Aaron Bruhl
LightNews LightNews
banner
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Aaron Bruhl
@aaronbruhl.bsky.social
7.9K followers 1.4K following 340 posts
Law professor

Statutory interpretation, legislation, federal courts, administrative law

Research: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=648978

Posts do not speak for my employer
Posts Replies Media Videos
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Dogs are deranged bat and dead bug for Halloween.
Dog looking like a deranged bat. Dog on his back like a dead roach.
October 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
I missed this when it was posted.

Among my other things, some nice points about congressional reliance on Humphrey’s Executor:
Excerpt from linked post
October 21, 2025 at 9:27 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
The Supreme Court’s reference, in QP 2 in the Slaugher removal case, to “at equity or at law,” rather than using the traditional formulaic prepositions “in equity or at law” stands as a stark contrast to its embrace of “history and tradition.” In this essay I will …

#pedantry
Screenshot of order granting stay and certiorari in Trump v. Slaughter.
September 29, 2025 at 3:50 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
I went to the library to get High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies.
Title page of treatise on extraordinary legal remedies by James High.
September 22, 2025 at 8:15 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Comments welcome.

The abstract:
Abstract: Suppose that a court arrests a legislator for contempt of court, a possible violation of legislative privilege. And suppose further that in response to this perceived affront the legislature then holds the judge in contempt, a possible threat to judicial independence. Such a clash of competing claims of institutional privilege occurred in New York in 1871, though the incident has been largely forgotten. This short article excavates the incident and the interesting political context and personages surrounding it. Given the rarity of such clashes, the incident could be useful in understanding current conflicts between courts and legislatures. In the course of presenting the episode, the article discusses the party-switching judge (himself a former legislator) at the center of the controversy, the judge’s efforts to make the case famous (which succeeded, though only for a while), his letters to Chester A. Arthur and future federal judges (plus their responses), a Tweed Ring legislator who fled to Cuba, and the dangers of being a treatise writer in one’s own case.
July 31, 2025 at 4:10 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
During my vacation in Europe, I averaged over seven miles of walking per day and climbed more than six times as many stairs as usual. Now my watch tells me my averages are way down. Clearly my health demands more vacations.

Pictured: beautiful door on a church in Naxos, Greece.
Faded blue door on stone building, with red and white flowers.
July 21, 2025 at 1:07 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
#AppellatePlaces
#LawSky

Not a normal court, sure, but the first appeals in England were in the church courts, a hierarchical system where appeals ran eventually to Rome (before Henry VIII’s break). Then equity had appeals. The common law had the clunky writ of error until relatively recently.
St. Peter’s Square Some of St. Peter’s Basilica.
June 25, 2025 at 12:40 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
And here’s the abstract:
This Article concerns the phenomenon of “statutory backup rights,” or statutes that provide protections parallel to constitutional rights that are believed to be at risk of judicial abrogation. Proposals for backup rights gained attention in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which not only eliminated the constitutional right to abortion but called into question some other constitutional rights as well. Shortly after Dobbs, Congress enacted a limited statutory backup for same‐sex marriage. States have created backup rights across a range of topics, some of which appeal mostly to those on the right and others of which appeal mostly to those on the left. This Article considers a cluster of questions concerning the design of statutory backup rights, their pros and cons as mechanisms for protecting rights, and their likely effects on the legal system. It explains how the enactment of a statutory backup can keep the constitutional right away from the courts and, if the courts do take up the constitutional right anyway, bolster the constitutional right on the merits. The bolstering could occur either by revealing the strength of public sentiment or through mechanisms of legislative constitutionalism. Regarding the latter, a backup statute asks little of the judiciary in that it involves merely “confirmatory legislative constitutionalism,” that is, a legislative judgment that aligns with current judicial doctrine and seeks to reinforce it. The Article concludes by addressing how backup rights fit into debates over the role of the courts. Backup rights do not directly challenge the judiciary’s authority, and in that regard they are not a form of court reform at all, but backup rights do de‐center the courts as sources of rights. Backup rights have the salutary effect of bringing legislatures and statutory rights into the foreground, such that they are no longer merely backups after all.
May 12, 2025 at 7:41 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Tomorrow’s gym t-shirt.

I was a summer associate and then an associate at Jenner & Block long ago. In my brief time there, I had the chance to work with some world-class lawyers.

www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
Gray Jenner & Block t-shirt.
March 25, 2025 at 8:59 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
I address how to design such rights and consider their broader effects, including the potential to bolster the constitutional right being backstopped. The focus is on federal law, but states have them too.

Here is the abstract.

Comments welcome; plenty of time to revise.

