Christian Mott
@cjmott.bsky.social
Moral psychology & experimental jurisprudence. Interested in mental state attributions, risk, punishment, personal identity, criminal law & procedure, constitutional & statutory interpretation, statistics, etc., etc., etc. christianmott.com
Now Alito's vote might be in play.
November 10, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Now Alito's vote might be in play.
It looks like the shutdown was to improve Democrats' prospects in the elections and not to help people.
If the Dems blink after all of this, for a deal that all but ensures no ACA subsidies in 2026 anyway, then what was the purpose of letting the shutdown go for 40 days in the first place?
November 10, 2025 at 2:10 AM
It looks like the shutdown was to improve Democrats' prospects in the elections and not to help people.
I doubt that the Virginia residents who will no longer be able to afford health insurance will be comforted to know that some GOP senators were forced to take a hard vote.
My statement on the funding deal to reopen government, protect federal employees, and vote to protect health care:
November 10, 2025 at 2:01 AM
I doubt that the Virginia residents who will no longer be able to afford health insurance will be comforted to know that some GOP senators were forced to take a hard vote.
Didn't Thune offer a very similar deal over three weeks ago? (I would be happy to learn that I'm wrong and they differ in some meaningful way.) If Senate Democrats go for the same thing now, it will look like they caused a lot of pain and anxiety for no reason.
November 9, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Didn't Thune offer a very similar deal over three weeks ago? (I would be happy to learn that I'm wrong and they differ in some meaningful way.) If Senate Democrats go for the same thing now, it will look like they caused a lot of pain and anxiety for no reason.
If he has been briefed, he hasn't been briefed particularly well, since this is primarily a statutory case (about whether IEEPA in fact delegated him the power to impose tariffs) and not a constitutional case (about whether such a delegation is possible).
The president seems to have been briefed on how the tariffs oral argument at SCOTUS went:
November 9, 2025 at 2:44 PM
If he has been briefed, he hasn't been briefed particularly well, since this is primarily a statutory case (about whether IEEPA in fact delegated him the power to impose tariffs) and not a constitutional case (about whether such a delegation is possible).
The margins in Virginia, and the results in the House of Delegates, are truly shocking.
November 5, 2025 at 4:27 AM
The margins in Virginia, and the results in the House of Delegates, are truly shocking.
Reposted by Christian Mott
TLDR; The PSF has made the decision to put our community and our shared diversity, equity, and inclusion values ahead of seeking $1.5M in new revenue. Please read and share. pyfound.blogspot.com/2025/10/NSF-...
🧵
🧵
The official home of the Python Programming Language
www.python.org
October 27, 2025 at 2:47 PM
TLDR; The PSF has made the decision to put our community and our shared diversity, equity, and inclusion values ahead of seeking $1.5M in new revenue. Please read and share. pyfound.blogspot.com/2025/10/NSF-...
🧵
🧵
Funny, I could have sworn there was already a way rich people could give their money to the government to help pay the military.
Trump: "By the way, a friend of mine called us the other day and he said 'I'd like to contribute any shortfall you have because of the Democrat shutdown. I'd like to contribute any shortfall you have with the military.' Today, he sent us a check for $130 million. It's gonna go the military."
October 23, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Funny, I could have sworn there was already a way rich people could give their money to the government to help pay the military.
May be worth amending federal law so a future administration could cooperate with any ICC proceeding based on these actions. (Cf. the linked article about an ICC proceeding against Duterte for murder in connection with his war on drugs.) The immunity discovered in US v. Trump wouldn't apply there.
October 23, 2025 at 9:18 PM
May be worth amending federal law so a future administration could cooperate with any ICC proceeding based on these actions. (Cf. the linked article about an ICC proceeding against Duterte for murder in connection with his war on drugs.) The immunity discovered in US v. Trump wouldn't apply there.
The First Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of a suit against MIT alleging that the university violated Title VI (and other statutes) by failing to suppress the pro-Palestine protests.
Notably, the court rejects the argument that "anti-Zionist speech" is "inherently antisemitic" (p.32)
Notably, the court rejects the argument that "anti-Zionist speech" is "inherently antisemitic" (p.32)
www.ca1.uscourts.gov
October 21, 2025 at 9:39 PM
The First Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of a suit against MIT alleging that the university violated Title VI (and other statutes) by failing to suppress the pro-Palestine protests.
Notably, the court rejects the argument that "anti-Zionist speech" is "inherently antisemitic" (p.32)
Notably, the court rejects the argument that "anti-Zionist speech" is "inherently antisemitic" (p.32)
The 5th Circuit held 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to individuals not "presently under the influence" while carrying the firearm. US v. Connelly, 117 F. 4th at 282.
