Marty Lederman
@martylederman.bsky.social
Professor at Georgetown University Law Center; former DOJ/OLC attorney
A postmortem of the IEEPA/tariffs oral argument, with my GULC colleagues Kathleen Clausen and Peter Harrell, hosted by Scott Anderson. I have an uncredited cameo--you know, like Matt Damon in Interstellar or Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder (sans the vitriol).
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...
Lawfare Live, The Now: Tariff Oral Argument at the Supreme Court
On Nov. 5 at 3:30 pm ET join Scott R. Anderson, Peter Harrell, and Kathleen Claussen for a live discussion.
www.lawfaremedia.org
November 6, 2025 at 12:01 PM
A postmortem of the IEEPA/tariffs oral argument, with my GULC colleagues Kathleen Clausen and Peter Harrell, hosted by Scott Anderson. I have an uncredited cameo--you know, like Matt Damon in Interstellar or Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder (sans the vitriol).
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...
The judge's firm-but-gentle response: "The Court has received the government's filing regarding discovery .... The [court's] Order on the parties' jointly recommended discovery plan governs discovery in this case. To the extent any discovery dispute arises, the parties may address it in a motion."
From an actual filing by the U.S. DOJ: The court erred in requiring us to produce discovery. Therefore, instead of asking the court to reconsider its order, or appealing it, we're simply going to disregard it. "Respectfully submitted, Lindsey Halligan."
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#46 in United States v. James (E.D. Va., 2:25-cr-00122) – CourtListener.com
NOTICE Of Reasons for Not Providing Pre-Vindictive/Selective Prosecution Motion Related Discovery by USA as to Letitia A. James (Keller, Roger) (Entered: 11/04/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 6, 2025 at 11:45 AM
The judge's firm-but-gentle response: "The Court has received the government's filing regarding discovery .... The [court's] Order on the parties' jointly recommended discovery plan governs discovery in this case. To the extent any discovery dispute arises, the parties may address it in a motion."
Questions about food metaphors in SCOTUS oral arguments:
If tariffs aren't a "hole" in the IEEPA donut, what other sort of pastry are they? (NOTE: "Cronut" is *not* a valid answer.) Or might they possibly be *both* an IEEPA donut hole *and* a very different pastry? Cf. #NewShimmer.
If tariffs aren't a "hole" in the IEEPA donut, what other sort of pastry are they? (NOTE: "Cronut" is *not* a valid answer.) Or might they possibly be *both* an IEEPA donut hole *and* a very different pastry? Cf. #NewShimmer.
November 5, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Questions about food metaphors in SCOTUS oral arguments:
If tariffs aren't a "hole" in the IEEPA donut, what other sort of pastry are they? (NOTE: "Cronut" is *not* a valid answer.) Or might they possibly be *both* an IEEPA donut hole *and* a very different pastry? Cf. #NewShimmer.
If tariffs aren't a "hole" in the IEEPA donut, what other sort of pastry are they? (NOTE: "Cronut" is *not* a valid answer.) Or might they possibly be *both* an IEEPA donut hole *and* a very different pastry? Cf. #NewShimmer.
Because this part of the thread appears to be getting lost, here it is again:
Thomas now doing the same, with the hostage hypo. Katyal doesn't give ground, which seems right to me. [12]
Thomas now doing the same, with the hostage hypo. Katyal doesn't give ground, which seems right to me. [12]
November 5, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Because this part of the thread appears to be getting lost, here it is again:
Thomas now doing the same, with the hostage hypo. Katyal doesn't give ground, which seems right to me. [12]
Thomas now doing the same, with the hostage hypo. Katyal doesn't give ground, which seems right to me. [12]
"breaking the fourth fall" sounds like a line from the 17-minute version of "All Too Well"
November 5, 2025 at 4:50 PM
"breaking the fourth fall" sounds like a line from the 17-minute version of "All Too Well"
FWIW, I can't recall a case in which I was as uncertain of the outcome heading into oral argument as I am of the tariffs/IEEPA case (in which the possible outcomes include the Court upholding the fentanyl tariffs but not the others b/c of Section 122). Let's see if that changes during argument ...
