Sam J. Merchant
@sammerchant.bsky.social
Law Prof: Con Law, Crim Pro, Sentencing, Habeas at Minnesota Law
🎯 "The Non-Delegation Doctrine's Price-Reducing Function" by Michael Smith.
November 6, 2025 at 12:45 AM
🎯 "The Non-Delegation Doctrine's Price-Reducing Function" by Michael Smith.
Not since COVID, he's not. He likes the new, orderly questioning (and that he gets to go first, as the most senior), so he asks questions all the time now, usually right out of the gate.
November 5, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Not since COVID, he's not. He likes the new, orderly questioning (and that he gets to go first, as the most senior), so he asks questions all the time now, usually right out of the gate.
No, I was noting that he thinks that's a relevant issue. I could have been clearer but it was live!
November 5, 2025 at 11:54 PM
No, I was noting that he thinks that's a relevant issue. I could have been clearer but it was live!
He’s going to win the case, and SA and CT were probably never in play. He seems to have done fine? The fact that the left-leaning J’s did not feel the need to interject means they trusted him to handle the other justices.
November 5, 2025 at 5:18 PM
He’s going to win the case, and SA and CT were probably never in play. He seems to have done fine? The fact that the left-leaning J’s did not feel the need to interject means they trusted him to handle the other justices.
The strongest arg so far from AS, CT, and NG is “ignore literally everything, everything else and look at only the text. If you squint, maybe tariff?” But if you introduce basically anything else to the analysis (history, purpose, MQD, delegation), Trump loses.
November 5, 2025 at 5:09 PM
The strongest arg so far from AS, CT, and NG is “ignore literally everything, everything else and look at only the text. If you squint, maybe tariff?” But if you introduce basically anything else to the analysis (history, purpose, MQD, delegation), Trump loses.
November 5, 2025 at 5:06 PM
The strongest arg so far from AS, CT, and NG is “ignore literally everything, everything else and look at only the text. If you squint, maybe tariff?” But if you introduce basically anything else to the analysis (history, purpose, MQD, delegation), Trump loses.
Reposted by Sam J. Merchant
Katyal just referred to "French Revolutioning" all statutes.
November 5, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Katyal just referred to "French Revolutioning" all statutes.
Alito VERY QUICKLY changed the subject. “That’s not my question.” (It was.)
November 5, 2025 at 4:51 PM
Alito VERY QUICKLY changed the subject. “That’s not my question.” (It was.)
SA ran out of merits arguments and was left with this.
November 5, 2025 at 4:50 PM
SA ran out of merits arguments and was left with this.
Roberts says tariffs are taxes. (Trump will be furious.) Issue is foreign vs domestic taxes.
November 5, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Roberts says tariffs are taxes. (Trump will be furious.) Issue is foreign vs domestic taxes.
Yep, now she’s asking in seriatim.
November 5, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Yep, now she’s asking in seriatim.
They see easier pathways to strike them down, pathways that avoid political-question arguments.
November 5, 2025 at 4:19 PM
They see easier pathways to strike them down, pathways that avoid political-question arguments.
He has this in him, but we rarely see Gorsuch this destructive of a party’s arg.
November 5, 2025 at 4:12 PM
He has this in him, but we rarely see Gorsuch this destructive of a party’s arg.
Gorsuch waited for seriatim so he would be uninterrupted in his calculated takedown. Interesting, he’s serious.
November 5, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Gorsuch waited for seriatim so he would be uninterrupted in his calculated takedown. Interesting, he’s serious.
November 5, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Gorsuch waited for seriatim so he would be uninterrupted in his calculated takedown. Interesting, he’s serious.
Gorsuch laughing sarcastically, never good for you.
November 5, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Gorsuch laughing sarcastically, never good for you.
Saur: “hard question”
(It’s not, as Gorsuch notes)
(It’s not, as Gorsuch notes)
November 5, 2025 at 3:57 PM
Saur: “hard question”
(It’s not, as Gorsuch notes)
(It’s not, as Gorsuch notes)
Kagan notes a key point: this tax/tariff/whatever is UNLIMITED. (Should be limited, as elsewhere and precedent.)
Gorsuch also worried about slippery slope of delegation.
Gorsuch also worried about slippery slope of delegation.
November 5, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Kagan notes a key point: this tax/tariff/whatever is UNLIMITED. (Should be limited, as elsewhere and precedent.)
Gorsuch also worried about slippery slope of delegation.
Gorsuch also worried about slippery slope of delegation.
It’s a cute mistake but the last few years of oral args have really shown the Chief mentally slipping. Lots of mistakes, much slower/confused.
November 5, 2025 at 3:50 PM
It’s a cute mistake but the last few years of oral args have really shown the Chief mentally slipping. Lots of mistakes, much slower/confused.
Relatedly, no questions from Thomas *challenging* the SG, only questions have been “want to address this point from the other side?”
November 5, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Relatedly, no questions from Thomas *challenging* the SG, only questions have been “want to address this point from the other side?”
Katyal is being set up to knock this into another universe.
November 5, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Katyal is being set up to knock this into another universe.
Notice, very unusually, zero questions from Alito so far… (usually means he agrees with that side)
November 5, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Notice, very unusually, zero questions from Alito so far… (usually means he agrees with that side)
This is the major point. Of course not. I’m sure other justices will pick up on this, probably KBJ.
November 5, 2025 at 3:16 PM
This is the major point. Of course not. I’m sure other justices will pick up on this, probably KBJ.