David Froomkin
@dfroomkin.bsky.social
Assistant professor, University of Houston Law Center. I write about democracy and the separation of powers. ssrn.com/author=3062912
Pinned
David Froomkin
@dfroomkin.bsky.social
· Jul 29
politicalsciencenow.com
I am very honored that my dissertation has been selected by the American Political Science Association to receive the 2025 Leonard D. White Award for the best dissertation in the field of public administration. What a time to be thinking about why we should have a separation of powers!
There is also this revealing detail: "Sulzberger kind of came around and gave a stump speech to every part of the paper" about "how the times was going to cover the 2024 election. It treated both sides as having equal weight in terms of factual basis, in terms of their viewpoints."
this is worth reading. a longtime NYT insider confirms that the paper's abrupt turn into seething anti-trans bigotry came directly from the top: AG Sulzberg and his 2 deputies, Joe Kahn and Carolyn Ryan transnews.network/p/a-directiv...
'A directive from above': Former NYT editor lays out how the paper pushes anti-trans bigotry
In this in-depth interview, former New York Times editor Billie Jean Sweeney details how the paper shifted towards openly promoting anti-trans hatred, how some staff tried to stop it, how it's directe...
transnews.network
January 2, 2026 at 3:34 PM
There is also this revealing detail: "Sulzberger kind of came around and gave a stump speech to every part of the paper" about "how the times was going to cover the 2024 election. It treated both sides as having equal weight in terms of factual basis, in terms of their viewpoints."
The core purpose of constitutional law is to contribute to social integration. If it becomes permissible for whatever group is in power to invent whatever constitutional meaning it wants, then constitutional law no longer performs its core function.
December 31, 2025 at 5:10 PM
The core purpose of constitutional law is to contribute to social integration. If it becomes permissible for whatever group is in power to invent whatever constitutional meaning it wants, then constitutional law no longer performs its core function.
My new article with @cary-coglianese.bsky.social, titled "Loper Bright's Disingenuity," has been published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. We argue that, even as the Loper Bright decision claimed to overrule Chevron, it preserved Chevron's core.
pennlawreview.com/2025/12/23/l...
pennlawreview.com/2025/12/23/l...
December 29, 2025 at 2:22 PM
My new article with @cary-coglianese.bsky.social, titled "Loper Bright's Disingenuity," has been published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. We argue that, even as the Loper Bright decision claimed to overrule Chevron, it preserved Chevron's core.
pennlawreview.com/2025/12/23/l...
pennlawreview.com/2025/12/23/l...
Reposted by David Froomkin
A small (personal) example of this book’s intellectual dishonesty:
My father-in-law is reading In Covid’s Wake, and excitedly told me he found a passage where I’m quoted. The quote in question is me saying the FBI worked to censor speech on social media.
Huh? When did I say that?!
My father-in-law is reading In Covid’s Wake, and excitedly told me he found a passage where I’m quoted. The quote in question is me saying the FBI worked to censor speech on social media.
Huh? When did I say that?!
December 24, 2025 at 7:00 PM
A small (personal) example of this book’s intellectual dishonesty:
My father-in-law is reading In Covid’s Wake, and excitedly told me he found a passage where I’m quoted. The quote in question is me saying the FBI worked to censor speech on social media.
Huh? When did I say that?!
My father-in-law is reading In Covid’s Wake, and excitedly told me he found a passage where I’m quoted. The quote in question is me saying the FBI worked to censor speech on social media.
Huh? When did I say that?!
My latest article, "Taking Stock of Property Essentialism," has been published in the Arizona Law Review. I argue that the Takings Clause poses deep and underappreciated problems for the essentialist theory of property, according to which the essence of a property right is control over a thing.
Taking Stock of Property Essentialism
A recent line of Supreme Court cases on the Takings Clause, most strikingly Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that a California law granting labor organizers a right to access agricultural pro...
journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu
December 22, 2025 at 3:00 PM
My latest article, "Taking Stock of Property Essentialism," has been published in the Arizona Law Review. I argue that the Takings Clause poses deep and underappreciated problems for the essentialist theory of property, according to which the essence of a property right is control over a thing.
