva-Steele initiated this case after Enghouse left a flyer, related to unionization efforts, at Silva-Steele's residence….

Before the incident giving rise to the injunction, Enghouse was attempting to unionize the employees of a hospital at which Silva-Steele serves as president and CEO. As part of her organizing activities, Enghouse leafleted Silva-Steele's neighborhood with informational flyers, leaving one at Silva-Steele's front door. {There does not appear to be any dispute that, because Silva-Steele's property was unposted at that time, Enghouse did not trespass on Silva-Steele's property when she left the flyer. The next day, however, Silva-Steele posted non-solicitation signs at her residence.}

In response, Silva-Steele filed a verified application for a restraining order in district court. Silva-Steele alleged in the application that Enghouse had "crossed the line by showing up at [her] house, and leaving … propaganda behind," causing her to "fear for [her] safety and the safety of [her] family." In relevant part, Silva-Steele asked the district court to order Enghouse to stay away from her home….

[At a hearing, c]ounsel for Enghouse admitted that Enghouse would be committing criminal trespass if she reentered Silva-Steele's property. Nevertheless, Enghouse, through counsel, refused to agree not to enter Silva-Steele's property in the future. After the hearing, the district court … found, "Enghouse … refused to acknowledge that the criminal trespass laws prohibit her from entering … Silva-Steele's property and testified that she intended to return to the property in the future." The court concluded, "Immediate and irreparable harm will result from … Enghouse's actions unless she is permanently restrained and enjoined from entering … Silva-Steele's private residential property." The district court thus permanently enjoined "Enghouse from entering the private property of … Silva-Steele for any purpose." …

The court concluded an injunction was authorized, despite the New Mexico Anti-Injunction Act:

Politics

Show Comments (11)

From Hara v. Netflix, Inc., correctly decided by the California Court of Appeal (Justice Lamar Baker, joined by Justice Brian Hoffstadt and L.A. County Superior Court Judge Sanjay Baker):

In this anti-SLAPP appeal, defendants … are the creators and producers of an animated television series titled Q-Force, which is about a group of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer (LGBTQ) spies {who, "despite being the best in their field, are undervalued due to their sexualities and identities"}. {Gabe Liedman (Liedman), a co-creator, showrunner, writer, and executive producer of Q-Force, publicly stated every character in Q-Force was based on someone in real life in order to ground the series in reality.}

Plaintiff and respondent Lance Hara, a performer using the name Vicky Vox (plaintiff or Vox), filed a complaint alleging she is a "well-known" drag queen in Hollywood and complaining defendants wrongfully used her likeness in Q-Force without her consent…. Vox has a web series, The Vicky Vox Project, that depicts a cartoon-like illustration of Vox….

Defendants allegedly used Vox's likeness in one scene of one of the ten 30-minute episodes of Q-Force. Specifically, the scene takes place during episode 5 of the series, which is titled "WeHo Confidential." It begins with four other characters, including one named Steve, chatting at a table in what appears to be a bar in West Hollywood. During the conversation, Steve says it is time for him to plug back into his community. Shortly thereafter, he calls out to another character, Twink, who is sitting at a different table. As the perspective shifts to show Twink, the side profile of the background character allegedly resembling Vox is visible for approximately one second. The entirety of the character's seated form is then visible for approximately the next ten seconds, along with the seated forms of Twink and three other drag queens. {As Vox's complaint describes it, the background character at issue allegedly shares the following similarities with a photograph taken of Vox inside a bar in West Hollywood: "voluminous red-orange hair styled with a center part, defined, close together eyebrows, cat-eye make-up, face shape, nose structure, full jawline, high cheek bones, full bodied figured, her outfit's color is the same shade and tone of teal, and she is depicted inside a bar in West Hollywood."}

Free Speech

Show Comments (7)

From the long (>10K-word) opinion in In re S.B., decided Friday by Ohio Court of Appeals Judge Matthew R. Byrne, joined by Judges Robert A. Hendrickson and Robin N. Piper:

Though not stated explicitly, there is some suggestion in the state's brief and in the juvenile court's permanent custody decision that Mother and Father were unfit as parents because they both were initially reluctant to embrace Sara's announcement that she was transgender and/or using male pronouns. We disagree.

