Daniel Rice
@danielrice.bsky.social
Law prof @ UNC-Chapel Hill. Con Law and Indian Law. Views my own.
Bio: https://law.unc.edu/people/daniel-rice/
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1684746
Bio: https://law.unc.edu/people/daniel-rice/
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1684746
Pinned
Daniel Rice
@danielrice.bsky.social
· Jun 17
The Moral Complacency of Federal Indian Law
<p><span>For all its association with historical tragedy, federal Indian law remains thoroughly amoral. The field draws little distinction between horrific and
papers.ssrn.com
Excited to share a draft of my most recent work, “The Moral Complacency of Federal Indian law” (forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review): papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
November 8, 2025 at 1:23 PM
The final version of "Civic Duties and Cultural Change" is now live on @califlrev.bsky.social's website!
californialawreview.org/s/4-Rice.pdf
californialawreview.org/s/4-Rice.pdf
November 4, 2025 at 2:05 PM
The final version of "Civic Duties and Cultural Change" is now live on @califlrev.bsky.social's website!
californialawreview.org/s/4-Rice.pdf
californialawreview.org/s/4-Rice.pdf
Reposted by Daniel Rice
Unless I'm missing something, this seems pretty straightforwardly unconstitutional.
Citing a Trump executive order banning "gender ideology," the VA is withholding coverage and treatment for male veterans with breast cancer, an increasing condition among veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during service. 100 male veterans a year are diagnosed with breast cancer.
Citing Trump Order on “Biological Truth,” VA Makes It Harder for Male Veterans With Breast Cancer to Get Coverage
A Department of Veterans Affairs memo obtained by ProPublica erects new roadblocks to care for veterans with the rare but deadly cancer. The agency cites no new science but relies on an executive orde...
www.propublica.org
October 30, 2025 at 2:19 AM
Unless I'm missing something, this seems pretty straightforwardly unconstitutional.
Thread
🧵 The Supreme Court’s decision to hear another Second Amendment case this term is significant. Along w/ Wolford on Hawaii’s law concerning guns on private property, the justices will review, in US v. Hemani, whether the Const’n permits disarming drug users: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
www.supremecourt.gov
October 22, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Thread
Reposted by Daniel Rice
this is a tacit admission that the administration is not confident in the legal arguments it would have to make in order to detain them, which should also cast into question the legality of the operation in the first place
Those men are super dangerous drug smuggling terrorists, which is why . . . we are letting them go.
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/18/u...
U.S. Is Repatriating Survivors of Its Strike on Suspected Drug Vessel
www.nytimes.com
October 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM
this is a tacit admission that the administration is not confident in the legal arguments it would have to make in order to detain them, which should also cast into question the legality of the operation in the first place
When your toddler watches Mr. Rogers for the first time and immediately says, ‘’it’s an ad!’’
October 18, 2025 at 10:33 AM
When your toddler watches Mr. Rogers for the first time and immediately says, ‘’it’s an ad!’’
Very glad to see that former SG Prelogar and her team are handling this one. Nothing other than summary reversal is warranted here, but I’d settle for a cert grant.
After a monumental legal victory in 2020, over 40% of the land in Oklahoma was a reservation. Since then, the state has refused to comply with the ruling in different ways.... www.kosu.org/news/2025-09...
U.S. Supreme Court to decide on the fate of Oklahoma income tax in Indian country
A Muscogee Nation citizen who is challenging Oklahoma’s income tax authority is taking her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the potential ruling, or lack thereof, could have serious financial i...
www.kosu.org
October 17, 2025 at 10:25 AM
Very glad to see that former SG Prelogar and her team are handling this one. Nothing other than summary reversal is warranted here, but I’d settle for a cert grant.
This is not the most important part about Dobbs, but there’s (still) a typo on p. 6:
October 17, 2025 at 1:06 AM
This is not the most important part about Dobbs, but there’s (still) a typo on p. 6:
If the Court eventually grants cert here, I look forward to its "careful analysis" of the relevant history. Was there, in fact, a positive-law right to obtain information from the government about the gender-identity choices of one's children?
Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, suggest that public schools violate the Constitution when they help a student transition (by acknowledging them as trans) without their parents' knowledge or consent.
Would force schools to out trans kids to their parents. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
Would force schools to out trans kids to their parents. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JONATHAN LEE, ET AL. v. POUDRE
SCHOOL DISTRICT R–1
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 25–89. Decided October 14, 2025
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE
THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, respecting the denial
of certiorari.
I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do
not challenge the ground for the ruling below. But I remain
concerned that some federal courts are “tempt[ed]” to avoid
confronting a “particularly contentious constitutional questio[n]”: whether a school district violates parents’ fundamental rights “when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender
or assists in that process.” Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School Dist., 604 U. S. ___,
___–___ (2024) (ALITO, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1–2) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S.