Reposted by David Froomkin
New by @dfroomkin.bsky.social @uhlaw.bsky.social & Ian Shapiro of Yale University —"Competitiveness Is the Key to Meaningful Redistricting Reform"
December 15, 2025 at 1:57 PM
New by @dfroomkin.bsky.social @uhlaw.bsky.social & Ian Shapiro of Yale University —"Competitiveness Is the Key to Meaningful Redistricting Reform"
Reposted by David Froomkin
Next up in our "100 ideas" series—New by @dfroomkin.bsky.social & Ian Shapiro of Yale University—"Competitiveness Is the Key to Meaningful Redistricting Reform"
Part of @nyulaw.bsky.social Democracy Project's "100 Ideas in 100 Days"
Read the full piece here:
democracyproject.org/posts/compet...
Part of @nyulaw.bsky.social Democracy Project's "100 Ideas in 100 Days"
Read the full piece here:
democracyproject.org/posts/compet...
Competitiveness Is the Key to Meaningful Redistricting Reform
A broad range of views on democracy to help break the stalemate caused by partisan conflict.
democracyproject.org
December 15, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Next up in our "100 ideas" series—New by @dfroomkin.bsky.social & Ian Shapiro of Yale University—"Competitiveness Is the Key to Meaningful Redistricting Reform"
Part of @nyulaw.bsky.social Democracy Project's "100 Ideas in 100 Days"
Read the full piece here:
democracyproject.org/posts/compet...
Part of @nyulaw.bsky.social Democracy Project's "100 Ideas in 100 Days"
Read the full piece here:
democracyproject.org/posts/compet...
Excellent thread, making the important point that the language of "congressional dysfunction" to a large extent whitewashes the real problem in our government, a Republican Party that has gone off the rails and cannot govern coherently.
1/ A few thoughts about @williambaude.bsky.social’s comment in yesterday’s NYT chat that, “It’s amazing how many of our problems today could be solved by a Congress that was willing and able to legislate in response to national problems.” www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...
Opinion | At the Supreme Court, Scenes From a Judicial Backlash
www.nytimes.com
December 10, 2025 at 9:14 PM
Excellent thread, making the important point that the language of "congressional dysfunction" to a large extent whitewashes the real problem in our government, a Republican Party that has gone off the rails and cannot govern coherently.
Reposted by David Froomkin
The best thing about this isn't the merits so much as the fact that @raskin.house.gov is socializing serious structural reform. This is the register we need to be in in preparation for the aftermath.
News -- > Rep Jamie Raskin is introducing a proposal today to require ranked choice voting in all congressional races. He's drawing attention to the idea even as corrupt Trump/GOP gerrymandering exposes current system's deep flaws.
Raskin discusses this on our pod:
newrepublic.com/article/2042...
Raskin discusses this on our pod:
newrepublic.com/article/2042...
December 10, 2025 at 2:49 PM
The best thing about this isn't the merits so much as the fact that @raskin.house.gov is socializing serious structural reform. This is the register we need to be in in preparation for the aftermath.
Reposted by David Froomkin
history of unitary executive theory, in one tweet
Step 1 - Formal logic requires you, a principled legal movement, to override centuries of tradition. Functionalism is irrelevant.
Step 2 - Functionalism requires you, a sensible legal movement, to create exceptions to the formal logic of Step 1.
Step 1 - Formal logic requires you, a principled legal movement, to override centuries of tradition. Functionalism is irrelevant.
Step 2 - Functionalism requires you, a sensible legal movement, to create exceptions to the formal logic of Step 1.
December 9, 2025 at 5:00 PM
history of unitary executive theory, in one tweet
Step 1 - Formal logic requires you, a principled legal movement, to override centuries of tradition. Functionalism is irrelevant.
Step 2 - Functionalism requires you, a sensible legal movement, to create exceptions to the formal logic of Step 1.
Step 1 - Formal logic requires you, a principled legal movement, to override centuries of tradition. Functionalism is irrelevant.
Step 2 - Functionalism requires you, a sensible legal movement, to create exceptions to the formal logic of Step 1.
For almost all of American history, progressives have understood the Supreme Court as an enemy. (It stands to reason that unelected, life-tenured officials would be the least responsive to changing mores.) The Warren Court was an aberration. We are returning to the more typical state of affairs.