SCOTUS will review that rule.
SCOTUS will review that rule.
The Supreme Court granted review in three new cases this morning, including a big case over the constitutionality of the federal law barring gun possession by a person who “is
an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,”
The other cases address arbitration and bankruptcy law.
an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,”
The other cases address arbitration and bankruptcy law.
October 20, 2025 at 4:30 PM
The 5th Circuit held 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to individuals not "presently under the influence" while carrying the firearm. US v. Connelly, 117 F. 4th at 282.
SCOTUS will review that rule.
SCOTUS will review that rule.
Reposted by Christian Mott
The Personal Rule of Donald J. Trump continues.
JUST IN: US Supreme Court lifts order that blocked Trump's mass federal layoffs reut.rs/4eOW547
July 8, 2025 at 7:50 PM
The Personal Rule of Donald J. Trump continues.
This is not normal.
One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.
One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.
I am told that furloughed Department of Labor employees were instructed today that out-of-office messages should blame Democrats.
October 2, 2025 at 2:07 AM
This is not normal.
One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.
One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.
There are times when the bad economy is not really the current President's fault (e.g., Obama inheriting Bush's economy, Biden inheriting the COVID economy).
This is not one of those times.
This is not one of those times.
Sen. Roger Marshall: "It seems very disingenuous for the Democrats to be blaming President Trump for these rural hospital struggles. The reason rural hospitals are struggling is because of the bad economy."
September 30, 2025 at 3:38 AM
There are times when the bad economy is not really the current President's fault (e.g., Obama inheriting Bush's economy, Biden inheriting the COVID economy).
This is not one of those times.
This is not one of those times.
Reposted by Christian Mott
This is a ridiculously broad understanding of the President's foreign affairs powers -- that the Executive Branch experiences "harms to [its] conduct of foreign affairs" when it is must spend foreign aid money appropriated in a bill signed by the President. Whither Congress's power of the purse?
September 26, 2025 at 9:03 PM
This is a ridiculously broad understanding of the President's foreign affairs powers -- that the Executive Branch experiences "harms to [its] conduct of foreign affairs" when it is must spend foreign aid money appropriated in a bill signed by the President. Whither Congress's power of the purse?
A lot of people are posting that this EO will destroy various industries. It seems more likely it will be used to harm specific companies and institutions that refuse to bow to the regime.
E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.
E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
September 20, 2025 at 4:10 PM
A lot of people are posting that this EO will destroy various industries. It seems more likely it will be used to harm specific companies and institutions that refuse to bow to the regime.
E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.
E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.
Reposted by Christian Mott
Of course it was unconstitutional. The only interesting question is whether any court will ever be in a position to say so (cause of action, immunity, &c.). Just like with partisan gerrymandering, we should understand that public officials are violating their oaths even if a judge never says so.
NEWS --> Anna Gomez, the lone Dem on the FCC, tells me the Trump admin's pressure to oust Jimmy Kimmel may be unlawful as well as unconstitutional. FCC chair Brendan Carr may be committing censorship in violation of federal law.
That and much more in my new piece:
newrepublic.com/article/2006...
That and much more in my new piece:
newrepublic.com/article/2006...
Trump’s Ouster of Jimmy Kimmel Is Much Worse than You Think It Is
Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, tells TNR that her boss’ move violates both the First Amendment and the Communications Act. Democrats must extract consequences.
newrepublic.com
September 18, 2025 at 6:40 PM
Of course it was unconstitutional. The only interesting question is whether any court will ever be in a position to say so (cause of action, immunity, &c.). Just like with partisan gerrymandering, we should understand that public officials are violating their oaths even if a judge never says so.
Some law trivia: Massachusetts actually allows libel suits based on true statements (preempted by 1A for public figures/matters of public concern), but only if there is "actual malice." MGL ch. 231, sec. 92; see also link, n.2.
The standard is met by making the statement with "hatred or ill will."
The standard is met by making the statement with "hatred or ill will."
September 17, 2025 at 3:35 AM
Some law trivia: Massachusetts actually allows libel suits based on true statements (preempted by 1A for public figures/matters of public concern), but only if there is "actual malice." MGL ch. 231, sec. 92; see also link, n.2.
The standard is met by making the statement with "hatred or ill will."
The standard is met by making the statement with "hatred or ill will."
Almost like there should be some sort of proceeding to determine whether a claim is true before it can be cause for the President to remove someone from their position.
The mortgage fraud claim against Lisa Cook is false, per documents obtained by Reuters.
Bill Pulte's accusation, the sole pretext Trump used to fire her from the Fed, was that she claimed two homes as primary residence.
These docs show she did not.
www.reuters.com/world/us/fed...
