Leah Litman
@leahlitman.bsky.social
Michigan Law Prof.
Co-host, Strict Scrutiny Podcast
Author, NYT Bestseller “LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes”
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628
Co-host, Strict Scrutiny Podcast
Author, NYT Bestseller “LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes”
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628
Pinned
Leah Litman
@leahlitman.bsky.social
· May 13
She’s in her AUTHOR ERA!
It’s publication day for LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes!
As a forever book nerd, I had so much fun writing this-I hope you have fun reading it! Get it at your local bookstore today!! bookshop.org/p/books/lawl...
It’s publication day for LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes!
As a forever book nerd, I had so much fun writing this-I hope you have fun reading it! Get it at your local bookstore today!! bookshop.org/p/books/lawl...
Reposted by Leah Litman
Science, not politics, should drive health care decisions.
CEO @skyeperryman.bsky.social joined @strictscrutiny.bsky.social to talk about our suit against the Trump-Vance admin for retaliatory grant cancellations against @ameracadpeds.bsky.social and its advocacy for evidence-based vaccine policy.
CEO @skyeperryman.bsky.social joined @strictscrutiny.bsky.social to talk about our suit against the Trump-Vance admin for retaliatory grant cancellations against @ameracadpeds.bsky.social and its advocacy for evidence-based vaccine policy.
January 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM
Science, not politics, should drive health care decisions.
CEO @skyeperryman.bsky.social joined @strictscrutiny.bsky.social to talk about our suit against the Trump-Vance admin for retaliatory grant cancellations against @ameracadpeds.bsky.social and its advocacy for evidence-based vaccine policy.
CEO @skyeperryman.bsky.social joined @strictscrutiny.bsky.social to talk about our suit against the Trump-Vance admin for retaliatory grant cancellations against @ameracadpeds.bsky.social and its advocacy for evidence-based vaccine policy.
Reposted by Leah Litman
I finally received my final Christmas present from my favorite podcast host and professor @leahlitman.bsky.social of @strictscrutiny.bsky.social!
And look at the note🤭🥲
And look at the note🤭🥲
January 5, 2026 at 9:22 PM
I finally received my final Christmas present from my favorite podcast host and professor @leahlitman.bsky.social of @strictscrutiny.bsky.social!
And look at the note🤭🥲
And look at the note🤭🥲
Take a listen to our first episode of 2026!!
Happy New Year!
Bec Ingber explains the lawlessness of Venezuela strikes & rendition
Kim Lane Scheppele tells us what to watch for in creeping authoritarianism (including in courts)
Skye Perryman updates holiday legal rights +
Josh Ortner on Trump lower court noms
crooked.com/podcast/can-...
Bec Ingber explains the lawlessness of Venezuela strikes & rendition
Kim Lane Scheppele tells us what to watch for in creeping authoritarianism (including in courts)
Skye Perryman updates holiday legal rights +
Josh Ortner on Trump lower court noms
crooked.com/podcast/can-...
a close up of a grinch 's face with the words `` smile '' written on it .
ALT: a close up of a grinch 's face with the words `` smile '' written on it .
media.tenor.com
January 5, 2026 at 1:35 PM
Take a listen to our first episode of 2026!!
I read an earlier draft of this paper - and recommend.
Very important work showing how courts - and appointees/nominees - actually function.
Very important work showing how courts - and appointees/nominees - actually function.
I have a new paper w Andrea Prat & Jake Spitz. We show that Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices vote in favor of the richer party by over 70% today, as compared to D’s at 30%. In the 1950s and both were at 50%. This strong trend may contribute to rising inequality. www.nber.org/papers/w34643
Ruling for the Rich: the Supreme Court over Time
Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, an...
www.nber.org
January 5, 2026 at 1:34 PM
I read an earlier draft of this paper - and recommend.
Very important work showing how courts - and appointees/nominees - actually function.
Very important work showing how courts - and appointees/nominees - actually function.
He's now talking about ... crime in DC?
January 3, 2026 at 4:50 PM
He's now talking about ... crime in DC?
"We are going to run the country" until such time as we decide?????
There is no low they won't stoop to - the utter contempt for democracy, law, the Venezuelan people - is just horrifying.
There is no low they won't stoop to - the utter contempt for democracy, law, the Venezuelan people - is just horrifying.
January 3, 2026 at 4:45 PM
"We are going to run the country" until such time as we decide?????
There is no low they won't stoop to - the utter contempt for democracy, law, the Venezuelan people - is just horrifying.
There is no low they won't stoop to - the utter contempt for democracy, law, the Venezuelan people - is just horrifying.
Reposted by Leah Litman
Join us Wednesday, Jan 7 @ 5 PM PT for a live conversation with Leah Litman & Madeleine Brand!
