❤️ this
❤️ this
lol did not see this beforehand
Was this made specifically for me? Can the rest of you see this or is this the end
Opus 4 is going to start a substack
Where do I pick up
One of my favorite early 20th century cases attempts to ban a billboard bc “criminals hide behind them.” Same vibe
Hotel NIMBY lady is back, this time with facts—from a study of TripAdvisor reviews in Atlanta and New Orleans, superb comps for my MA suburb. Up next, I’ll be studying the rise of vampire-human relationships using Goodreads
Meteor hitting earth; plague; Molly Brady; Eiffel Tower fell
I’d really like to meet the legend responsible for putting together the Harvard Gazette subject lines every morning
(I fear that point = forever but bless)
NEW: Kelo may be settled, but courts continue to grapple w/ limits on eminent domain. Drawing on debates from 19th century state conventions, @maureenebrady.com shows how necessity historically structured private-use takings, offering a framework for thinking about public use today & going forward.
And thanks to @ilyasomin.bsky.social for this write-up over at @reason.com! reason.com/volokh/2026/...
Caught in the snowday/first day of teaching backlog:
Thanks to @statecourtreport.org at @brennancenter.org for this chance to discuss some of my research on the "private-use" takings provisions in state constitutions, statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...;
First default wins. (As I point out it’s not even clear at what points in history that’s been a majority default rule, and it’s a bare majority today…)
Why 1877? No. There was an earlier NC law that requiring posting to ban hunters on your land at the courthouse AND 2 other places where public notice was ordinarily given. But I think the 1st “allowed-unless-posted-on-land” is Ohio. (I should dig further into it but someone was rushing to finish…)
The default, btw, seems to date to 1877 🤪
My 4yo fell and split his head open at school. He asked for a popsicle, and the principal said “but your bump’s on the back of your head, popsicles are for bumps in your mouth.” He told her, “but my bones go all the way to the front.”
He enjoyed the popsicle and I’m very worried about my future
I think: (1) the Supreme Court's own decisions HAVE done this for 1st Am rights, e.g., no right to protest even on property held open to the public (Hudgens); and (2) Martin v. City of Struthers will get new life, which is harder but I think distinguishable because there was no opt-out.
I think Martin v. city of Struthers is super interesting in this regard. But there, an owner had no way of permitting leaf-letters if desired.
(The answer here is that a First Amendment law like this would be subject to means-ends scrutiny, which we can't do anymore here...)
Exactly.
"Unenclosed land" is not PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC how do you people listen to supreme court arguments I'm going on mute
South Carolina and Louisiana both ALREADY HAVE THIS LAW!
"The state can't pass a law prohibiting you from bringing guns into people's private residences" is a WILDDDDDDDD hill to go up
I don't listen to a lot of arguments but...uh...the petitioners in Wolford just fell into like 368 problematic traps
My teaching scaries dream of the semester has arrived: I showed up and @lessig.bsky.social (their con law teacher) had actually just done the exact same class, down to Pierson v. Post. I feigned a coughing attack to cover my panic
Aw shucks thanks Jake! Benefitted hugely from your work (but not yet from the blog post, which must’ve gone live as I downed my tenth large iced coffee to finish this)
In 2016, I wrote this mission statement at a seminar for new faculty at UVA. As true today as it was then! (And still on my bulletin board.)
Definitely a verrrrry rough draft so reprimand me in private.