Andrew Siegel
@amsprof.bsky.social
Constitutional Law Professor and recovering Vice Dean at Seattle University School of Law. New to these environs.
Guess the thousand movies, miniseries, and documentaries about Nuremberg weren’t enough.
Mike Johnson on Trump calling for Democrats to be executed: "Attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that."
November 21, 2025 at 2:32 AM
Guess the thousand movies, miniseries, and documentaries about Nuremberg weren’t enough.
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
This newsletter pulls a few things together, including my Atlantic essay on working the referees, and @mantzarlis.com’s fantastic new analysis on what exactly is in Grokipedia.
November 16, 2025 at 7:33 PM
This newsletter pulls a few things together, including my Atlantic essay on working the referees, and @mantzarlis.com’s fantastic new analysis on what exactly is in Grokipedia.
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
What’s the problem? We’re just displaying a historical fact that this person is a Jew by forcing them to wear a yellow star.
I spit on the reputation of the U.S. Supreme Court, not that it can get much more degraded than it has already become by the repulsive actions of its disgusting GOP members.
You can hear the transphobic sneer in these words.
You can hear the transphobic sneer in these words.
November 6, 2025 at 10:26 PM
What’s the problem? We’re just displaying a historical fact that this person is a Jew by forcing them to wear a yellow star.
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
Dick Cheney dreamt of a unitary executive and now we all have to live in his nightmare.
We have a word for leaders who starve their own people to force unpopular political policies.
November 4, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Dick Cheney dreamt of a unitary executive and now we all have to live in his nightmare.
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
ICE Agent, 7-Year-Old Both Wearing Same ‘Military Commando’ Halloween Costume
October 31, 2025 at 9:00 PM
ICE Agent, 7-Year-Old Both Wearing Same ‘Military Commando’ Halloween Costume
. . . and no member of the opposition spoke of impeachment or the 25th Amendment.”
Over the past week, the president said the DOJ should pay him a quarter billion dollars, bulldozed half the White House to build himself a gaudy ballroom, bragged about murdering civilians in international waters, pardoned some more criminals, directed federal prosecutors to indict his opponents ...
October 23, 2025 at 10:10 PM
. . . and no member of the opposition spoke of impeachment or the 25th Amendment.”
It’s like talking to a toddler. “You said I needed permission to do new construction. You never said anything about destruction.”
October 22, 2025 at 12:54 AM
It’s like talking to a toddler. “You said I needed permission to do new construction. You never said anything about destruction.”
I am glad that the student who sent this to me recognized it as an example of what not to do as a lawyer.
September 16, 2025 at 3:28 PM
I am glad that the student who sent this to me recognized it as an example of what not to do as a lawyer.
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
that wsj story now feels like a culmination of anti-trans panic that should prompt a reckoning in the mainstream media. was totally bunk, false, peddled. it’s the kind of thing that has led to reconciliation before, and it should now. news editors should be looking at themselves in the mirror
September 12, 2025 at 2:52 PM
that wsj story now feels like a culmination of anti-trans panic that should prompt a reckoning in the mainstream media. was totally bunk, false, peddled. it’s the kind of thing that has led to reconciliation before, and it should now. news editors should be looking at themselves in the mirror
Laugh, then cry, then organize.
the year is 2028. the course description for Con Law is 709 pages long. it’s a felony to teach Bostock. but at least I’ve perfected a makeup look appropriate for being secretly recorded in the classroom.
Faculty in red states are being punished for failing to signal in their course descriptions that their classes will include content on "gender ideology."
Remind me again which party was appalled by idea of "trigger warnings"?
www.kbtx.com/2025/09/09/a...
Remind me again which party was appalled by idea of "trigger warnings"?
www.kbtx.com/2025/09/09/a...
September 10, 2025 at 2:05 PM
Laugh, then cry, then organize.
Wait! The Solicitor General signed a letter saying “one year ago the United States was a dead country”? What lawyer would do that? How are those words defined? What is his argument? What is his evidence? What are his sources? How does any of this connect to a legal argument? To plausible expertise?
John Sauer says that if the US had to pay back all the taxes it illegally collected from consumers, it might ruin the country.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
August 11, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Wait! The Solicitor General signed a letter saying “one year ago the United States was a dead country”? What lawyer would do that? How are those words defined? What is his argument? What is his evidence? What are his sources? How does any of this connect to a legal argument? To plausible expertise?
One of the overlooked problems with otherwise sensible deference doctrines like rational basis review and presumptions of regularity is that they require courts to declare that important people are liars or bigots or filled with animus. Hard thing for them to do even when the evidence is this stark.
