Dorf on Law

There was a curious apparent methodological reversal during yesterday's oral argument in Trump v. Barbara . At one point, Justice Alito asked ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, arguing for the plaintiffs/respondents, the following question: When particular problems pop up, lawmakers may enact a general rule. When they do that, is the application of that general rule limited only to the situations that they had in mind when they adopted the general rule, or do we say they adopted a general rule, they meant for that to apply to later applications that might come up? Later, Justice Barrett asked a version of the same question, and Justice Kavanaugh referred to it. I think Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh are unlikely to side with the Trump administration in this case but that Justice Alito is very likely to do so. The rest of his questioning made clear that he thinks that, at least when it comes to the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteent...

Many legal scholars and others interested in the law, including me, will undoubtedly be paying attention this morning to the oral argument in Trump v. Barbara , the SCOTUS birthright citizenship case. You can find my latest Verdict column on the case . In the column, I defend birthright citizenship as a matter of fundamental principle, not just as a matter of the Fourteenth Amendment's meaning. I'll almost certainly weigh in on the case again after the oral argument (probably on Friday), but at this point it feels like everything worth saying by way of preview has been said. Accordingly, I thought I'd start the day off with a less weighty, but more bizarre foray into the latest news. A forthcoming book about HHS Secretary RFK Jr. makes use of previously unknown private diaries to reveal all sorts of interesting tidbits, such as this gem : "In his diary, [RFK Jr.] writes about cutting off the penis of a road-killed raccoon in 2001, while his 'kids waited patiently i...