There is no requirement in Ohio law that parents must unquestioningly accept and support their minor children's claims of transsexual identity or preferred pronouns. In fact, this issue remains hotly-contested socially, politically, and legally. As an example, the State of Ohio has banned so-called "gender-affirming care" for minors because of the inherent risk of providing such treatments to minors, whose minds are developing and may change. That statute is currently being litigated. Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar ban in Tennessee. Quite recently, Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, emphasized that "the doctrine of substantive due process has long embraced a parent's right to raise her child, which includes the right to participate in significant decisions about her child's mental health."

From a best-interest analysis perspective, we see no serious concern presented by Mother's and Father's cautious reactions to Sara's disclosure of her perceived transgender status and preference for male pronouns. This lack of concern is particularly bolstered here, where both Karen and Sara's therapist testified that Sara is struggling with gender identity and sexuality, and Karen explained that Sara tended to "change[ ] her sexuality every four to five weeks." Children who struggle with these issues deserve sober and sensitive guidance, and Ohio law does not require parents unquestioningly to accept whatever their children say about their gender identity or sexuality at that particular moment.

There is also a possible suggestion in the state's brief and in the juvenile court's decision that Mother and Father should be faulted, in a best-interest analysis, for not unquestioningly supporting Sara's turn away from their family's Messianic Judaism. This is also not supported by Ohio law. Parents are free to assist and guide their children in the development of their religious faith…. "[P]arents have a fundamental right to educate their children, including the right to communicate their moral and religious values … and 'direct the religious upbringing of their children.'" …

The court also noted:

Show Comments (45)

3/23/1870: Justice Joseph Bradley takes oath.

Show Comments (435)

On March 12, 2026, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh walked into a classroom at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. He asked twice if it was a ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) class. When told that was, he shouted "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greater) and shot the instructor, Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, several times, killing him. He also shot and wounded two ROTC cadets. He used a Glock 44 .22 caliber rimfire pistol.

In an instant, "Hero ROTC cadet fatally stabbed ISIS-supporting Old Dominion gunman to prevent more carnage," reported the New York Post. Other cadets jumped on too, killing Jalloh. None of the cadets have been identified, which helps protect them from terrorist revenge.

Yet no official source has been cited for the fact that a cadet stabbed Jalloh, and nothing about the knife has been described.

At a news conference the same day, Dominique Evans, special agent in charge of the FBI Norfolk Field Office, stated "I'd like to acknowledge the students, who showed extreme bravery, by constraining the shooter and stopping further loss of life." When asked for more details, she continued, "There were students that were in that room who subdued him and rendered him no longer alive. I don't know how else to say it. But they were basically able to terminate the threat. He was not shot." No detail was added as to how they "rendered him no longer alive."

Jalloh was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Sierra Leone. Jalloh had been a member of the Virginia Army National Guard, but was persuaded not to reenlist after hearing online lectures by Anwar al-Awlaki, a deceased Al-Qaeda leader. He lived in Nigeria during 2015-16, when he met with Islamic State members and became further radicalized. Back in the U.S. in 2016, he disclosed to an FBI confidential informant his plan to commit a mass shooting similar to the 2009 Fort Hood massacre, which left 13 dead. On July 2, 2016, Jalloh bought a rifle from a gun shop in northern Virginia. The gun shop was obviously cooperating with the FBI, as it secretly rendered the rifle inoperable before transferring it to Jalloh. The FBI arrested him the next day.

Pleading guilty to attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant ("ISIL," aka "ISIS"), Jalloh was sentenced to 11 years in prison. He was released early in 2024 after completing a drug treatment program, although his conviction for terrorism should not have made him eligible for early release. Nor was there an attempt to denaturalize him or deport him back to Sierra Leone. The probation office was required to visit Jalloh only every six months, the last visit being four months before the shooting.

Stephen Halbrook is a Senior Fellow with the Independent Institute. His latest books are America's Rifle: The Case for the AR-15 and The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class? He is also author of The Founders' Second Amendment, Securing Civil Rights, Gun Control in the Third Reich, and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France. He has written over 30 law review articles and has testified in Congressional hearings on firearm law bills. He has also litigated extensively in the field, often representing groups such as the NRA, National African American Gun Association, Western States Sheriffs' Association, Congress of Racial Equality, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and more. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Castillo v. U.S. (2000), Printz v. U.S. (1997), and U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992), as well as in front of many other courts. In D.C. v. Heller, he filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of a majority of members of Congress.