2/3

@ssrn.bsky.social
This Article concerns the phenomenon of "statutory backup rights," or statutes that provide protections parallel to constitutional rights that are believed to be at risk of judicial abrogation. Proposals for backup rights gained attention in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which not only eliminated the constitutional right to abortion but called into question some other constitutional rights as well. Shortly after Dobbs, Congress enacted a limited statutory backup for same-sex marriage. States have created backup rights across a range of topics that appeal to those on both the right and the left, depending on the state. This Article considers a cluster of questions concerning the design of statutory backup rights, their pros and cons, and their likely effects on the legal system. It explains how the enactment of a statutory backup can keep the constitutional right away from the courts and, if the courts do take up the constitutional right anyway, bolster the constitutional right on the merits. The bolstering could occur either by revealing the strength of public sentiment or through mechanisms of legislative constitutionalism. Regarding the latter, a backup statute asks little of the judiciary in that it involves merely "confirmatory legislative constitutionalism," that is, a legislative judgment that aligns with current judicial doctrine and seeks to reinforce it. The Article concludes by addressing how backup rights fit into debates over the role of the courts. Backup rights do not directly challenge the judiciary's authority, and in that regard they are not a direct form of court reform at all, but backup rights do de-center the courts as sources of rights. Backup rights have the salutary effect of bringing legislatures and statutory rights into the foreground, such that they are no longer merely backups after all.
February 20, 2025 at 5:29 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Yay, it’s here!

If you want to know about the history of federal appellate procedure and how modern practice blends the traditions of the common law and of equity, please have a read.

⚖️ 🗃️
#AppellateSky #AppellateTwitter

Full text here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Cover of Columbia Law Review, which includes Bruhl’s Law and Equity on Appeal.
January 13, 2025 at 8:49 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
While doing historical research on statutory interpretation, I saw this interesting pardon. Jefferson pardons someone for a customs/tax offense where the defendant’s conduct was “not within the intention, tho’ embraced by the letter of the law,” which TJ says is a proper use of the power.

⚖️ 🗃️

1/2
Image of handwritten pardon, available at https://catalog.archives.gov/id/423380739?objectPage=29.
January 4, 2025 at 1:00 AM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
A nerdy question about the Catholic Charities #SCOTUS case.

The two questions presented are below. As the update to my prior thread notes, the Court amended the cert grant to limit it to the first question presented.

Now my question:
Suppose SCOTUS decides that the state violated the 1st Amdt …
The questions presented are: 1. Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior? 2. In addressing federal constitutional challenges, may state courts require proof of unconstitutionality "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
December 18, 2024 at 10:40 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Let’s not overlook the second question presented in today’s #SCOTUS cert grant in the Catholic Charities case, which is about the standard for establishing a constitutional violation.

A few things:

1. The briefing cites some of the relevant literature on various formulations . . .
The questions presented are: 1. Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior? 2. In addressing federal constitutional challenges, may state courts require proof of unconstitutionality “beyond a reasonable doubt?”
December 13, 2024 at 8:37 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Trying to read italicized Garamond.
Messed up Duo the Duolingo Owl
December 9, 2024 at 5:36 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
I absolutely endorse the Fourth Circuit’s diss of Garamond, but the absence of Palatino Linotype from the preferred fonts is a scandal. Shame on my home circuit!
Fourth Circuit announcement on preferred fonts. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/news-announcements/latest-news-announcements/2024/12/09/preferred-typefaces-for-briefs
December 9, 2024 at 5:14 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Last semester I got this very sophisticated handwritten answer about the unitary executive. Nice handwriting too!
A page from St. George Tucker’s notebook 4, from William & Mary libraries.
December 5, 2024 at 1:14 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
- I’m grateful that the editors let me keep FN 28 (image below). Given that not everyone is into the history of civ pro (weird, right?), I tried to have some fun.

- Did you know that a dispute over appellate procedure kicked off the English Reformation? See page 2316.
FN 28: For example, have you ever heard of the old appellate procedure of “summons and severance”? If not, count yourself lucky. Rule 74 of the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished it, and we have never looked back. See Fed. R. App. P. 3 advisory committee’s note on subdiv. a (1967) (but I wouldn’t, honestly).
December 3, 2024 at 3:09 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
The merger of federal trial procedure is traced to the 1938 Federal Rules, and equity was the winner. For appeals, by contrast, the merger happened fitfully over two centuries and left us with a blended procedure.

Here’s the abstract, and there are a couple of fun tidbits in thread below:
Abstract of Law & Equity on Appeal, available at link above.
December 3, 2024 at 3:09 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Rusty has no time for pleasure reading.
Sleepy hound/GSD mix reading a law casebook.
November 12, 2024 at 1:37 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Bag of Doritos
November 5, 2024 at 1:22 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
Alexander Hamilton out here punctuating like a Gen Z.

[from Goebel’s The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton]

⚖️ 🗃️
AH uses three exclamation points but no periods.
October 23, 2024 at 8:53 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
I was puzzled by the meaning of the proposal below (from the document you linked). I followed the footnote, and it proposes that Congress expand and codify the major-questions doctrine. It’s like an ouroboros of judicial supremacy.
Excerpt of document available at https://cei.org/studies/the-supreme-courts-new-new-deal/
October 12, 2024 at 6:55 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
4. One specific manifestation of the concern about precedent involved the question whether it mattered that the decision below was an outlier among the circuits. See the Chief’s question:
Screen shot from argument transcript, Royal Canin.
October 7, 2024 at 8:02 PM
aaronbruhl.bsky.social
It’s Lily’s gotcha day.

What is this striking, photogenic girl? Doggie DNA test said lab and pit, plus trace amounts of chow, boxer, and corgi(!).

(pictured with Rusty in second picture)
Lily Lily and Rusty
September 18, 2024 at 5:57 PM