Court Reform: Breaking the Corrupt Rule of the Six GOPers Is Everything talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/court...
Court Reform: Breaking the Corrupt Rule of the Six GOPers Is Everything
I’ve become something of a broken record on this. But repetition sometimes...
talkingpointsmemo.com
December 8, 2025 at 9:17 PM
For almost all of American history, progressives have understood the Supreme Court as an enemy. (It stands to reason that unelected, life-tenured officials would be the least responsive to changing mores.) The Warren Court was an aberration. We are returning to the more typical state of affairs.
Aside from the existence of the President and VP, the only provision of the Constitution limiting Congress's authority to structure the civilian executive branch is the Appointments Clause. That's it. All the rest is made up.
December 8, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Aside from the existence of the President and VP, the only provision of the Constitution limiting Congress's authority to structure the civilian executive branch is the Appointments Clause. That's it. All the rest is made up.
Reposted by David Froomkin
This is the heart of the matter.
Even after years of this behavior, part of me still finds it bewildering, and deeply distressing. It was this generation of conservatives who taught me to take judicial restraint seriously.
Just, how could you?
Even after years of this behavior, part of me still finds it bewildering, and deeply distressing. It was this generation of conservatives who taught me to take judicial restraint seriously.
Just, how could you?
It is really, really hard to get your head around the raw hubris of the majority. They really will be destabilizing the operating structure of the entire U.S. government. Why? Because they believe they have a better idea about how the past century should've been done.
December 8, 2025 at 6:20 PM
This is the heart of the matter.
Even after years of this behavior, part of me still finds it bewildering, and deeply distressing. It was this generation of conservatives who taught me to take judicial restraint seriously.
Just, how could you?
Even after years of this behavior, part of me still finds it bewildering, and deeply distressing. It was this generation of conservatives who taught me to take judicial restraint seriously.
Just, how could you?
Reposted by David Froomkin
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
In my latest article, I discuss why there has never been birthright citizenship.
Also, I discovered in my "research" that the Supreme Court has no choice but to strip citizenship from those that disagree with me about birthright citizenship.
#Satire
In my latest article, I discuss why there has never been birthright citizenship.
Also, I discovered in my "research" that the Supreme Court has no choice but to strip citizenship from those that disagree with me about birthright citizenship.
#Satire
December 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
In my latest article, I discuss why there has never been birthright citizenship.
Also, I discovered in my "research" that the Supreme Court has no choice but to strip citizenship from those that disagree with me about birthright citizenship.
#Satire
In my latest article, I discuss why there has never been birthright citizenship.
Also, I discovered in my "research" that the Supreme Court has no choice but to strip citizenship from those that disagree with me about birthright citizenship.
#Satire
Reposted by David Froomkin
Study after study shows campaign ads barely move the needle. So where does money’s real power come from? I ranked the five ways money corrupts politics—from least to most corrosive. What I’ve learned from 15 years of tracking political money:
Money Doesn't Buy Elections. It Does Something Worse.
Campaign ads barely move the needle. The real influence is hiding in plain sight.
open.substack.com
December 6, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Study after study shows campaign ads barely move the needle. So where does money’s real power come from? I ranked the five ways money corrupts politics—from least to most corrosive. What I’ve learned from 15 years of tracking political money:
This is excellent. I am worried that Court-packing will come to seem like the moderate solution, foreclosing other desperately needed reforms.
“The Radical Center in Contemporary Legal Thought” - my latest balkin.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-...
Balkinization: The Radical Center in Contemporary Legal Thought
A group blog on constitutional law, theory, and politics
balkin.blogspot.com
December 7, 2025 at 6:22 PM
This is excellent. I am worried that Court-packing will come to seem like the moderate solution, foreclosing other desperately needed reforms.
Coverage of Thursday's Supreme Court order in the Texas racial gerrymandering case seems to have devoted little attention to the (dearth of) justification. I wonder whether that is because of typical horse-race journalism or because of an attitude that if the Court says something it must be right.