They’ll unpack Leah's book, “LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes”
🗓️ RSVP now & tune in: buff.ly/UKzVYyO
@leahlitman.bsky.social
They’ll unpack Leah's book, “LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes”
🗓️ RSVP now & tune in: buff.ly/UKzVYyO
@leahlitman.bsky.social
Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes
Wednesday January 7 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. PT Register Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes Leah Litman Leah Litman is a professor of law at the…
www.jewsunitedfordemocracy.org
January 2, 2026 at 9:06 PM
Join us Wednesday, Jan 7 @ 5 PM PT for a live conversation with Leah Litman & Madeleine Brand!
They’ll unpack Leah's book, “LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes”
🗓️ RSVP now & tune in: buff.ly/UKzVYyO
@leahlitman.bsky.social
They’ll unpack Leah's book, “LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes”
🗓️ RSVP now & tune in: buff.ly/UKzVYyO
@leahlitman.bsky.social
New Year’s resolution
January 1, 2026 at 6:52 PM
New Year’s resolution
Reposted by Leah Litman
She’s in her AUTHOR ERA!
It’s publication day for LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes!
As a forever book nerd, I had so much fun writing this-I hope you have fun reading it! Get it at your local bookstore today!! bookshop.org/p/books/lawl...
It’s publication day for LAWLESS: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, & Bad Vibes!
As a forever book nerd, I had so much fun writing this-I hope you have fun reading it! Get it at your local bookstore today!! bookshop.org/p/books/lawl...
January 1, 2026 at 6:02 PM
Reposted by Leah Litman
Final day of the year, so here are my Top 5 Books of 2025 that absolutely no one asked for. Leisure reading slowed down towards the end of the year after starting my PhD, but still made time for some absolute gems from @leahlitman.bsky.social, @juliaioffe.bsky.social, & @shannonmonaghan.bsky.social
December 31, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Final day of the year, so here are my Top 5 Books of 2025 that absolutely no one asked for. Leisure reading slowed down towards the end of the year after starting my PhD, but still made time for some absolute gems from @leahlitman.bsky.social, @juliaioffe.bsky.social, & @shannonmonaghan.bsky.social
Reposted by Leah Litman
Keeping the anchor chair warm for @arimelber.bsky.social tonight on The Beat on @msnowreports.bsky.social. Tune in!
December 29, 2025 at 10:57 PM
Keeping the anchor chair warm for @arimelber.bsky.social tonight on The Beat on @msnowreports.bsky.social. Tune in!
Reposted by Leah Litman
At least 11 congressmen from 1865-1871 were arguably not citizens under Trump's interpretation of 14th A, our research finds. Yet no one challenged their eligibility to serve. Why not? Obviously, b/c no one who drafted or ratified the 14th A shared Trump's view.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
The Dog That Didn't Bark: Eligibility To Serve In Congress And The Original Understanding Of The Citizenship Clause
President Donald J. Trump's 2025 Executive Order restricting birthright citizenship has prompted new interest in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment'
papers.ssrn.com
December 11, 2025 at 7:23 PM
At least 11 congressmen from 1865-1871 were arguably not citizens under Trump's interpretation of 14th A, our research finds. Yet no one challenged their eligibility to serve. Why not? Obviously, b/c no one who drafted or ratified the 14th A shared Trump's view.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Reposted by Leah Litman
DOGE was A LOT less likely to cancel contracts from companies that donated money to Republicans than companies that donated to Democrats.
December 25, 2025 at 10:47 PM
DOGE was A LOT less likely to cancel contracts from companies that donated money to Republicans than companies that donated to Democrats.
Reposted by Leah Litman
Thanks much, Leah. I think it's noteworthy that *no* Justices thought that the SG's unconvincing alternative argument that Trump had properly invoked the *rebellion* provision of 12406 was even worthy of discussion or refutation; and ... [1]
December 23, 2025 at 11:20 PM
Thanks much, Leah. I think it's noteworthy that *no* Justices thought that the SG's unconvincing alternative argument that Trump had properly invoked the *rebellion* provision of 12406 was even worthy of discussion or refutation; and ... [1]
Reposted by Leah Litman
Wrote this re SCOTUS’s inevitably siding against Trump on birthright citizenship, but it also applies to tariffs and National Guard
What it will NOT mean is that suddenly the Roberts Court will have moderated. It is not moderating. It’s pursuing its own antidemocratic agenda to perpetuate Republican power well beyond his own time in office, and sides with Trump when his own empowerment and the issues he creates serve that agenda
December 23, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Wrote this re SCOTUS’s inevitably siding against Trump on birthright citizenship, but it also applies to tariffs and National Guard
Reposted by Leah Litman
Brett Kavanaugh (September 2025): The facts and how they relate to the law don’t matter. Assume ICE and other federal forces always act with integrity, always respect rights, and consistently impose minimal burden.
Brett Kavanaugh (December 2025): Should I not have done that? Was that wrong?
