Julian Davis Mortenson
@jdmortenson.bsky.social
University of Michigan law professor. Legal historian. Constitutional litigator. Walking thorny ground. Probably kidding.
Faculty bio at http://bit.ly/jdm-bio
Faculty bio at http://bit.ly/jdm-bio
Pinned
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.
Open ended Q for whenever you have time to engage - do you ever find yourself wondering whether think we ought to revisit the NYT set’s valorizaction of OLC opinions as a normative meaningful anchor?
January 4, 2026 at 8:00 AM
Open ended Q for whenever you have time to engage - do you ever find yourself wondering whether think we ought to revisit the NYT set’s valorizaction of OLC opinions as a normative meaningful anchor?
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
with boundless joy in my heart
January 4, 2026 at 4:25 AM
with boundless joy in my heart
Abundaaaaaance!
a man with a beard is raising his arms in the air in a crowd .
ALT: a man with a beard is raising his arms in the air in a crowd .
media.tenor.com
January 4, 2026 at 4:16 AM
Abundaaaaaance!
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
Yes, agreed. I'm just inclined to listen to pragmatic cautions about timing, though (per below) this needn't mean thumb-twiddling.
Not a student of politics, let alone an expert. But if I were championing impeachment, I would first ask the administration if the attack was successful and if U.S. forces were completely out of harm's way. Then, once proudly assured that this was the case . . .
The president unilaterally decided to attack a sovereign nation and kidnap its leader, and now he says he's just going to run that county himself for a while too.
Call your representatives now and demand they impeach him.
Call your representatives now and demand they impeach him.
January 3, 2026 at 11:32 PM
Yes, agreed. I'm just inclined to listen to pragmatic cautions about timing, though (per below) this needn't mean thumb-twiddling.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
Impeachment is the obvious elephant in the room. But there are other things you could say! WPR resolution. New legislation. Standing firm on the upcoming shutdown for once. Literally anything. Just say what you would actually do if you had the votes and then vote that way. It's not that complicated!
January 3, 2026 at 7:02 PM
Impeachment is the obvious elephant in the room. But there are other things you could say! WPR resolution. New legislation. Standing firm on the upcoming shutdown for once. Literally anything. Just say what you would actually do if you had the votes and then vote that way. It's not that complicated!
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
There are several steps before impeachment: I would start with refusing to appropriate Defense and State without testimony from Hegseth, Rubio and Bondi. I mean if I was John Thune I would have encouraged Donald Trump to wait after January 30th. But as we all know, January 6 is a trigger for him.
Impeachment is the obvious elephant in the room. But there are other things you could say! WPR resolution. New legislation. Standing firm on the upcoming shutdown for once. Literally anything. Just say what you would actually do if you had the votes and then vote that way. It's not that complicated!
January 3, 2026 at 10:29 PM
There are several steps before impeachment: I would start with refusing to appropriate Defense and State without testimony from Hegseth, Rubio and Bondi. I mean if I was John Thune I would have encouraged Donald Trump to wait after January 30th. But as we all know, January 6 is a trigger for him.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
Absolutely true. But folks need to be saying this is an impeachable offense (because it is).
There are several steps before impeachment: I would start with refusing to appropriate Defense and State without testimony from Hegseth, Rubio and Bondi. I mean if I was John Thune I would have encouraged Donald Trump to wait after January 30th. But as we all know, January 6 is a trigger for him.
Impeachment is the obvious elephant in the room. But there are other things you could say! WPR resolution. New legislation. Standing firm on the upcoming shutdown for once. Literally anything. Just say what you would actually do if you had the votes and then vote that way. It's not that complicated!
January 3, 2026 at 11:37 PM
Absolutely true. But folks need to be saying this is an impeachable offense (because it is).
For sure—this is an important caution. It’s contestation every step of the way, and every Not Guilty verdict can be waved around as “JURY FOUND ME INNOCENT”. Lawyers gonna lawyer. That said, as an advocate I’d much rather have deep evidence of passionate contemporary legal opposition than not.