November 5, 2025 at 3:06 PM
FWIW, I can't recall a case in which I was as uncertain of the outcome heading into oral argument as I am of the tariffs/IEEPA case (in which the possible outcomes include the Court upholding the fentanyl tariffs but not the others b/c of Section 122). Let's see if that changes during argument ...
From an actual filing by the U.S. DOJ: The court erred in requiring us to produce discovery. Therefore, instead of asking the court to reconsider its order, or appealing it, we're simply going to disregard it. "Respectfully submitted, Lindsey Halligan."
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
#46 in United States v. James (E.D. Va., 2:25-cr-00122) – CourtListener.com
NOTICE Of Reasons for Not Providing Pre-Vindictive/Selective Prosecution Motion Related Discovery by USA as to Letitia A. James (Keller, Roger) (Entered: 11/04/2025)
storage.courtlistener.com
November 5, 2025 at 1:03 PM
From an actual filing by the U.S. DOJ: The court erred in requiring us to produce discovery. Therefore, instead of asking the court to reconsider its order, or appealing it, we're simply going to disregard it. "Respectfully submitted, Lindsey Halligan."
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Has anyone mentioned that if only Kiner-Falefa had run through the plate rather than sliding--which presumably is what he's been taught to do--the Blue Jays would be world champions?
Astonishing blunder--much worse than Buckner. And heartbreaking.
Astonishing blunder--much worse than Buckner. And heartbreaking.
November 2, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Has anyone mentioned that if only Kiner-Falefa had run through the plate rather than sliding--which presumably is what he's been taught to do--the Blue Jays would be world champions?
Astonishing blunder--much worse than Buckner. And heartbreaking.
Astonishing blunder--much worse than Buckner. And heartbreaking.
Between these developments and Gaza, I fear that my 13-week seminar next semester on the Law of the Use of Military Force will have to be reduced to 20 minutes or so. Either that or I add "The History of" at the start of the course heading.
War Powers Law Does Not Apply to Trump’s Boat Strikes, Administration Says
The stance deepened the idea that a Vietnam-era law, which says congressionally unauthorized deployments into “hostilities” must end after 60 days, does not apply to airstrike campaigns.
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/u...
The stance deepened the idea that a Vietnam-era law, which says congressionally unauthorized deployments into “hostilities” must end after 60 days, does not apply to airstrike campaigns.
www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/u...
War Powers Law Does Not Apply to Trump’s Boat Strikes, Administration Says
www.nytimes.com
November 2, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Between these developments and Gaza, I fear that my 13-week seminar next semester on the Law of the Use of Military Force will have to be reduced to 20 minutes or so. Either that or I add "The History of" at the start of the course heading.
Deeply grateful for @jodyfreeman.bsky.social's very generous words. I fear, however, that it'll take something considerably more than an amicus brief on the stay docket to "save the Republic." I'm only trying to do my humble best to shed some light on a statute! ;-)
www.linkedin.com/posts/jody-f...
www.linkedin.com/posts/jody-f...
Microsoft Word - Illinois.amicus.msl.1021.1800 (niko) Times New Roman Updated | Jody Freeman
🌟Will Georgetown professor Marty Lederman save the Republic? He's sure trying.
🔖Marty wrote an amicus brief in Trump v Illinois that appears to have intrigued the Supreme Court, and has led it to as...
www.linkedin.com
November 1, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Deeply grateful for @jodyfreeman.bsky.social's very generous words. I fear, however, that it'll take something considerably more than an amicus brief on the stay docket to "save the Republic." I'm only trying to do my humble best to shed some light on a statute! ;-)
www.linkedin.com/posts/jody-f...
www.linkedin.com/posts/jody-f...
[Updating thread from last night.]
The patently unlawful murders continue apace, but no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other nations) appears much to care. And now ... [1]
@justsecurity.org @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @charliesavage.bsky.social
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
The patently unlawful murders continue apace, but no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other nations) appears much to care. And now ... [1]
@justsecurity.org @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @charliesavage.bsky.social
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
October 29, 2025 at 12:04 PM
[Updating thread from last night.]
The patently unlawful murders continue apace, but no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other nations) appears much to care. And now ... [1]
@justsecurity.org @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @charliesavage.bsky.social
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
The patently unlawful murders continue apace, but no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other nations) appears much to care. And now ... [1]
@justsecurity.org @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social @charliesavage.bsky.social
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
Was that really an intentional balk?