“Today, we’re announcing a public safety emergency,” Trump says
Currently up on the Department of Justice’s website: www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/v...
Currently up on the Department of Justice’s website: www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/v...
August 11, 2025 at 3:42 PM
One of the overlooked problems with otherwise sensible deference doctrines like rational basis review and presumptions of regularity is that they require courts to declare that important people are liars or bigots or filled with animus. Hard thing for them to do even when the evidence is this stark.
Some nutty things about this excerpt: (1) It says facts are “undisputed” and then cites only press releases for those facts; (2) It defines giving people’s names as “doxxing”; (3) It conflates bureaucrats with street cops when making arguments about physical danger.
NEW: DOJ asks Judge Breyer to close next week's trial on the Trump admin's possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act to remote public access, arguing that it endangers DoD/DHS/ICE officials to let the public see who they are. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
August 9, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Some nutty things about this excerpt: (1) It says facts are “undisputed” and then cites only press releases for those facts; (2) It defines giving people’s names as “doxxing”; (3) It conflates bureaucrats with street cops when making arguments about physical danger.
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
1. We lawyers have done a lousy job so far of explaining to the public how the current Supreme Court is seizing power from the lower federal courts. Professor Vladeck & others have done invaluable work by bringing attention to the shadow docket, which is a critical aspect of that story.
August 8, 2025 at 4:10 PM
1. We lawyers have done a lousy job so far of explaining to the public how the current Supreme Court is seizing power from the lower federal courts. Professor Vladeck & others have done invaluable work by bringing attention to the shadow docket, which is a critical aspect of that story.
@dorfonlaw.bsky.social speaking with moral and tactical clarity about the meaning and stakes of the Brown settlement.
Yesterday Brown University bent the knee to Trump in the latest agreement to neuter academia as a site of potential resistance to authoritarianism. On the blog, I describe the differences and, more importantly, the similarities, with the Columbia ransom agreement. 👇
Down Goes Brown
Yesterday, Brown University became the third Ivy League institution to sign a settlement agreement with the Trump administration. Its deal ...
www.dorfonlaw.org
July 31, 2025 at 2:29 PM
@dorfonlaw.bsky.social speaking with moral and tactical clarity about the meaning and stakes of the Brown settlement.
If I had polled con law students or professors in 2010 and asked them to rank potential impeachable offenses, “threatened to unilaterally strip American citizen of citizenship for voicing criticism of him” would surely have made the top ten, likely the top five.
The president of the United States is threatening to strip the citizenship away from an American who says things he does not like.
And our media will invariably present this not as a major crisis, an impeachable offense that must lead to his immediate removal, but as “a spat” between Don & Rosie
And our media will invariably present this not as a major crisis, an impeachable offense that must lead to his immediate removal, but as “a spat” between Don & Rosie
July 12, 2025 at 2:53 PM
If I had polled con law students or professors in 2010 and asked them to rank potential impeachable offenses, “threatened to unilaterally strip American citizen of citizenship for voicing criticism of him” would surely have made the top ten, likely the top five.
This is the part I don’t get. The reason the traditional rules of presidential behavior don’t apply to him is because we refuse to apply the traditional rules of presidential behavior to him. And the press have been thr worst offenders since day one.
Every day he says or does something that the press would crucify not just democrats, but republicans for. I doubt Reagan or either Bush would have gotten shrugs of shoulders for saying this. And the media won't explain to us why he is such a special boy and gets a pass.
July 12, 2025 at 2:48 PM
This is the part I don’t get. The reason the traditional rules of presidential behavior don’t apply to him is because we refuse to apply the traditional rules of presidential behavior to him. And the press have been thr worst offenders since day one.
I really don’t know what to say. In addition to the incoherence, illegality, and substantive stupidity of the policy, this violates every norm of communication, professionalism and punctuation. If this is his idea of a government letter, no wonder he thinks government can be run by seven interns
We are in new territory with Trump’s latest trade letter, threatening a 50% tariff on imports from Brazil starting Aug. 1
—The US runs a rare trade surplus with Brazil, so there’s no deficit to fix
—Trump says these duties are explicitly over political concerns, not economic ones
—The US runs a rare trade surplus with Brazil, so there’s no deficit to fix
—Trump says these duties are explicitly over political concerns, not economic ones
July 9, 2025 at 10:42 PM
I really don’t know what to say. In addition to the incoherence, illegality, and substantive stupidity of the policy, this violates every norm of communication, professionalism and punctuation. If this is his idea of a government letter, no wonder he thinks government can be run by seven interns
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
REMINDER!