Show Comments (61)

3/22/1957: Justice Charles Whittaker takes oath.

Show Comments (338)

From CourtTV, discussing the Georgia Supreme Court arguments in an appeal of a murder conviction:

After arguing for the State, Leslie then faced a tough question from Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson, who said that in reviewing the trial court's order denying a new trial for Payne, "there are at least five citations to cases that don't exist, and there's at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they're cited, including three quotations that don't exist."

Leslie responded that the order she had initially submitted to the court had been revised and took no responsibility for the errant citations. [Chief] Justice Peterson [responded,] "Those nonexistent cases were cited in your initial brief opposing the motion for a new trial."

You can see for yourselves the 33-page order denying a new trial, and the 37-page proposed order from the state; they do indeed appear to include citations to nonexistent cases.

Thanks to Prof. Adam Scales for the pointer.

AI in Court

Show Comments (8)

3/21/1989: Texas v. Johnson is argued.

Show Comments (346)

From today's Texas Court of Appeals decision in Musk v. Brody, decided by Chief Justice (retired) J. Woodfin Jones, joined by Chief Justice Darlene Byrne and Justice Chari Kelly:

On June 24, 2023, two far-right groups—the Proud Boys and the Rose City Nationalists—tried to disrupt a Pride Night event in Portland, Oregon. The two groups, however, ended up clashing with each other, culminating in a violent confrontation caught on video. Although the Rose City Nationalists had arrived wearing masks, the Proud Boys removed some of their masks, exposing to the camera the faces of two Rose City Nationalists members.

The following day, the video of the brawl circulated widely on social media, becoming a popular topic of discussion. As part of that discussion, some right-wing influencers claimed that the Rose City Nationalists at the event were actually undercover federal agents or left-wing provocateurs posing as neo-Nazis. Several of these influencers tried to identify the two unmasked brawlers. For example, TwitterUser#1 tweeted, "Two unmasked members of Patriot Front. These are either federal agents masquerading as racists - OR-Leftists masquerading as far right. Do you know who these people are?"

Within hours, Twitter users tried to answer that question. Some wrongly identified Brody, then a student at the University of California, Riverside, as one of the unmasked brawlers. The basis for that false identification was apparently a resemblance between Brody and one of the unmasked men. TwitterUser#2 responded with a photo of Brody and a screenshot of a social-media post from Brody's college fraternity, which included a sentence from the post stating that "[a]fter graduation [Brody] plans to work for the government." TwitterUser#2 later posted additional images that included Brody's name and stated that a "member of patriot front is ACTUALLY a political science student at a liberal school on a career path toward the feds." Other Twitter users reposted the TwitterUser#2 posts about Brody.

Free Speech Defamation

Show Comments (18)

A short excerpt from the long decision in Canel v. Art Institute of Chicago, decided yesterday by Judge Georgia Alexakis (N.D. Ill.):

The First Amendment often protects offensive, hateful speech. As the Supreme Court has explained: "[P]reventing speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment." It continued: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate." In the university setting, the Supreme Court has stressed that First Amendment protections are especially "[v]ital." See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va. (1995) ("For the University, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation's intellectual life, its college and university campuses."); Healy v. James (1972) (First Amendment protection "is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools … The college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas,' and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation's dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.").

In balancing Title VI's prohibition of harassment against the First Amendment's protection of speech, courts distinguish between speech on matters of public concern "directed to the community at large through generally accepted methods of communication" and speech that constitutes "targeted, personal harassment" aimed at a particular individual or group of individuals. See Gartenberg v. Cooper Union (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Landau v. Corp. of Haverford College (E.D. Pa. 2025); see also Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) (analyzing the intersection of the First Amendment and a Title VII hostile environment claim and expressing "doubt that a college professor's expression on a matter of public concern, directed to the college community, could ever constitute unlawful harassment")….

