Jake Charles

Just a mere 10oz of wine per glass

Looking forward to reading the article! But can’t it be the case that — in especially egregious situations like this — one can think that *both* the state and the parent bear responsibility for the harm?

Sorry for the spoiler but like this was the plot of Homeland that explained why the US marine saw his own country as the enemy

Feel like I hadn’t really seen a bona fide Second Amendment challenge to 18 USC 922(g)(2) yet, even tho just about all 8 other categories by which fed law prohibits gun possession are checked off my bingo card

According to Gorsuch, Jefferson called himself a moderate drinker because he only had 3-4 glasses of wine each evening, so I bet he woulda partook (partaken?)

Maybe that conventional wisdom is under-protecting important constitutional values!

I’ve definitely wondered (aloud, sometimes, with my vagueness expert colleague @joeljohnson13.bsky.social) about whether a particularly poorly-specified implementation test (cough, Bruen) might itself create notice problems.

It’s a good thing she’s out, but boy I hope we as a society don’t memory hole the vast damage she’s directly (and indirectly) responsible for.

For the evening crew, below are my tentative predictions for Hemani—a loss for the government on these facts but perhaps a broader win for legislative power to regulate to secure public safety in the future
👇👇

Breaking Down the Hemani Arguments | Duke Center for Firearms Law

@jacobdcharles.bsky.social shared his thoughts on how arguments went in Hemani and explained how, based on the justices' questions, the decision may come down.
firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/03/brea...

If a majority endorses the 2 most impt propositions we advanced in our brief--that (1) history supports legislatures’ power to make categorical determinations about danger & (2) those legislative determinations deserve judicial respect--that would bring a lot more coherence to these types of cases.

Despite fractures on outcome, I think there could be an important *standard* a majority of the justices do endorse for these types of challenges--of the kind we argued for in our amicus brief. To me, agreement on such a standard would be far more significant than votes for or against Hemani here.

In the post, I break down what I saw as the main emphases in each of the justices' questioning. Then I hazard a guess at possible outcomes.

My entirely speculative prediction is 6-7 votes to vindicate the Second Amendment claim here. But it's not clear on what rationale all those 6-7 could agree.

Breaking Down the Hemani Arguments | Duke Center for Firearms Law

NEW: I wrote up a short, breezy 3,700 word post for @dukefirearmslaw.bsky.social blog w/ reactions to the Supreme Court's oral arguments in US v. Hemani earlier this week.

I may be overly optimistic about getting some coherence in Second Amendment doctrine.

firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/03/brea...

Finding it a strange time to be neck depth in readings about presidential powers for my next project (which is only tangentially related to such powers).

This is, like, a large margin

We won but it won’t be correct until all nine justices recognize that

I guess this means Trump read the blog post arguing that he did, in fact, actually win the tariff's case.

A major theme of yesterday's Hemani 2A arg: under Bruen can courts *ever* weigh the govt's leg judgment that certain groups (like drug users) are too dangerous to have guns. I've argued these assessments are inevitable even w/history-focused approaches...
www.wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/u...

What do Thomas Jefferson’s drinking habits, stealing your spouse’s Ambien, and the date Heroin become illegal all have in common? They were all part of yesterday’s Second Amendment insanity at the Supreme Court: www.dorfonlaw.org/2026/03/guns...

Yeah v true

New Center to Focus on Constitutional Law, Practice, Democracy - Georgia State University News - Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, College of Law, Faculty & Research, Press Releases, Pro-Bono &... The Georgia State University College of Law is home to the new Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice & Democracy. The center is named for Emmet J. Bondurant, a prominent trial law...

I’m thrilled that Georgia State’s College of Law is home to the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice, and Democracy! As associate director, and @espinsegall.bsky.social as director, we’re taking GSU to new heights in the field of constitutional law. news.gsu.edu/2026/02/26/n...

I always knew the founding generation drank copious amounts of alcohol but like 16 ounces of whiskey a day is wild! Madison was downing like 8-12 old fashioneds for funsies.

One possibility I could see here is something like the 3-3-3 of the tariff case decision. 3 justices say this law fails under Bruen. 3 justices say its fine under Bruen. The 3 liberals say Bruen sucks (though not clear to me the 3 libs will all be aligned on the outcome).

Look Jackson made the most direct criticism of Bruen, but Alito's questions also show the absurdity of a test that ties the entire inquiry to history. They didnt have the same problems so of couse they didnt regulate in the same way! (Yes! If only this had made him reluctant to sign onto Bruen...)

Right but I mean they’d have to come up with a narrow way first for him to be in the majority at all. He seemed to me to wanna give lots of deference to this executive/congressional judgment in the CSA that I don’t think had many other adherents.

It would have been impossible for me not to respond by citing the "Andy Griffith Show" episode where Otis the town drunk bought a car. A horrified Andy and Barney tried to persuade him not to drive, but they never assumed authority to prohibit ownership outright.
mayberry.fandom.com/wiki/Hot_Rod...

Maybe some weird narrow thing could make that happen I guess.

And, we're done. I think the Chief & Alito are very skeptical of the challenger here; they seem to think Congress can of course disarm drug users. But...it's hard for me to see many other justices clearly on that side. I'm sure the govt will get more than 2 votes, but not sure it'll be a majority.

GOVT rebuttal.

H: congress made judgment that mixing CSA drugs and guns was dangerous in g3. that satisfies the tradition. they look at modern laws and suggest you need individualized determinations all the way down. Heller forward have all suggested that categorical judgments are okay.