Dorf on Law

Note to Dorf on Law readers: Having lived in Canada for two years -- before moving to Ireland, only to return to the US, as I recounted in my column earlier this week -- I found myself conflicted while watching the gold medal game this afternoon between the Canadian and US women's hockey teams. I have always been one to cheer for the underdog (my longstanding Michigan fandom notwithstanding), and I am even more likely to be a contrarian American now that the very word patriotism  is so often associated with the worst that this country has to offer.  On the other hand, it is hardly the case that the women on the US team are all in on the gay bashing and all-purpose bigotry that currently holds sway in their country. In any case, the US won an exciting game in overtime, extending their domination of their northern neighbors (and, if history is any guide , some of their future wives) in one of the most intense rivalries in all of sport. There is nothing in the  Dorf on L...

Tomorrow I will testify at the U.S. Civil Rights Commission's briefing on  Antisemitism on America's College and University Campuses: Current Conditions and the Federal Response . I am one of six panelists during the first session, which runs from 10:15 am - 11:25 am. We have been instructed to speak for no more than 7 minutes in our opening statements, followed by questions from the commissioners. All panels will be live-streamed via the Commission's YouTube channel . Panelists were asked to submit written testimony, which I have done and which I reproduce (minus the footnotes) below. Readers who are interested in a version with footnotes can find my full written statement, as well those of the other panelists, by clicking on "panelist materials" . Having done so myself, I was struck by the general agreement among the four law professors on the panel (Ben Eidelson of Harvard, Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago, Eugene Volokh of the Hoover Institution, ...

Frequent readers of  Dorf on Law  have been treated to (or, depending on one's tastes, afflicted by) something of an international travelogue over the last few years, as I have reported from various outposts in what has become a rather nomadic existence.  I moved to Toronto and then Dublin after taking early retirement from the University of Florida.  And even before then, there was a too-brief stay in Amsterdam that I originally thought would lead to permanent residence in The Netherlands. All of this was motivated by my sense that the US was going off the rails, which was especially easy for me to notice because, as I put it in a column last summer, Florida had become the "'proof of concept' for what Republicans are now trying to do nationwide."  I was specifically referring there to higher education, but the US state with the maniacally anti-"woke" governor who even went so far as to send out crews to re-paint rainbow crosswalks black and white tr...

On March 2, the Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani , which raises the question whether a federal statute prohibiting the possession of firearms by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to the defendant in the case. This federal law was one of the charges that formed the  basis  for Hunter Biden's conviction in 2024. The defendant in Hermani  is an admitted drug dealer who uses marijuana about every other day. The FBI obtained a warrant to search his home where the agents found a Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. The prosecution's case rested solely on the defendant's habitual use of marijuana.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, otherwise known as the Court of Unlimited Gun Rights, summarily affirmed a lower court decision (relying on a previous Fifth Circuit case ) that held that this law can only be constitutionally applied to ...

The big news out of the Justice Department on Wednesday was made by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who, testifying in the House of Representatives, proved that she is extremely well qualified to hold the office she does . . . given who the president is. But while Bondi was hissing that Representative Jamie Raskin --who is not only an outstanding lawyer but a former constitutional law professor--is "not even a lawyer," her top deputy, Todd Blanche, was taking on the third branch of the U.S. government. Federal judges in the Northern District of New York had just named Donald Kinsella as US Attorney to fill a vacancy created when the term of the previous acting US Attorney, John Sarcone, expired. Blanche promptly sent Kinsella an email and, with the dignity we have come to expect from this administration, tweeted "Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella." Can that be right? Not exactly but maybe k...

I have decided to do something unusual with today's column.  My standard practice when I see something that I want to share with readers is to provide a link along with a description of why the linked document is worth reading, sometimes quoting from the document in question, and in rare cases drawing multiple block quotes from one particularly important document. Today, I am reproducing an entire document.  US Rep. Jamie Raskin's opening statement in the House Judiciary Committee's hearing yesterday with Pam Bondi (who is, incredibly, the Attorney General of this country's federal government) is so important that I am essentially "ceding my time" to him here.  I could offer the usual "interested readers should click here" in the course of offering my additional thoughts on the matter, but this is so important that I simply want to copy the whole of it and share it with everyone.  As it happens, it is approximately the same length as the typical  Dor...

Recall at issue in Trump v. Barbara is President Trump’s Executive Order that purports to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents who are not permanent residents. The federal district court in New Hampshire preliminarily enjoined the EO, determining that it violates both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) —which essentially parrots the language of the Citizenship Clause. The Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for certiorari, the briefing is coming in, and oral argument is set for April 1, 2026. The Citizenship Clause reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The government asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment’s language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to parents who are not permanent residents, because they are not “subject to the juris...