Michael R. Ulrich
@michaelrulrich.bsky.social
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
This could result in a rule that rights will be defined by the "history & tradition" of a "national tradition." "National tradition" preempts property law, local custom, and even general practice within plural communities. This strikes me as strange even under the mythic view of "our federalism"
January 20, 2026 at 4:52 PM
This could result in a rule that rights will be defined by the "history & tradition" of a "national tradition." "National tradition" preempts property law, local custom, and even general practice within plural communities. This strikes me as strange even under the mythic view of "our federalism"
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Yes, I get what the recent cases say, but the idea that the government isn't allowed to distinguish walking up to a stranger's front door with campaign literature and doing so with a firearm is complete madness.
JGR: one of the motivating factors in our 2A cases is that it is treated as a "disfavored right". your law says it is different for speech than guns.
HI: agree its not disfavored, but the rules for 2A are whether the text informed by history. 1A tests are different bc Bruen disclaimed that.
HI: agree its not disfavored, but the rules for 2A are whether the text informed by history. 1A tests are different bc Bruen disclaimed that.
January 20, 2026 at 4:28 PM
Yes, I get what the recent cases say, but the idea that the government isn't allowed to distinguish walking up to a stranger's front door with campaign literature and doing so with a firearm is complete madness.
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
"Unenclosed land" is not PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC how do you people listen to supreme court arguments I'm going on mute
January 20, 2026 at 3:57 PM
"Unenclosed land" is not PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC how do you people listen to supreme court arguments I'm going on mute
THIS ⬇️‼️ I have tried to make this point since the day Bruen came down, that legislatures can only regulate IF there is indeed a problem to regulate so they can't etch out the scope of ANY constitutional law!!!
ACB: but maybe thats just where the poaching problem arose. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDNT HAVE A PROBLEM THEY DIDNT REGULATE, THEN. [ed - all caps bc this is the central problem many of us have raised w/ Bruen!]
USG: its the historical rule that its allowed on prop open to pub
USG: its the historical rule that its allowed on prop open to pub
January 20, 2026 at 4:13 PM
THIS ⬇️‼️ I have tried to make this point since the day Bruen came down, that legislatures can only regulate IF there is indeed a problem to regulate so they can't etch out the scope of ANY constitutional law!!!
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Petr: our national tradn is people are allowed to carry on places open to the publc.
SS: this just requires permission, right?
Petr: rule has always been implied right to do so.
SS: not in hawaii
Petr: rule is *national* tradn, not local custom
SS: this just requires permission, right?
Petr: rule has always been implied right to do so.
SS: not in hawaii
Petr: rule is *national* tradn, not local custom
January 20, 2026 at 3:33 PM
Petr: our national tradn is people are allowed to carry on places open to the publc.
SS: this just requires permission, right?
Petr: rule has always been implied right to do so.
SS: not in hawaii
Petr: rule is *national* tradn, not local custom
SS: this just requires permission, right?
Petr: rule has always been implied right to do so.
SS: not in hawaii
Petr: rule is *national* tradn, not local custom
The way god and the founders and John Lott intended 🙌
I suppose this just has to get worked out through shootouts?
January 20, 2026 at 3:32 PM
The way god and the founders and John Lott intended 🙌
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
"The state can't pass a law prohibiting you from bringing guns into people's private residences" is a WILDDDDDDDD hill to go up
January 20, 2026 at 3:20 PM
"The state can't pass a law prohibiting you from bringing guns into people's private residences" is a WILDDDDDDDD hill to go up
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Listening to Wolford v. Lopez
Justice Jackson: “Do you agree with me that there is no Second Amendment right to carry firearms in someone’s home without their consent?”
Petitioners‘ counsel: “I do not”
Hannah: [eyebrows soar so high and so fast that they fly off the head]
Justice Jackson: “Do you agree with me that there is no Second Amendment right to carry firearms in someone’s home without their consent?”
Petitioners‘ counsel: “I do not”
Hannah: [eyebrows soar so high and so fast that they fly off the head]
January 20, 2026 at 3:27 PM
Listening to Wolford v. Lopez
Justice Jackson: “Do you agree with me that there is no Second Amendment right to carry firearms in someone’s home without their consent?”