The events Canel describes in her second amended complaint—even after being read in the light most favorable to her and with all reasonable inferences drawn in her favor—… represent instances of speech on matters of public concern "directed to the community at large through generally accepted methods of communication." Canel points to flyers criticizing SAIC's response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and resulting discourse that were thumbtacked in a school hallway. She alleges that students and faculty—herself included—exchanged open letters and petitions sharing their views on the conflict. She describes various social media posts, inviting SAIC students to protests, utilizing slogans associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and depicting posters and signs containing the same. She alleges that students conducted a "walkout," protesting on public streets and chanting slogans using similar language….

Free Speech Campus Free Speech Hate Speech

Show Comments (6)

Back in 2002, I heard a great question, from Betchen and Paul Barber: Who cut off Samson's hair?

Of course I said "Delilah"—I knew that had to be wrong (or why would they have asked?), but I didn't have any better answer. The answer is Delilah's servant (or at least her agent, in legal parlance): "Having put him to sleep on her lap, she called a man to shave off the seven braids of his hair, and so began to subdue him."

The point isn't that people remember incorrectly—rather, it's that much of what we remember is oversimplified, and often along rational pathways: In particular, the actions of an agent are easily remembered as (not simply treated as) the actions of the principal who instructed the agent to act.

I was reminded of this by this item from Judge Aleta Trauger's decision Wednesday in Volokh v. Williamson County Archives & Museum, a case in which I'm challenging a Tennessee law that appears to allow only Tennesseeans to request court records:

The defendants argue that Volokh lacks standing to bring his claims against … Circuit Court Clerk Barrett because he never "made any request of or otherwise communicated with the Circuit Court Clerk's Office." Instead, only Nantuna [Volokh's assistant] corresponded with Barrett. Further, the defendants argue, Volokh lacks third-party standing to bring claims on behalf of Nantuna.

Free Speech Right of Access

Show Comments (12)

From Judge Zachary Bluestone (E.D. Mo.) today in Altman v. Altman, the factual allegations (and of course at this point they are just allegations):

Annie and Sam are biological siblings who once lived together at their family home in Clayton, Missouri. [Annie alleges:] Annie asserts that Sam sexually abused her from 1997 to 2006. The exploitation began when Annie was only 3 years old and Sam was 12. Sam started with forcible touching and oral sex but escalated to acts including battery, molestation, sodomy, and rape. The abuse ended around 2006, when Annie was approximately 12 years old and Sam was an adult ….

[Sam alleges:] For years, Sam and his family have provided Annie with financial support through their late father's estate, as well as offering to help with medical expenses, housing, and employment. However, due to Annie's "serious mental health issues" and "harmful behavior," Sam and his family "have felt the need to be deliberate and thoughtful about the support they provide." As a result, they have rejected Annie's demands for financial autonomy.

Annie retaliated by engaging in a smear campaign against her brothers, falsely claiming they sexually abused her. Beginning in 2021, Annie claimed on Twitter that she "experienced sexual, physical emotional, verbal, financial, and technological abuse from my biological siblings, mostly Sam Altman and some from Jack Altman." Annie then posted "a continuous stream of false sexual abuse allegations against Sam Altman" on various platforms. For example, in March 2023, she said, "I'm not four years old with a 13 year old 'brother' climbing into my bed non-consensually anymore. (You're welcome for helping you figure out your sexuality.)." Annie also wrote that she "experienced every single form of abuse with him—sexual, physical, verbal, pharmacological …, and technological."

The recriminations continued through 2024, including in a work of poetry. Annie also posted videos on TikTok with accusations that she was "touched by older siblings" and "that 'an almost tech billionaire' was 'terrified of the little sibling' that he 'repeatedly molested and physically abused.'"

The court allowed Sam's defamation claim to go forward:

Free Speech Libel

Show Comments (5)

From today's decision in Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Bagnell by Judge Victor Bolden (D. Conn.):

Jeffrey Bagnell, an attorney, commissioned High Impact, a graphics company, to create an animation purporting to show how a P320 pistol could misfire absent a trigger pull ("uncommanded discharge" or the "Animation"). He later posted that Animation to YouTube and published it on his firm's website. Part of Mr. Bagnell's business involves representing plaintiffs who claim that they have been injured by uncommanded discharges from P320s.