Join us at 10 a.m. PDT/1 p.m. EDT TOMORROW, June 30, for our Third Annual Supreme Court Rapid Response Webinar, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Nationally recognized experts in law and history will discuss the significance of the decision... 1/2
Join us at 10 a.m. PDT/1 p.m. EDT TOMORROW, June 30, for our Third Annual Supreme Court Rapid Response Webinar, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Nationally recognized experts in law and history will discuss the significance of the decision... 1/2
June 29, 2025 at 5:50 PM
REMINDER!
Join us at 10 a.m. PDT/1 p.m. EDT TOMORROW, June 30, for our Third Annual Supreme Court Rapid Response Webinar, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Nationally recognized experts in law and history will discuss the significance of the decision... 1/2
Join us at 10 a.m. PDT/1 p.m. EDT TOMORROW, June 30, for our Third Annual Supreme Court Rapid Response Webinar, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. Nationally recognized experts in law and history will discuss the significance of the decision... 1/2
Looking forward to hosting Seattle University’s third annual Supreme Court Rapid Response Webinar w/ @evanbernick.bsky.social, @earlymodjustice.bsky.social, @jerchin.bsky.social, @anthonymkreis.bsky.social, @leahlitman.bsky.social, @portiapedro.bsky.social, @robertltsai.bsky.social, and other stars!
June 29, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Looking forward to hosting Seattle University’s third annual Supreme Court Rapid Response Webinar w/ @evanbernick.bsky.social, @earlymodjustice.bsky.social, @jerchin.bsky.social, @anthonymkreis.bsky.social, @leahlitman.bsky.social, @portiapedro.bsky.social, @robertltsai.bsky.social, and other stars!
There is a big distance between “universal injunctions should be granted sparingly” and “no universal injunctions even if government acts in ugly & unlawful ways in areas where uniformity is essential, individual litigation is impossible, the stakes are high, and the issue is a pure legal question.”
Trump's birthright citizenship order is ugly and unlawful. But that doesn't imply that courts ought to wield power that distorts our constitutional scheme and transfers power from elected officials to black-robed jurists.
June 28, 2025 at 3:32 PM
There is a big distance between “universal injunctions should be granted sparingly” and “no universal injunctions even if government acts in ugly & unlawful ways in areas where uniformity is essential, individual litigation is impossible, the stakes are high, and the issue is a pure legal question.”
Reposted by Andrew Siegel
This paragraph is going to be my joker origin story. That "two people can get married...so long as they love each other" is just objectively true. It is not a view that can be accepted or rejected.
Incredibly, Justice Alito continues to misrepresent a book in the case, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, framing it as insidious propaganda designed to brainwash children who oppose same-sex marriage into supporting it. This is just not true, and Sotomayor refutes it. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
June 27, 2025 at 4:08 PM
This paragraph is going to be my joker origin story. That "two people can get married...so long as they love each other" is just objectively true. It is not a view that can be accepted or rejected.
This is an insightful thread cataloging all of the legal arguments and strategies that remain open after Skrmetti. Lots of ways to win narrow victories, win in state courts, get good language from lower courts, etc., while waiting for politics and culture and the Court’s membership to change.
Today's Skrmetti opinion is devastating to transgender children and families who live in states with cruel laws barring gender affirming care. But it is very important to recognize this opinion does not give private entities, legislatures, or the President carte blanche to discriminate! 1/x
June 19, 2025 at 2:42 PM
This is an insightful thread cataloging all of the legal arguments and strategies that remain open after Skrmetti. Lots of ways to win narrow victories, win in state courts, get good language from lower courts, etc., while waiting for politics and culture and the Court’s membership to change.
118 pages of writing but what this means in plain English is that a majority of the Court does not view protecting the equality, liberty, and dignity of transgender Americans as an interest of constitutional stature. The Court and country will look back on this decision in embarrassment one day.
BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
Robert, for the 6-3 court, holds that the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection and passes rational basis review. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Robert, for the 6-3 court, holds that the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection and passes rational basis review. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
www.supremecourt.gov
June 18, 2025 at 2:48 PM
118 pages of writing but what this means in plain English is that a majority of the Court does not view protecting the equality, liberty, and dignity of transgender Americans as an interest of constitutional stature. The Court and country will look back on this decision in embarrassment one day.
It’s like the White House and ABC watched “Good Night and Good Luck” and decided McCarthy and the media cowards were the heroes.
Breaking: ABC News says senior national correspondent Terry Moran "has been suspended pending further evaluation." This since-deleted tweet is the reason for the suspension:
June 8, 2025 at 6:01 PM
It’s like the White House and ABC watched “Good Night and Good Luck” and decided McCarthy and the media cowards were the heroes.