Petitioners‘ counsel: “I do not”
Hannah: [eyebrows soar so high and so fast that they fly off the head]
Justice Jackson: “Do you agree with me that there is no Second Amendment right to carry firearms in someone’s home without their consent?”
Petitioners‘ counsel: “I do not”
Hannah: [eyebrows soar so high and so fast that they fly off the head]
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Necessary reading for this morning is @maureenebrady.com's incisive piece--posted yesterday--about how to think through the categories of historical laws that will be the main focus of argument: old hunting laws.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Property v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in <i>Wolford</i>
<p><i><span>Wolford v. Lopez</span> </i>presents the Supreme Court with a novel question: may states require property owners to affirmatively consent before arm
papers.ssrn.com
January 20, 2026 at 3:02 PM
Necessary reading for this morning is @maureenebrady.com's incisive piece--posted yesterday--about how to think through the categories of historical laws that will be the main focus of argument: old hunting laws.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
3. What hints does the Court give about the level of generality at which historical laws should be viewed, about the proper time period in which to draw from history about what changes Rahimi made to the method--and a whole host of related questions Bruen unleashed.
January 20, 2026 at 3:00 PM
3. What hints does the Court give about the level of generality at which historical laws should be viewed, about the proper time period in which to draw from history about what changes Rahimi made to the method--and a whole host of related questions Bruen unleashed.
Big SCOTUS 2A oral argument starting. Wolford v. Lopez is about guns on private property but more importantly the first examination of tension between Bruen and Rahimi, and as a result any tension between the authors of each (Thomas and Roberts)
At 10am ET, the Supreme Court hears argument in Wolford v. Lopez, a Second Amendment challenge to a new Hawaii law that switches the default rule & disallows guns on private property absent consent.
I won't live-post the whole arg, but I'm going to spotlight what seems important in this thread. 🧵
I won't live-post the whole arg, but I'm going to spotlight what seems important in this thread. 🧵
January 20, 2026 at 3:01 PM
Big SCOTUS 2A oral argument starting. Wolford v. Lopez is about guns on private property but more importantly the first examination of tension between Bruen and Rahimi, and as a result any tension between the authors of each (Thomas and Roberts)
The overarching presumption of ANY males performing better in ALL sporting competition is insulting and objectively inaccurate
Ask 4'8" Simone Biles if she'd fear some big hulking man in a wig beating her in the uneven bars, vault, beam, floor, or any gymnastics event
Ask 4'8" Simone Biles if she'd fear some big hulking man in a wig beating her in the uneven bars, vault, beam, floor, or any gymnastics event
January 13, 2026 at 6:09 PM
The overarching presumption of ANY males performing better in ALL sporting competition is insulting and objectively inaccurate
Ask 4'8" Simone Biles if she'd fear some big hulking man in a wig beating her in the uneven bars, vault, beam, floor, or any gymnastics event
Ask 4'8" Simone Biles if she'd fear some big hulking man in a wig beating her in the uneven bars, vault, beam, floor, or any gymnastics event
In trans cases, Kavanaugh makes it clear his mind is made up by asking questions unrelated to the current case. In Skrmetti, he asked about sports. Now with trans minors and sports, he's asking about cis-led suits against states allowing trans participation
January 13, 2026 at 5:45 PM
In trans cases, Kavanaugh makes it clear his mind is made up by asking questions unrelated to the current case. In Skrmetti, he asked about sports. Now with trans minors and sports, he's asking about cis-led suits against states allowing trans participation
This President is already trying to stifle critical comments from comedians on terrestrial tv at midnight
December 8, 2025 at 4:45 PM
This President is already trying to stifle critical comments from comedians on terrestrial tv at midnight
Can we take a moment to highlight basics of this case:
we should so fear a group of consumer protection experts taking over the world through the FTC that we must give all power to the President
we should so fear a group of consumer protection experts taking over the world through the FTC that we must give all power to the President
December 8, 2025 at 4:40 PM
Can we take a moment to highlight basics of this case:
we should so fear a group of consumer protection experts taking over the world through the FTC that we must give all power to the President
we should so fear a group of consumer protection experts taking over the world through the FTC that we must give all power to the President
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
The conservative justices have their talking point -- what if Congress turned every department into a multimember commission -- and it is totally absurd considering that has never happened under the existing law.