Brett Kavanaugh (December 2025): Should I not have done that? Was that wrong?
Kavanaugh in a footnote in today's opinion says "the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity."
December 23, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Brett Kavanaugh (September 2025): The facts and how they relate to the law don’t matter. Assume ICE and other federal forces always act with integrity, always respect rights, and consistently impose minimal burden.
Brett Kavanaugh (December 2025): Should I not have done that? Was that wrong?
Brett Kavanaugh (December 2025): Should I not have done that? Was that wrong?
Reposted by Leah Litman
Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, #SCOTUS refuses to allow President Trump to deploy federalized National Guard troops into and around Chicago.
This is a major loss for President Trump, even if, per Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, it’s temporary and on narrow legal Q:
This is a major loss for President Trump, even if, per Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, it’s temporary and on narrow legal Q:
www.supremecourt.gov
December 23, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, #SCOTUS refuses to allow President Trump to deploy federalized National Guard troops into and around Chicago.
This is a major loss for President Trump, even if, per Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, it’s temporary and on narrow legal Q:
This is a major loss for President Trump, even if, per Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, it’s temporary and on narrow legal Q:
(also, not to be a downer but … this)
This ruling is a big deal; the deployment of the guard was awful, harmful, and autocratic.
But SCOTUS isn’t all good now!!
This ruling is a big deal; the deployment of the guard was awful, harmful, and autocratic.
But SCOTUS isn’t all good now!!
You do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to the Supreme Court
December 23, 2025 at 9:21 PM
(also, not to be a downer but … this)
This ruling is a big deal; the deployment of the guard was awful, harmful, and autocratic.
But SCOTUS isn’t all good now!!
This ruling is a big deal; the deployment of the guard was awful, harmful, and autocratic.
But SCOTUS isn’t all good now!!
In case people tell you that public criticism of the court doesn’t matter, here’s Brett Kavanaugh trying to walk back what he said in the ICE roving patrol case - when he blessed racial profiling & called the stops prompt.
He was lambasted; @akalhan.bsky.social coined the term “Kavanaugh stops”
He was lambasted; @akalhan.bsky.social coined the term “Kavanaugh stops”
December 23, 2025 at 9:20 PM
In case people tell you that public criticism of the court doesn’t matter, here’s Brett Kavanaugh trying to walk back what he said in the ICE roving patrol case - when he blessed racial profiling & called the stops prompt.
He was lambasted; @akalhan.bsky.social coined the term “Kavanaugh stops”
He was lambasted; @akalhan.bsky.social coined the term “Kavanaugh stops”
Reposted by Leah Litman
Genuinely shocked at a rule-of-law based result from this Court.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
![The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court's order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties' initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term "regular forces" in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Government argues that the term refers to civilian law enforcement officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service.
Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary.
We conclude that the term "regular forces" in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be "unable" with the regular military "to execute the laws of the United States." Because the statute requires an assessment of the military's ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from "execut[ing] the laws" "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."
18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be "unable" with those forces to perform that function.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiftbhzwvn3vgwhqsi7k2paizvdw4t26ailljvovso3chqupnmj364@jpeg)
December 23, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Genuinely shocked at a rule-of-law based result from this Court.
Reposted by Leah Litman
SCOTUS adopts @martylederman.bsky.social’s argument, which will also mean CA9 and CA7 will have to do so as well.
The upshot? If Trump wants to occupy our cities, he’s gonna have to send in the military by finding a way around the Posse Comitatus Act.
The upshot? If Trump wants to occupy our cities, he’s gonna have to send in the military by finding a way around the Posse Comitatus Act.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
December 23, 2025 at 8:24 PM
SCOTUS adopts @martylederman.bsky.social’s argument, which will also mean CA9 and CA7 will have to do so as well.
The upshot? If Trump wants to occupy our cities, he’s gonna have to send in the military by finding a way around the Posse Comitatus Act.
The upshot? If Trump wants to occupy our cities, he’s gonna have to send in the military by finding a way around the Posse Comitatus Act.
Big ups to Marty Lederman @martylederman.bsky.social who flagged this argument that SCOTUS relied on (that regular forces refer to military forces, not federal law enforcement).
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
December 23, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Big ups to Marty Lederman @martylederman.bsky.social who flagged this argument that SCOTUS relied on (that regular forces refer to military forces, not federal law enforcement).
Reposted by Leah Litman
Wow. Genuinely shocked, and a hugely consequential decision.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
December 23, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Wow. Genuinely shocked, and a hugely consequential decision.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
Trump suddenly wishing he had installed Bari Weiss at DOJ/FBI so she could Bari the Epstein files as she (incompetently) did with the CECOT reporting.
December 23, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Trump suddenly wishing he had installed Bari Weiss at DOJ/FBI so she could Bari the Epstein files as she (incompetently) did with the CECOT reporting.