October 29, 2025 at 3:05 AM
Was that really an intentional balk?
The patently unlawful murders continue apace, and no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other states) appears much to care.
And now it's been over 60 days since the military was deployed in anticipation of such strikes--which means ... [1]
@justsecurity.org
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
And now it's been over 60 days since the military was deployed in anticipation of such strikes--which means ... [1]
@justsecurity.org
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
U.S. Military Kills 14 More People Accused of Smuggling Drugs on Boats
www.nytimes.com
October 29, 2025 at 1:41 AM
The patently unlawful murders continue apace, and no one (e.g., in DoD, in Congress, among other states) appears much to care.
And now it's been over 60 days since the military was deployed in anticipation of such strikes--which means ... [1]
@justsecurity.org
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
And now it's been over 60 days since the military was deployed in anticipation of such strikes--which means ... [1]
@justsecurity.org
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/u...
576 pitches in ...
Hope this ends before I have to teach Bivens in the morning.
Hope this ends before I have to teach Bivens in the morning.
October 28, 2025 at 6:31 AM
576 pitches in ...
Hope this ends before I have to teach Bivens in the morning.
Hope this ends before I have to teach Bivens in the morning.
As Jack notes, I don't think operational personnel will, or (probably--depending on the facts) should be prosecuted for following presidential orders here. Indeed, I doubt even higher-level political appointees will be prosecuted, even though the conduct is patently unlawful.
[1]
@justsecurity.org
[1]
@justsecurity.org
My take on the significance of the classified OLC opinion for the Venezuela boat strikes.
www.execfunctions.org/p/the-venezu...
www.execfunctions.org/p/the-venezu...
The Venezuela Boat Strikes and the Justice Department’s Golden Shield
How the Office of Legal Counsel Helps the White House in its Summary Killings
www.execfunctions.org
October 27, 2025 at 2:36 PM
As Jack notes, I don't think operational personnel will, or (probably--depending on the facts) should be prosecuted for following presidential orders here. Indeed, I doubt even higher-level political appointees will be prosecuted, even though the conduct is patently unlawful.
[1]
@justsecurity.org
[1]
@justsecurity.org
Another essential piece--a perfect complement to @charliesavage.bsky.social's story yesterday about the broader evisceration of procedural checks when it comes to assessing legality in the Trump Administration.
Kudos to @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social.
Kudos to @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social.
“The Caribbean Strikes and the Collapse of Legal Oversight in U.S. Military Operations”
By @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social
www.justsecurity.org/123172/carib...
By @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social
www.justsecurity.org/123172/carib...
Caribbean Strikes and Collapse of Legal Oversight in U.S. Military
Congress and the public must address the pressures imposed on public servants and defend the guardrails that protect U.S. forces and democracy.
www.justsecurity.org
October 25, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Another essential piece--a perfect complement to @charliesavage.bsky.social's story yesterday about the broader evisceration of procedural checks when it comes to assessing legality in the Trump Administration.
Kudos to @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social.
Kudos to @seharrison7.bsky.social and @marknevitt.bsky.social.
Anyone recall another case in which an attorney filed a SCOTUS amicus brief on behalf of his or her parent(s)?
;-)
@rickhills.bsky.social
;-)
@rickhills.bsky.social
October 24, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Anyone recall another case in which an attorney filed a SCOTUS amicus brief on behalf of his or her parent(s)?
;-)
@rickhills.bsky.social
;-)
@rickhills.bsky.social
A very, very important piece by @charliesavage.bsky.social about how Trump, et al. are--quite literally--getting away with murder. [1]
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/u...
The Peril of a White House That Flaunts Its Indifference to the Law
www.nytimes.com
October 24, 2025 at 1:18 PM
A very, very important piece by @charliesavage.bsky.social about how Trump, et al. are--quite literally--getting away with murder. [1]
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/u...
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/u...
How to grab attention in a law review article about ERISA:
"All nine members of the Supreme Court agreed. I promise that I am not making this up."
"All nine members of the Supreme Court agreed. I promise that I am not making this up."
