We're engaged in a massive bombing effort with no set limit and the avowed goal of unconditional surrender. The Constitution doesn't allow the President to do this unilaterally.
www.politico.com/news/2026/03...
Solar power is on the Trump Administration hit list, but it turns out to have support in unexpected places. @dfarber1950.bsky.social legal-planet.org/2026/03/05/s...
Some of Trump's official proclamations also take a Christian nationalist stance, such as one for Ash Wednesday this year that's explicitly Christian.
For a president to get a favorable opinion from OLC is like tax counsel blessing a tax shelter of their one and only client.
I'm sure in due course OLC will write a memo advocating for the Iran War's legality. After all, under the unitary executive theory they're just Trump's own lawyers whose job is to support his policies.
I think there's real tension between the view that the Supreme Court's rulings on the merits, unlike the lower courts, have universal effect but that subsequent remedies can't be. The government no longer has a legitimate interest in opposing the remedy.
MAGA opposition to solar power seems to be thawing. Will there be a truce in the Administration's war against renewable energy? Early signs are encouraging but we'll have to wait and see.
legal-planet.org/2026/03/05/s...
I'm not sure if that was clear. But once there's been a Supreme Court finding of liability with supposedly universal effect, that seems to eliminate any practical objection to an equally broad remedy. (There's also an argument that the remedy *has* to be universal because of the Uniformity Clause.)
Yes, but the finding of illegality supposedly binds the government as to all importers, which seems like a defacto declaratory judgment on behalf of the entire class. It's just part of the paradox of saying that the Court can create a universal right even though the lower courts couldn't.
Given the position that the Supreme Court ruling is binding on the government even in terms of non-parties, maybe the universal coverage carries down to the lower court?
If you're in the Bay Area, join us next Wednesday for this Edley Center event on the legality of the Iran attack.
www.law.berkeley.edu/event/the-pr...
Maybe "the White House" was on board but Trump himself was unaware until yesterday?
This is a quite damning critique of OLC's justification for the seizing Maduro. I guess we don't know at this point whether OLC was even asked for its opinion about the Iran war.
www.justsecurity.org/131538/trump...
Well if Hegseth's not worried that this could turn into a forever war, that's really all I need to know.
The Supreme Court tariff ruling was important because of its practical impact. It also has important implications for future cases.
legal-planet.org/2026/03/02/f...
Here's a guide to everything you wanted to know about EPA's effort to kill federal climate regulation by repealing the Endangerment Finding.
legal-planet.org/2026/02/26/s...
OLC has found other military actions, such as the capture of Maduro, not to be "wars" for constitutional purposes. This is an attack with the avowed aim of eliminating the country's government and its offensive capacity. I don't see how that can be considered anything short of a full-on war.
Remarkably, there is still nothing on the White House website about the attack on Iran, a sign that the views of the public are considered irrelevant.
Here's a new one from RFK JR: "Let them eat liver." Yum.
thehill.com/policy/healt...
This may be our least democratic war ever. Not only no authorization by Congress, but no consultation without congressional leaders and no effort to persuade the American public.
I'm seriously starting to question the credibility of the FIFA Peace Prize.
I have to say that I was with the Obama Administration on most issues. But although i understood the moral case for intervention in Libya, I wasn't persuaded that it was legal.
Great project!
EPA's mission is supposed to be protecting the environment. That's what it was doing in 2009 in a formal finding that carbon emissions endanger our health and welfare. This series dissects its rationale for repealing the finding in a stark betrayal of its mission.
legal-planet.org/2026/02/26/s...
Those in the Bay Area should catch our event on public corruption. A timely issue! (Video available later)
www.law.berkeley.edu/event/combat...
Despite hairsplitting by the current EPA, finding endangerment is a no-brainer. @dfarber1950.bsky.social legal-planet.org/2026/02/17/t...
On any fair reading of Justice Stevens’s opinion, the Endangerment Finding is valid. @dfarber1950.bsky.social legal-planet.org/2026/02/18/c...
An important precedent has been overlooked in the coverage of the Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. @dfarber1950.bsky.social legal-planet.org/2026/02/19/t...
Trump says repealing the endangerment finding will kill federal climate regulation forever. Not so fast! Even if the repeal stands up in court, its legal effect would depend on the court's reasoning.
legal-planet.org/2026/02/25/h...
