Most telling thing about this is that the only unifying theme is macho vibes. No sense in asking if they actually want to glorify drug dealing, criminal underworld, insurgents against imperial power, or emotionally-impaired dark-siders. It's irrelevant compared to the glorification of testoterone.
Leshem on Ships as Legal Persons
Ela A. Leshem (Fordham University School of Law) has posted Normative Transplants: The Case of Ships as Legal Persons (Forthcoming in Legal Personhood in Private Law (Paul B. Miller, Christopher Essert & Eva Micheler eds., Cambridge University Press 2026)) on SSRN.…
Latest from @christianturner.bsky.social, "Deeply interesting and sophisticated. Highly recommended. Download it while it’s hot!"
War is really a state of mind
Apparently, it now only counts as "war," if it's war on us, but then, of course, if the war ever comes home, the Commander-in-Chief's independent defensive powers kick in. Congress is merely a vestigial curiosity in the 21st century - like a tail bone.
Our primary insight into how the Trump Admin lawyers* war powers comes from the OLC memo they published on the Venezuela strikes and capture of Maduro.
My analysis here:
Hopefully, when Anthropic helps build the Death Star, they remember to leave in a fatal vulnerability: share.google/UP6PSJlS0LYs...
This is not a drill! Part I of Global Health at a Crossroads Symposiumis out in the American Journal of International Law Unbound. My intro. to the symposium is available open access: www.cambridge.org/core/service...
Check out all the insightful contributions below! #globalhealth #internationallaw
Call for submissions for our symposium with @monicahakimi.bsky.social at the University of Groningen is still open!
igiltp.wordpress.com/2026/02/16/s...
Now published: digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol49/i...
Despite all the focus on the tariffs, I suspect this may eventually be the most cited part of the opinion, and NOT in trade cases.
FWIW, like Kathleen, I don't think CIT's decision that sec. 122 rather than IEEPA must be used to remedy a trade deficit means they would uphold new 122 tariffs. 122 might be only path to deal w/ direct effects of a trade deficit, w/o a deficit being proof of serious US balance-of-payments problem.
It's more complicated than you think. Great explainer from Kathleen Claussen.
🌍 Global Health at a Crossroads — Part I
New AJIL Unbound symposium on global health law, equity & pandemic governance.
👉 Check it out now:https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/ajil-unbound-by-symposium/global-health-at-a-crossroads-part-i
INTERNATIONAL LAW WEEKEND 2026: [R]evolution in the International Legal Order
The American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) is pleased to invite proposals for International Law Weekend 2026 (ILW 2026), Oct 22-24, 2026. www.ila-americanbranch.org/internationa...
We were never going to get the court to scrutinize the "emergency" justification. This framing isn't a bad consolation prize.
“Emergency powers,” after all, “tend to kindle emergencies.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 650 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Dozens of IEEPA emergencies remain ongoing today, including the first—declared over four decades ago in response to the Iranian hostage crisis. CRS, Casey, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, at 20. And as the Framers understood, emergencies can “afford a ready pretext for usurpation” of congressional power. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 650 (Jackson, J., concurring). Where Congress has reason to be worried about its powers “slipping through its fingers,” id., at 654, we in turn have every reason to expect Congress to use clear language to effectuate unbounded delegations— particularly of its “one great power,” Nicol, 173 U. S., at 515.
Roberts, Barrett, & Gorsuch's fixation on including MQD may end up a gift to challengers of other claimed emergency powers. None of this discussion of the dangers of emergency power was necessary to find IEEPA didn't cover tariffs, but it is now certain to appear in briefs & opinions in other areas.
Among the most important signs of how SCOTUS might rein in a President's claim to emergency powers is:
Chief Justice Roberts with Justices Gorsuch and Barrett on the 'major questions' doctrine.
The three express deep skepticism of claims to open-ended emergency powers:
1/
FWIW bsky.app/profile/harl...
There are obviously limits to what one decision limited to one statute can do, but the shadow of IEEPA's open-ended discretionary authority has played a massive role in the the coercive foreign policy of the last year - just think of the Greenland arc - and some sand in those gears should be welcome
338 is the big mystery here that really requires more attention.
I don't doubt that, but if he has any lawyers left, they know better.
Going to agree w/ Holger. Deciding on IEEPA's language implicates only tariffs. Scrutinizing national emergency would've had implications across U.S. code on vast range of topics, giving green light to lower courts on immigration, detention, sanctions, & beyond, which is why were never going there.
Just sayin....
Amidst many crises, the #Trump admin may be on the verge of a war of choice against #Iran. It would be:
-blatantly illegal (U.S. & int'l law)
-hugely costly (human & financial)
-has no clear end game
Your elected representatives have power to stop it.
www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
🚨 🚨 🚨
IG on international legal theory and philosophy of @esil-sedi.bsky.social organises a symposium in conversation with Monica Hakimi (@monicahakimi.bsky.social) on 29 April 2026 at the University of Groningen!
Details: igiltp.wordpress.com/2026/02/16/s...
#InternationalLaw #jurisprudensky
I believe this is the first time I have ever seen the expression "Horsefeathers!" in a judicial opinion.
AJIL Explainers: international legal developments under the second Trump administration
AJIL Explainers is a new video series exploring the impact of Trump's second presidential term on #internationallaw. Watch the @ajil.bsky.social editorial board dive into trade agreements, global perspectives, immigration and more:
🎥 https://cup.org/4rrvWxk
Useful cites here: academic.oup.com/oxford-law-p.... Apparently, Kelsen thought it was an authorization.
Looking more closely, I'm seeing some evidence that this was actually Rostow, Simma, and Schacter's view (that it was a recommendation of collective self-defense, not a matter of Art. 42 collective security) as late as the 90s, but would need to actually drill into the actual pieces to be sure.