Sig Sauer … alleg[es] that the Animation constitutes false advertising by inaccurately portraying the firearm's internal components and safety features…. Jeffrey S. Bagnell … is hereby ORDERED to refrain permanently from using this version of the Animation for advertising purposes, whether on the Bagnell Firm website or in any other form on any other platform, and whether on the Internet or in any other media….

The court concludes that the animation constitutes "commercial speech" for First Amendment purposes and for federal false advertising law (Lanham Act) purposes:

Free Speech Guns

Show Comments (12)

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

America turns 250 this year, which is outstanding. But you know who else turns 250 this year? A whole lot of state declarations of rights. And that is a thing to celebrate, too, which we'll do on Friday, April 10 with our friends at the Liberty & Law Center at Scalia Law School in Arlington, Va. You should come, too. Register here! And in the meantime, check out our blog series on state declarations, this week focusing on Delaware.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: An interesting lease between boyfriend and girlfriend proves decisive in a forfeiture case.

Within days of President Trump beginning his second term, OMB orders a sweeping freeze to all federal financial assistance programs. The following day, 22 states sue, alleging that the freeze is unlawful. The following day, OMB rescinds the memo announcing the policy. Feds: So the lawsuit is moot. First Circuit: Then why did the White House Press Secretary post, "This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo"? The case is live and the preliminary injunction against the freeze is affirmed. But the part of the injunction actually requiring disbursement of the money is vacated.
This First Circuit case is not that big of a deal. But it's about escheatment, and there's a guy on the Short Circuit staff who really loves telling people that the word "cheater" is derived from the word "escheator" because of the widespread (seemingly correct) belief that the king's escheators were more interested in gobbling up property for profit than anything else. So, there you go. Tell your friends.
After teen is shot and killed in Boston park in 1974, vicenarian suspect flees to the Midwest and evades detection using different aliases—before eventually being indicted for the murder in 1997 and convicted in 2004. Suspect: I didn't get a speedy trial. Massachusetts: … because you were on the lam. First Circuit: The speedy-trial clock starts with the 1997 indictment, and you didn't argue that the 1997–2004 gap was too long. No habeas for you. Read More

Today, Liberalism.Org posted my first essay as a regular contributor to their project. It is entitled "Immigration Restrictions Restrict Americans' Liberties." Liberalism.Org is a new initiative of the Institute for Humane Studies, led by Jason Kuznicki, formerly of the Cato Institute. Its purpose is to explore, promote, and revitalize liberal political thought in an era where illiberal and anti-liberal movements of various types are on the rise. Jason provides an overview of the project and its purposes here.

I will be contributing new essays to the project (published at their website) several times per year, most likely focusing on issues related to immigration, democratic theory, and constitutional law. The other regular contributors are prominent libertarian or libertarian-leaning thinkers. They include Radley Balko (leading expert on criminal law and law enforcement issues), Janet Bufton (prominent Canadian classical liberal thinker and political commentator), Prof. Michael Munger (Duke University), Sarah Skwire (Liberty Fund), and Prof. Matt Zwolinski (U of San Diego, coauthor of The Individualists: Radical, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism). It is an honor to be associated with this impressive group, and I look forward to working with them.

Here is an excerpt from my first article:

The biggest victims of immigration restrictions are the would-be migrants, who are consigned to a lifetime of poverty and oppression simply because they were born in the wrong place, to the wrong parents. But the horrific experience of the second Trump administration highlights how restrictionism also poses a grave threat to the liberty and welfare of native-born citizens. While some of the harms caused to natives are specific to the policies of this administration, many are inherent in the very nature of exclusion and deportation, and they occur even under more conventional presidents. The ultimate solution is to end all or most immigration restrictions, or at least to severely curb them.

Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other immigration enforcement officers have killed at least three U.S. citizens (two in Minnesota and one in Texas), wounded numerous others, and detained hundreds illegally, after mistaking them for undocumented immigrants. ProPublica found some 170 cases of illegal detention of citizens through October 2025, but that is almost certainly a severe underestimate, given that the federal government does not keep statistics on such cases, and ProPublica could only include those they were able to track down. ICE and other agencies also make extensive use of racial profiling, which leads to detention and harassment of numerous U.S. citizens who look like they may be Hispanic or belong to other nonwhite groups, and thus potentially suspect. The enormous extent of racial and ethnic profiling by ICE is shown by the fact that immigration arrests in Los Angeles County declined by 66 percent after a federal court order barring the use of such tactics; the ruling was eventually blocked by the Supreme Court.…

For all too many natives, immigration restrictions are literally a matter of life and death. The disproportionate role of immigrants in scientific and medical innovation indicates that large-scale exclusion prevents or at least postpones a wide range of life-saving innovations, thereby costing many American lives. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study found that a 25 percent increase in immigration rates would likely save about 5,000 lives per year simply by virtue of the fact that immigrants are disproportionately employed in the healthcare and elder care industries, and increased immigration would provide elderly people with more of the care they desperately need, in a society with an aging population.…

The immigration restrictions of the second Trump administration have inflicted even greater harm on U.S. citizens because they have been so egregious, including ramping up mass deportation efforts, greatly increasing the number of ICE agents (from 10,000 to 22,000) and expanding detention facilities. But it's important to recognize that grave damage is inflicted even under more conventional presidents, even if it is less visible and garners fewer headlines. Illegal detention and deportation of U.S. citizens long predates Trump. Northwestern University political scientist Jacqueline Stevens estimates that the federal government detained or deported more than 20,000 U.S. citizens from 2003 to 2010, at a time when George W. Bush and Barack Obama—two relatively pro-immigration presidents—occupied the White House.

Racial profiling by immigration enforcers is also not unique to the Trump era. In 2014, the Obama administration decided to perpetuate the use of racial profiling by federal immigration enforcers in areas within 100 miles of a "border," a designation that covers areas where some two-thirds of the population lives, as well as several entire states, including New Jersey, Michigan, and Florida. Obama officials reasoned that large-scale immigration enforcement could not work without such racial and ethnic discrimination….

Some of these negative effects can be mitigated by limiting immigration restrictions, rather than ending them completely. For example, we can abolish ICE and bar all or most interior deportations, limiting federal deportation operations to actual border areas near the Canadian and Mexican frontiers. This would significantly reduce the threat deportation poses to natives' civil liberties. But those effects would still be present in border areas, where millions of native-born citizens live, including many who are vulnerable to racial profiling and other abuses.

We can also try to reduce negative economic and fiscal impacts of immigration restrictions by letting in those migrants most likely to contribute to growth and innovation, while keeping out others. But governments are unlikely to do a good job with such selection. Many of the biggest immigrant innovators and entrepreneurs arrive as children or young adults, making it difficult or impossible to predict their impact in advance….

These realities don't mean that incremental immigration policy improvements are useless. Incrementally reducing immigration restrictions can still diminish the economic and social damage they cause. And incremental cutbacks to the apparatus of exclusion and deportation, such as abolishing ICE, can reduce the threat to U.S. citizens' civil liberties. We should not let the best be the enemy of the good. But we should also not forget that the best should be our ultimate objective.

The Volokh Conspiracy

Injunction Against Further Leafletting by Union Organizer at CEO's Front Door

Drag Queen's Right of Publicity Claim Against Netflix's Q-Force Rejected

Parents Aren't Required to "Unquestioningly Accept and Support Their Minor Children's Claims of Transsexual Identity or Preferred Pronouns"

Today in Supreme Court History: March 23, 1870

Open Thread

Second Amendment Roundup: Group Self-Defense Against Terrorism

Today in Supreme Court History: March 22, 1957

Open Thread

Georgia Court Order Apparently Included AI-Hallucinated Cases, Copied from Prosecutor's Proposed Order

Today in Supreme Court History: March 21, 1989

Open Thread

Elon Musk Wins Defamation Lawsuit Brought by Someone Musk Allegedly Misidentified in X Post

First Amendment Precludes Title VI Liability for Harsh Anti-Israel Speech at Art Institute of Chicago

Delilah and Me

Sam Altman's Defamation and Abuse of Process Case Against Sister Can Go Forward

Judge Blocks Lawyer's Distribution of Animation That Allegedly Shows "Uncommanded Discharge" of Sig Sauer Pistol

Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal

My New Liberalism.Org Article on How "Immigration Restrictions Restrict Americans' Liberties"

Recent Volokh Posts

Volokh Conspiracy Daily E-mail

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76