December 6, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Coverage of Thursday's Supreme Court order in the Texas racial gerrymandering case seems to have devoted little attention to the (dearth of) justification. I wonder whether that is because of typical horse-race journalism or because of an attitude that if the Court says something it must be right.
The aspect of the Texas racial gerrymandering saga that really has not received attention is that the racial gerrymandering doctrine is not some liberal thing. It is a doctrine developed by conservatives that largely exists to prevent states from engaging in minority-protective redistricting.
December 5, 2025 at 6:19 PM
The aspect of the Texas racial gerrymandering saga that really has not received attention is that the racial gerrymandering doctrine is not some liberal thing. It is a doctrine developed by conservatives that largely exists to prevent states from engaging in minority-protective redistricting.
Counterpoint: the House of Lords is pretty harmless.
Yep, the Supreme Court really is just a House of Lords—a purely political branch with bizarre veto power, wielded capriciously and without accountability. Time for massive reform.
December 5, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Counterpoint: the House of Lords is pretty harmless.
Reposted by David Froomkin
They're not conservative. They have no consistent judicial philosophy. They're simply partisans. The only check on their rabid loyalty to the Republican party is their commitment to outright plutocracy.
This is really important. The problem with the Roberts Court is not that they are conservative. It's that they are bad judges.
It's not just liberal judges they're doing this to. They're doing this to plenty of conservative judges too; judges who actually spent weeks and weeks poring over the details and with their arms deep in the guts of thousands of pages of documents and days of testimony.
Those judges are pissed.
Those judges are pissed.
December 5, 2025 at 12:43 AM
They're not conservative. They have no consistent judicial philosophy. They're simply partisans. The only check on their rabid loyalty to the Republican party is their commitment to outright plutocracy.
This is really important. The problem with the Roberts Court is not that they are conservative. It's that they are bad judges.
It's not just liberal judges they're doing this to. They're doing this to plenty of conservative judges too; judges who actually spent weeks and weeks poring over the details and with their arms deep in the guts of thousands of pages of documents and days of testimony.
Those judges are pissed.
Those judges are pissed.
December 4, 2025 at 11:46 PM
This is really important. The problem with the Roberts Court is not that they are conservative. It's that they are bad judges.
In predicting Roberts Court decisions, one needs to ask only two questions: (1) what result aligns with the policy preferences of the Republican Party? (2) What result will help the Republican Party electorally? Only if there is cross-pressure between those objectives is there ever really any doubt.
December 4, 2025 at 11:38 PM
In predicting Roberts Court decisions, one needs to ask only two questions: (1) what result aligns with the policy preferences of the Republican Party? (2) What result will help the Republican Party electorally? Only if there is cross-pressure between those objectives is there ever really any doubt.
Reposted by David Froomkin
Texas & DOJ said that’s what was going on!
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
December 4, 2025 at 11:31 PM
Texas & DOJ said that’s what was going on!
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
So apparently the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to … allow some discrimination on the basis of race when it’s to secure Republicans electoral advantage.
Just lawless partisan hackery. No fact finding deference. No legal basis.
Reposted by David Froomkin
As big a fan as I am of rulemaking, future Democratic presidents -- at least 3 terms' worth -- should prioritize strategies for policymaking through adjudications as much as possible. Until the entire administrative state infrastructure can be rebuilt and capacity restored.
November 26, 2025 at 6:24 PM
As big a fan as I am of rulemaking, future Democratic presidents -- at least 3 terms' worth -- should prioritize strategies for policymaking through adjudications as much as possible. Until the entire administrative state infrastructure can be rebuilt and capacity restored.
“It’s quite rare for the state to announce that it has a racial objective behind a redistricting plan,” he said. “In fact, announcing that the objective of a redistricting plan is to reallocate political power on the basis of race is exactly what a state is not supposed to do.”
UH Law Prof: Supreme Court Should Toss '25 Redistricting Maps - Houston Press
A University of Houston law professor says Republican politicians clearly initially presented their call for redistricting on racial grounds.
www.houstonpress.com
November 25, 2025 at 6:15 PM
“It’s quite rare for the state to announce that it has a racial objective behind a redistricting plan,” he said. “In fact, announcing that the objective of a redistricting plan is to reallocate political power on the basis of race is exactly what a state is not supposed to do.”