Pinned
The wonderful cover of my next book, coming July 4, 2026, courtesy of the wonderful designers at @CambridgeUP @CUP_Law. I am so excited. Pre-order information will be available soon!
Ilan Wurman
3,091 posts
Ilan Wurman
@ilan_wurman
Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Author of two books on the Constitution, with a third on the way. Host @rationallypod.
- This isn’t how judicial power works. Courts can’t “enjoin” or “restrain” the President from deploying the national guard. If a private party is injured by a guardsman, that party can bring a lawsuit. The legality and constitutionality of the action will be adjudicated. AndBREAKING: A federal judge has granted a restraining order blocking President Trump's call-up of the National Guard in Portland. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
- Maybe the birthright citizenship order will ultimately be held unconstitutional, but I find it highly embarrassing for a judge to say something so unequivocally at a preliminary stage without the slightest acknowledgement that there is an entire literature that disagrees. 1/2
- Wow. From yesterday’s WSJ. This is not exactly how I would analyze the issue but it shows the academic consensus on birthright citizenship is more fragile than many believe.
- Replying to @ilan_wurmanEven worse is he probably doesn’t know that he just doesn’t know. Which is why he shouldn’t have permitted such an expedited hearing. Anyway, maybe he’ll be proven right, but to think this is open and shut is plainly wrong. 2/2
- Presidents don’t have line item vetos, and generally can’t impound funds that Congress has appropriated. But when Congress finally repeals spending a federal judge will issue a TRO ordering the spending to continue because….well, just because.🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Called. It. Judge enters TRO against defunding of abortion providers. 1/
- This interestingly doesn’t mention that both the Oregon and Illinois deployments were for the specific purpose of protecting federal agents and property. That matters: As the Supreme Court said in 1890, it is “the duty of the United States to protect its officers from violence
The federal government does and should have the power to deploy troops domestically—even without local consent—*when the circumstances warrant it.* Me on why the real issue in Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere is the missing / contrived factual predicate: nytimes.com/2025/10/07/opi… - The Arizona Supreme Court has just granted our petition to transfer our appeal of the nondelegation issue/the emergency powers statute, and some privileges or immunities issues. The bar owners (and gym owners) will soon be heard in our highest court!
- I don't quite understand how ordering private citizens to burgle a hotel is official conduct. Or ordering seal team six to assassinate a rival. Or taking a bribe. Sotomayor makes no effort to take the distinction between official and unofficial acts seriously. Though to be fair,
- If the First Circuit doesn’t stay the SNAP ruling Monday morning, SCOTUS should stay it Monday afternoon. The judge concluded “complete relief” requires universal injunction because plaintiffs are geographically diverse. But complete relief means complete relief to theReplying to @EWess92Court watchers may wonder how Judge McConnell (once a major Democrat donor in Rhode Island) distinguished Trump v. CASA to justify universal relief. He addresses it in a footnote. In effect, if your ask is big enough then universal relief is necessary. Not sure that's right!
- Our brief has been filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court. Bottom line: Republicans have a lawful, constitutional quorum. Full brief: mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/me…
- I have, finally, posted my draft paper on birthright citizenship. There will be tons of criticism and I genuinely welcome feedback. But to say this question isn't close and the conventional wisdom is open and shut is a mistake. Paper here: 1/2 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
- What people miss re: birthright citizenship is that the debate isn’t between jus soli and jus sanguinis. It’s that even under jus soli, the alien had to have at least a temporary “allegiance” and “obedience” to the sovereign: he must have entered into the social contract with theMaybe the birthright citizenship order will ultimately be held unconstitutional, but I find it highly embarrassing for a judge to say something so unequivocally at a preliminary stage without the slightest acknowledgement that there is an entire literature that disagrees. 1/2