57, 70 (2000) (plurality opinion)). Petitioners tell us that
nearly 6,000 public schools have policies—as respondent allegedly does—that purposefully interfere with parents’ access to critical information about their children’s genderidentity choices and school personnel’s involvement in and
influence on those choices. Pet. for Cert. 24. The troubling—and tragic—allegations in this case underscore the
“great and growing national importance” of the question
that these parent petitioners present. Parents Protecting
Our Children, 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreibznytltv7mexkfzlraxhxhcwvilqwad7bmgdmbtd643ln7wd375y@jpeg)
October 14, 2025 at 2:09 PM
If the Court eventually grants cert here, I look forward to its "careful analysis" of the relevant history. Was there, in fact, a positive-law right to obtain information from the government about the gender-identity choices of one's children?
The sequence appears to be: (1) "All flag burners should be incarcerated"; (2) EO prioritizing the prosecution of flag burners who cause noncommunicative harms (because doctrine); and (3) "No, I'm actually demanding that literally everyone who burns a flag be imprisoned."
Trump calls for ICE and other cops to enforce his executive order banning flag burning, something that’s blatantly unconstitutional given Texas v Johnson (1989), which established flag burning as protected speech.
October 4, 2025 at 12:54 AM
The sequence appears to be: (1) "All flag burners should be incarcerated"; (2) EO prioritizing the prosecution of flag burners who cause noncommunicative harms (because doctrine); and (3) "No, I'm actually demanding that literally everyone who burns a flag be imprisoned."
new frontiers in compelled speech
“Some furloughed workers at the Dept of Education expressed shock…to find that their out-of-office email messages had been changed without their knowledge to reflect the Trump administration’s view that the government shutdown was the fault of “Democrat Senators.””
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...
Partisan Language Inserted Into Education Dept. Workers’ Automated Emails
www.nytimes.com
October 3, 2025 at 2:53 PM
new frontiers in compelled speech
Reposted by Daniel Rice
A series of short posts from leading scholars about the constraints the First Amendment imposes on the government's authority to impose conditions on federal funding. Seems relevant! This is a @knightcolumbia.org series from earlier this year. knightcolumbia.org/research/fed...
Federal Funding and the First Amendment
knightcolumbia.org
October 2, 2025 at 4:21 PM
A series of short posts from leading scholars about the constraints the First Amendment imposes on the government's authority to impose conditions on federal funding. Seems relevant! This is a @knightcolumbia.org series from earlier this year. knightcolumbia.org/research/fed...
Toddler’s first no-nap day. Help.
September 27, 2025 at 7:15 PM
Toddler’s first no-nap day. Help.
Reposted by Daniel Rice
This man is ignorant. Wounded Knee was a massacre, not a battle.
September 26, 2025 at 3:45 AM
This man is ignorant. Wounded Knee was a massacre, not a battle.
Not many basketball camps come with a disclaimer of state action!
September 26, 2025 at 1:25 AM
Not many basketball camps come with a disclaimer of state action!
Reposted by Daniel Rice
Nothing is more central to a free society than the right to criticize one’s government. Nothing.
September 17, 2025 at 10:55 PM
Nothing is more central to a free society than the right to criticize one’s government. Nothing.
Thread
1. My 9-11 story. On September 11, I was clerking for Judge Jack B.Weinstein—a legendary jurist, scholar and person—who also happened to have an unobstructed view of the World Trade Center from the Brooklyn federal courthouse.
September 11, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Thread
PrawfsBlawg: Call for Speakers: History and Tradition on the Roberts Court
prawfsblawg.blogs.com
September 9, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Here's to hoping for a Gobitis —> Barnette mood shift. Too bad it'll likely require extraordinary suffering.
#BREAKING: With no explanation (save for a solo concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh), #SCOTUS has frozen lower-court rulings that had enjoined allegedly suspicion-less arrests as part of "roving" immigration patrols in California.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissents:
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissents:
www.supremecourt.gov
September 8, 2025 at 5:42 PM
Here's to hoping for a Gobitis —> Barnette mood shift. Too bad it'll likely require extraordinary suffering.
Reposted by Daniel Rice
Sincerely wondering: what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations by federal immigration officials?
September 8, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Sincerely wondering: what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations by federal immigration officials?
Reposted by Daniel Rice
This strike is outright murder even if you accept all the legal arguments the Obama admin made in support of its drone strikes, which you shouldn’t. www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal...
Legal Issues Raised by a Lethal U.S. Military Attack in the Caribbean
The Trump administration’s extraordinary lethal attack on this purported smuggling vessel raises significant potential legal issues.
www.justsecurity.org
September 4, 2025 at 1:42 AM
This strike is outright murder even if you accept all the legal arguments the Obama admin made in support of its drone strikes, which you shouldn’t. www.justsecurity.org/119982/legal...
‘’The Supreme Court’s Two Bodies’’
BREAKING: On a 2-1 vote, D.C. Circuit denies the Trump administration's request to let Trump fire a Federal Trade commissioner during appeals.
Citing Humphrey's Executor, about the FTC: "To grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court's decisions that bind our judgments. That we will not do."
Citing Humphrey's Executor, about the FTC: "To grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court's decisions that bind our judgments. That we will not do."
September 3, 2025 at 9:27 AM
‘’The Supreme Court’s Two Bodies’’