Mark Graber
Mark Graber
@mgraber1.bsky.social

Professor at Maryland Carey Law, legal historian, amateur comparative constitutionalist, chess nut and loyal New York Giant fan

Political science 52%
Law 23%

For the record, we made it.
So far so good. At the airport flying back from the Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium. Spouse is flying back from a psychiatry conference in Toronto. Will we both get to Boston for a performance of Guys and Dolls starring daughter 3?
I'm flying for both ASLH and the event the next week, Anna. Which one do you think I'll make it to?! Neither set of flights are canceled yet, but I might put my money on both...

We may need Paul Revere
"I've got the horse right here..."

Reposted by Mark A. Graber

"I've got the horse right here..."

So far so good. At the airport flying back from the Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium. Spouse is flying back from a psychiatry conference in Toronto. Will we both get to Boston for a performance of Guys and Dolls starring daughter 3?
I'm flying for both ASLH and the event the next week, Anna. Which one do you think I'll make it to?! Neither set of flights are canceled yet, but I might put my money on both...

Reposted by Mark A. Graber

I'm flying for both ASLH and the event the next week, Anna. Which one do you think I'll make it to?! Neither set of flights are canceled yet, but I might put my money on both...

On the meaning of "regular forces" in 1908. balkin.blogspot.com/2025/11/regu...
Balkinization: "Regular Forces:" A Lesson in the Obvious
A group blog on constitutional law, theory, and politics
balkin.blogspot.com

Historical experience suggests that when a justice disappoints their immediate political sponsor, there is almost always both a political and a legal reason for the disappointment, that pure law rarely triumphs over pure politics.
Seems apt today, from @washingtonmonthly.com @mgraber1.bsky.social review of Barrett's legal memoir: "That some Roberts Court justices may side with the Wall Street Journal editorial page over Donald Trump when the justices rule on tariffs hardly demonstrates a court above politics."

bit.ly/47FA2tz
Justice Barrett’s Campaign Biography
Amy Coney Barrett’s book, "Listening to the Law," claims the Supreme Court is above politics. Its very existence proves otherwise.
washingtonmonthly.com

Reposted by Mark A. Graber

Seems apt today, from @washingtonmonthly.com @mgraber1.bsky.social review of Barrett's legal memoir: "That some Roberts Court justices may side with the Wall Street Journal editorial page over Donald Trump when the justices rule on tariffs hardly demonstrates a court above politics."

bit.ly/47FA2tz
Justice Barrett’s Campaign Biography
Amy Coney Barrett’s book, "Listening to the Law," claims the Supreme Court is above politics. Its very existence proves otherwise.
washingtonmonthly.com
Graber also believes law matters, but not that only law matters. We need more sophisticated analysis that detail the place between blind faith and pure cynicism.

Could it possibly be that both Spanberger and Mamdani are the future of the Democratic party and that future depends on their supporters learning to get along and support different kinds of Democrats in different places?

Reposted by Julie Novkov

On why judicial biographies are almost always bad, unless you collect cliches. washingtonmonthly.com/2025/11/02/a...
Justice Barrett’s Campaign Biography
Amy Coney Barrett’s book, "Listening to the Law," claims the Supreme Court is above politics. Its very existence proves otherwise.
washingtonmonthly.com

Excited to join
We are excited to welcome @mgraber1.bsky.social (umaryland.edu) to the network! Graber's research focuses on American constitutional development and constitutional decline.

Learn more from Graber's SSN member profile: scholars.org/scholar/mark...

Reposted by Mark A. Graber

We are excited to welcome @mgraber1.bsky.social (umaryland.edu) to the network! Graber's research focuses on American constitutional development and constitutional decline.

Learn more from Graber's SSN member profile: scholars.org/scholar/mark...

Section 6 of the Trump Compact mandates that the Justice Department determines who is a man and a woman and not individual students, even when their claim is based on medicine, philosophy, and other academic disciplines. Who gets tenor parts depends on the DOJ, not their voice.

Under Part 5 of Trump's Compact's the DOJ determines grading curves and whether a professor acts fairly who gives an A to essays that demonstrate the unitary executive is an historical fiction or that aspirin is not a leading cause of autism.

Under Part 4 of the Compact, the DOJ determines whether a med school can comment on policies that threaten public health, such as sharp limits on vaccination, and a law school can comment on policies that threaten the rule of law, such as singling out specific people for revenge prosecutions.

Under Section 3 of Compact the Department of Justice gets to determine whether women and persons of color with outstanding achievements were nevertheless hired because of their race or gender (but not apparently whether less qualified conservatives are being hired for prestigious positions).

Reposted by Julie Novkov

Under Part II of the Compact with Universities, the DOJ decides whether university members can belittle the idea that bleach can cure COVID or that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer.

Part I of Trump's academic compact would permit the DOJ to decide whether a graduate school could recruit at an historic black college or university and how much weight a graduate program in philosophy could place on a submitted essay as opposed to a standardized test.

The core of academic freedom is the principle that university presidents, deans, and faculty determine how best to produce and disseminate knowledge. The Compact would make the Department of Justice the final authority on how to best produce and disseminate knowledge. It's that simple.

One way of integrating Martin v. Mott is that the president determines when to federalize the national guard, but the Constitution determines how they may be deployed

Reposted by Mark A. Graber

Oregon correctly claimed that Trump's federalization of the Oregon militia deprived Oregon of members of the state militia that might have other uses. If the federal government federalizes state prosecutors or a state park, the state has been injured. So we do not have to wait for other injuries.

Good to win in Oregon, but judge too broadly defined presidential power to use military for law enforcement. 19th law forbids usage unless courts are closed and/or marshals cannot enforce judicial decrees.

Just filed (or CREW filed for me) an amicus brief indicating that deployment of state militia in Oregon is inconsistent with historic practices. Little difference between that brief and the California brief. Happy to share for those interested.

Some thoughts on Kimmel and of how the marketplace of ideas merges into the commercial marketplace.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDk6...
Trump’s real strategy is to keep ‘low-information’ voters in the dark | Mark Graber
YouTube video by Times Radio
www.youtube.com

I am listening to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on the Middle East (I am on next for a Kirk discussion). Calm, rational, intelligent call for a two-state solution. You can disagree, but the contrast with the President of the United States is stunning.

Interesting quotes from Mark Graber and, at least before correction Mark Garber (my evil twin). www.huffpost.com/entry/url-ch...
Experts Sound The Alarm About The Effect Charlie Kirk's Death Is Having On Free Speech
"What is happening to people who reject the canonization of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy and a disgrace," one professor said.
www.huffpost.com