December 8, 2025 at 4:26 PM
The conservative justices have their talking point -- what if Congress turned every department into a multimember commission -- and it is totally absurd considering that has never happened under the existing law.
Do we all have to go back to law school if SCOTUS rewrites ALL of the basics of law school training? Tuition remission will be critical in this economy
This is a very basic, 1L-type thing to get wrong about Marbury.
22/ Kavanaugh suggests two exceptions:
a) The Fed
b) Non-Article III judicial officers like Marbury?
Kavanaugh has his history wrong, as amicus briefs have explained.
The Banks of the US are no precedent of the Fed.
Marbury was an executive officer with quasi-judicial powers.
a) The Fed
b) Non-Article III judicial officers like Marbury?
Kavanaugh has his history wrong, as amicus briefs have explained.
The Banks of the US are no precedent of the Fed.
Marbury was an executive officer with quasi-judicial powers.
December 8, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Do we all have to go back to law school if SCOTUS rewrites ALL of the basics of law school training? Tuition remission will be critical in this economy
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Justice Blackmun was savagely criticized for decades for saying this about the 14th Amendment in Roe.
Justice Barrett is asking SG Sauer, do we really have to decide today which clause of the Constitution is the basis for our unitary executive theory? Can't we just continue "not being very specific about it," as we've been doing?
Question captures something v. important about originalism and text.
Question captures something v. important about originalism and text.
December 8, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Justice Blackmun was savagely criticized for decades for saying this about the 14th Amendment in Roe.
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
stop trying to make the nondelegation doctrine happen gorsuch
December 8, 2025 at 4:08 PM
stop trying to make the nondelegation doctrine happen gorsuch
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Jackson: Can you give us a sense of what other agencies there are with similar removal protections?
Sauer: about two dozen. we've challenged four of them in this Court.
Jackson: commission on civil rights, sentencing commission, nuclear regulatory commission....
Sauer: about two dozen. we've challenged four of them in this Court.
Jackson: commission on civil rights, sentencing commission, nuclear regulatory commission....
December 8, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Jackson: Can you give us a sense of what other agencies there are with similar removal protections?
Sauer: about two dozen. we've challenged four of them in this Court.
Jackson: commission on civil rights, sentencing commission, nuclear regulatory commission....
Sauer: about two dozen. we've challenged four of them in this Court.
Jackson: commission on civil rights, sentencing commission, nuclear regulatory commission....
KBJ: how are agencies not answerable to Congress when they can disband them and/or remove funding?
Sauer: 🤫
KBJ: if Congress decides experts, not political actors, should decide certain policies, how are dangers minimized? Why is this subjugated to Presidents desire to fire ppl?
Sauer: 🤡
Sauer: 🤫
KBJ: if Congress decides experts, not political actors, should decide certain policies, how are dangers minimized? Why is this subjugated to Presidents desire to fire ppl?
Sauer: 🤡
a man in a suit and tie is sitting at a desk with his eyes closed .
ALT: a man in a suit and tie is sitting at a desk with his eyes closed .
media.tenor.com
December 8, 2025 at 4:10 PM
KBJ: how are agencies not answerable to Congress when they can disband them and/or remove funding?
Sauer: 🤫
KBJ: if Congress decides experts, not political actors, should decide certain policies, how are dangers minimized? Why is this subjugated to Presidents desire to fire ppl?
Sauer: 🤡
Sauer: 🤫
KBJ: if Congress decides experts, not political actors, should decide certain policies, how are dangers minimized? Why is this subjugated to Presidents desire to fire ppl?
Sauer: 🤡
Kavanaugh now reading his opinion from the bench! Lotta justices not even pretending they haven’t made their decisions already
a man is talking to another man with the words wow written below him
ALT: a man is talking to another man with the words wow written below him
media.tenor.com
December 8, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Kavanaugh now reading his opinion from the bench! Lotta justices not even pretending they haven’t made their decisions already
Reposted by Michael R. Ulrich
Every political actor seeks to enhance its own power indeed, Justice Gorsuch.
December 8, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Every political actor seeks to enhance its own power indeed, Justice Gorsuch.