October 24, 2025 at 12:15 PM
How to grab attention in a law review article about ERISA:
"All nine members of the Supreme Court agreed. I promise that I am not making this up."
"All nine members of the Supreme Court agreed. I promise that I am not making this up."
If it's truly more banal and less inspired than the lifeless A Complete Unknown, then boy, Deliver Me From Nowhere is (as I feared) going to be a read dud.
www.theringer.com/2025/10/23/m...
www.theringer.com/2025/10/23/m...
Straight Out of the Great American Musical Biopic Songbook
Ideally, a parable about the perils of experimentation would take some risks of its own. ‘Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere’ doesn’t.
www.theringer.com
October 23, 2025 at 11:01 PM
If it's truly more banal and less inspired than the lifeless A Complete Unknown, then boy, Deliver Me From Nowhere is (as I feared) going to be a read dud.
www.theringer.com/2025/10/23/m...
www.theringer.com/2025/10/23/m...
To make a somewhat obvious point: Despite the *obsessive* attention to Martin v. Mott in the briefs, decisions, posts, skeets 'n' tweets, the NYT, etc., none of the SCOTUS Justices will cast their vote in the National Guard cases based upon what they think the "best" reading of Martin v. Mott is.
October 23, 2025 at 9:57 PM
To make a somewhat obvious point: Despite the *obsessive* attention to Martin v. Mott in the briefs, decisions, posts, skeets 'n' tweets, the NYT, etc., none of the SCOTUS Justices will cast their vote in the National Guard cases based upon what they think the "best" reading of Martin v. Mott is.
Having now read the transcript of the hearing in Chicago yesterday, the inexplicability is even greater: DOJ requested--and was given--an extension of the TRO not only for another two weeks, but *until final judgment,* which could be weeks or months down the line. [1]
bsky.app/profile/mart...
bsky.app/profile/mart...
I'm confused about the recent developments in the Illinois National Guard case. Can anyone explain?
1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today.
2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline.
[1]
1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today.
2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline.
[1]
October 23, 2025 at 6:48 PM
Having now read the transcript of the hearing in Chicago yesterday, the inexplicability is even greater: DOJ requested--and was given--an extension of the TRO not only for another two weeks, but *until final judgment,* which could be weeks or months down the line. [1]
bsky.app/profile/mart...
bsky.app/profile/mart...
I'm confused about the recent developments in the Illinois National Guard case. Can anyone explain?
1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today.
2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline.
[1]
1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today.
2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline.
[1]
October 23, 2025 at 12:26 PM
I'm confused about the recent developments in the Illinois National Guard case. Can anyone explain?
1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today.
2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline.
[1]
1. The SG is asking SCOTUS to stay a TRO that would have expired today.
2. Illinois stresses to the Court that such relief could be moot because of the deadline.
[1]
Unfortunately, both Judge Berzon in her dissent from the denial of en banc, and California in the oral argument today, assert that "the regular forces" in 12406 refers to *civilian law enforcement* personnel. [1]
@stevevladeck.bsky.social @jnklz.bsky.social @justsecurity.org
@stevevladeck.bsky.social @jnklz.bsky.social @justsecurity.org
October 23, 2025 at 2:15 AM
Unfortunately, both Judge Berzon in her dissent from the denial of en banc, and California in the oral argument today, assert that "the regular forces" in 12406 refers to *civilian law enforcement* personnel. [1]
@stevevladeck.bsky.social @jnklz.bsky.social @justsecurity.org
@stevevladeck.bsky.social @jnklz.bsky.social @justsecurity.org
Two noteworthy things about the SG's argument concerning deference to the POTUS in his reply brief in the Chicago/National Guard case:
i. He asserts that courts must defer to any "colorable assessment" by POTUS not only about the facts but also "the law." [1]
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
i. He asserts that courts must defer to any "colorable assessment" by POTUS not only about the facts but also "the law." [1]
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov
October 22, 2025 at 2:50 PM
Two noteworthy things about the SG's argument concerning deference to the POTUS in his reply brief in the Chicago/National Guard case:
i. He asserts that courts must defer to any "colorable assessment" by POTUS not only about the facts but also "the law." [1]
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
i. He asserts that courts must defer to any "colorable assessment" by POTUS not only about the facts but also "the law." [1]
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...