As you know, though, less-than-successful formal institutional actions won't necessarily be credited toward the disapproval side of the ledger.
January 3, 2026 at 11:24 PM
For sure—this is an important caution. It’s contestation every step of the way, and every Not Guilty verdict can be waved around as “JURY FOUND ME INNOCENT”. Lawyers gonna lawyer. That said, as an advocate I’d much rather have deep evidence of passionate contemporary legal opposition than not.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
The Guardian just got a bunch of eminent international law people to comment
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...
Is there any legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?
International law experts expect Washington to claim self-defence and face little serious pushback
www.theguardian.com
January 3, 2026 at 10:25 PM
The Guardian just got a bunch of eminent international law people to comment
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...
www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
This is why it's also important for domestic elected officials to condemn it as "illegal" and not just gripe about consultation. This is the stuff upon which international law is built. The prohibition against piracy wasn't some entity declaring it illegal worldwide, it was a custom built over time.
For nonlawyers, it’s worth noting that statements like this have—as a formal matter—important legal effects as a matter of international law. If such statements are *not* made, and in volume, future arguments that Trump’s invasion sets a legal precedent will stand on much firmer legal ground.
Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide: "International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law."
January 3, 2026 at 10:54 PM
This is why it's also important for domestic elected officials to condemn it as "illegal" and not just gripe about consultation. This is the stuff upon which international law is built. The prohibition against piracy wasn't some entity declaring it illegal worldwide, it was a custom built over time.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
She was collateral damage from a "law enforcement operation" conducted by the US military.
January 3, 2026 at 10:45 PM
She was collateral damage from a "law enforcement operation" conducted by the US military.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
Getting up to speed on the news
a little boy is playing with a hose in a yard .
Alt: a little boy is playing with a hose in a yard
media.tenor.com
January 3, 2026 at 10:12 PM
Getting up to speed on the news
my favorite email today was one word, from a student:
“Youngstown!!!”
“Youngstown!!!”
The same is true for constitutional law.
It’s critical—quite literally for purposes of future constitutional meaning—that politicians say and be *seen* to be saying that Trump’s actions are illegal + unconstitutional. And ideally that they take formal institutional action grounded in that view.
It’s critical—quite literally for purposes of future constitutional meaning—that politicians say and be *seen* to be saying that Trump’s actions are illegal + unconstitutional. And ideally that they take formal institutional action grounded in that view.
For nonlawyers, it’s worth noting that statements like this have—as a formal matter—important legal effects as a matter of international law. If such statements are *not* made, and in volume, future arguments that Trump’s invasion sets a legal precedent will stand on much firmer legal ground.
January 3, 2026 at 10:10 PM
my favorite email today was one word, from a student:
“Youngstown!!!”
“Youngstown!!!”
The same is true for constitutional law.
It’s critical—quite literally for purposes of future constitutional meaning—that politicians say and be *seen* to be saying that Trump’s actions are illegal + unconstitutional. And ideally that they take formal institutional action grounded in that view.
It’s critical—quite literally for purposes of future constitutional meaning—that politicians say and be *seen* to be saying that Trump’s actions are illegal + unconstitutional. And ideally that they take formal institutional action grounded in that view.
For nonlawyers, it’s worth noting that statements like this have—as a formal matter—important legal effects as a matter of international law. If such statements are *not* made, and in volume, future arguments that Trump’s invasion sets a legal precedent will stand on much firmer legal ground.
Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide: "International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law."
January 3, 2026 at 10:05 PM
The same is true for constitutional law.
It’s critical—quite literally for purposes of future constitutional meaning—that politicians say and be *seen* to be saying that Trump’s actions are illegal + unconstitutional. And ideally that they take formal institutional action grounded in that view.
It’s critical—quite literally for purposes of future constitutional meaning—that politicians say and be *seen* to be saying that Trump’s actions are illegal + unconstitutional. And ideally that they take formal institutional action grounded in that view.
For nonlawyers, it’s worth noting that statements like this have—as a formal matter—important legal effects as a matter of international law. If such statements are *not* made, and in volume, future arguments that Trump’s invasion sets a legal precedent will stand on much firmer legal ground.
Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide: "International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law."
January 3, 2026 at 9:57 PM
For nonlawyers, it’s worth noting that statements like this have—as a formal matter—important legal effects as a matter of international law. If such statements are *not* made, and in volume, future arguments that Trump’s invasion sets a legal precedent will stand on much firmer legal ground.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
This is a statement. This is a rebuke of Trump. Not Starmer's
Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide: "International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law."
January 3, 2026 at 9:51 PM
This is a statement. This is a rebuke of Trump. Not Starmer's
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
well worth your read
Wrote up this thread for @goodauth.bsky.social (thanks as always to the amazing editorial team!). goodauthority.org/news/what-ha...
January 3, 2026 at 9:34 PM
well worth your read
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
Wrote up this thread for @goodauth.bsky.social (thanks as always to the amazing editorial team!). goodauthority.org/news/what-ha...
January 3, 2026 at 9:21 PM
Wrote up this thread for @goodauth.bsky.social (thanks as always to the amazing editorial team!). goodauthority.org/news/what-ha...
Q for NatSec people:
Setting aside the ravings issue, us “running” Venezuela is literally infeasible, right? I can’t immediately imagine by what means we would even install a crony.
Setting aside the ravings issue, us “running” Venezuela is literally infeasible, right? I can’t immediately imagine by what means we would even install a crony.
January 3, 2026 at 8:59 PM
Q for NatSec people:
Setting aside the ravings issue, us “running” Venezuela is literally infeasible, right? I can’t immediately imagine by what means we would even install a crony.
Setting aside the ravings issue, us “running” Venezuela is literally infeasible, right? I can’t immediately imagine by what means we would even install a crony.
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
Like, ok, sure. Let’s say Washington claimed he could evade the Declare War clause by combining an arrest warrant for George III with the invocation of a nontextual “emergency protection of American personnel” authority,
What Would the Founders Have Thought? 3/
What Would the Founders Have Thought? 3/
January 3, 2026 at 8:13 PM
Like, ok, sure. Let’s say Washington claimed he could evade the Declare War clause by combining an arrest warrant for George III with the invocation of a nontextual “emergency protection of American personnel” authority,
What Would the Founders Have Thought? 3/
What Would the Founders Have Thought? 3/
no u do inside the parentheses first
So the order of operations here is Cuba next, then Mexico, then Greenland, then Canada?
January 3, 2026 at 8:48 PM
no u do inside the parentheses first
Reposted by Julian Davis Mortenson
He wouldn't have done that, is the thing!
January 3, 2026 at 8:35 PM
He wouldn't have done that, is the thing!
The constitutional defense of Trump’s invasion, apparently.
Part of me is struck by how odd it is to ask what “the Founders would have thought” here—or how their law and methods “would have applied.” The heaping-up of counterfactuals breaks the inquiry from the jump. 1/
Part of me is struck by how odd it is to ask what “the Founders would have thought” here—or how their law and methods “would have applied.” The heaping-up of counterfactuals breaks the inquiry from the jump. 1/
Sen Mike Lee with the first account I’ve seen of the Admin’s legal theory for the strikes. On the domestic law side — something like: Art II law enforcement power to capture Maduro (by invading his own country) combined with Art II power to protect those personnel executing the warrant.
January 3, 2026 at 8:08 PM
The constitutional defense of Trump’s invasion, apparently.
Part of me is struck by how odd it is to ask what “the Founders would have thought” here—or how their law and methods “would have applied.” The heaping-up of counterfactuals breaks the inquiry from the jump. 1/
Part of me is struck by how odd it is to ask what “the Founders would have thought” here—or how their law and methods “would have applied.” The heaping-up of counterfactuals breaks the inquiry from the jump. 1/
What did the Italian grandmother say as her family into the anime festival?
“Manga! Manga!”
“Manga! Manga!”
January 3, 2026 at 2:23 AM
What did the Italian grandmother say as her family into the anime festival?
“Manga! Manga!”
“Manga! Manga!”