Bill Pulte's accusation, the sole pretext Trump used to fire her from the Fed, was that she claimed two homes as primary residence.
These docs show she did not.
www.reuters.com/world/us/fed...
Exclusive: Fed Governor Cook declared her Atlanta property as “vacation home,” documents show
A loan estimate for an Atlanta home purchased by Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor accused of mortgage fraud by the Trump administration, shows that Cook had declared the property as a “vacation home,” according to a document reviewed by Reuters.
www.reuters.com
September 12, 2025 at 10:18 PM
Almost like there should be some sort of proceeding to determine whether a claim is true before it can be cause for the President to remove someone from their position.
Some people apparently agree with the proposition stated in Trump v. US that the President has exclusive and preclusive control over the investigation and prosecution of crimes. But even those people should recognize, at this point, that there was value in leaving that (purported) fact ambiguous.
The White House has exerted extraordinary influence over decisions at the FBI, a lawsuit by three ex-officials said. The suit provides a disturbing account of what it describes as efforts by top Trump aides to strip the bureau of its century-long history of independence. Read more.
Trump White House Exerts Enormous Influence Over FBI, Lawsuit Says
A sprawling suit by three fired F.B.I. officials provides a disturbing account of efforts by top Trump aides to strip the bureau of its independence.
nyti.ms
September 10, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Some people apparently agree with the proposition stated in Trump v. US that the President has exclusive and preclusive control over the investigation and prosecution of crimes. But even those people should recognize, at this point, that there was value in leaving that (purported) fact ambiguous.
Kavanaugh concurrence is pretty unconvincing
1. He seems to suggest that purely statistical evidence is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
2. He says plaintiffs lack standing under Lyons because it's speculative to think they'll be stopped again. But if (1) is now true, it's not at all speculative
1. He seems to suggest that purely statistical evidence is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
2. He says plaintiffs lack standing under Lyons because it's speculative to think they'll be stopped again. But if (1) is now true, it's not at all speculative
BREAKING: Supreme Court lets Trump resume immigration raids targeting Latinos, Spanish speakers and certain workers
Apparent 6-3 ruling. Dissenting, Sotomayor says the order is "unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation's constitutional guarantees." @courthousenews.bsky.social
Apparent 6-3 ruling. Dissenting, Sotomayor says the order is "unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation's constitutional guarantees." @courthousenews.bsky.social
September 8, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Kavanaugh concurrence is pretty unconvincing
1. He seems to suggest that purely statistical evidence is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
2. He says plaintiffs lack standing under Lyons because it's speculative to think they'll be stopped again. But if (1) is now true, it's not at all speculative
1. He seems to suggest that purely statistical evidence is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
2. He says plaintiffs lack standing under Lyons because it's speculative to think they'll be stopped again. But if (1) is now true, it's not at all speculative
Reposted by Christian Mott
News for librarians and those in academia. Please spread the word.
Let's end the week with some good news:
1. Our .edu memberships are launched! If you have a .edu email address you now qualify for a free Tier 1 CourtListener membership.
2. We have a new guide for librarians so they can see all of our biggest features in one place. 1/2
free.law/2025/09/05/l...
1. Our .edu memberships are launched! If you have a .edu email address you now qualify for a free Tier 1 CourtListener membership.
2. We have a new guide for librarians so they can see all of our biggest features in one place. 1/2
free.law/2025/09/05/l...
New CourtListener LibGuide: Free Legal Research Tools for Librarians, Researchers & Educators
Check out our new LibGuide and .edu memberships for CourtListener resources!
free.law
September 8, 2025 at 5:34 AM
News for librarians and those in academia. Please spread the word.
Simply cannot stress enough that the US economy was the envy of the world in January.
We're headed towards an entirely self-inflicted recession.
We're headed towards an entirely self-inflicted recession.
The U.S. added only 22,000 jobs last month, showing cracks in the labor market
The U.S. job market showed more signs of weakness Friday, as the Labor Department reported just 22,000 jobs added in August. Revised figures show the economy lost jobs in June, and the unemployment ra...
www.npr.org
September 5, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Simply cannot stress enough that the US economy was the envy of the world in January.
We're headed towards an entirely self-inflicted recession.
We're headed towards an entirely self-inflicted recession.
Sounds like the type of action for which a President should be impeached, removed, and prosecuted. (Though the last action is now impossible.)
You know that boat the administration blew up? A former law enforcement official told the NYT the boat seemed to be carrying not drugs but *’migrants *
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/u...
September 4, 2025 at 3:23 AM
Sounds like the type of action for which a President should be impeached, removed, and prosecuted. (Though the last action is now impossible.)