Tom “T.M.” Wolf

Did Raekwon and Ghostface write this headline?

Did Raekwon and Ghostface write this headline?

The dispute over the use of Claude in autonomous weapons also lays bare the dangers of lethal targeting without sufficient human oversight. The laws of war require the military to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and refrain from attacks that cause excessive civilian harm. These determinations are often context specific and may require judgment that AI is ill-equipped to exercise. The Defense Department’s directive on autonomous weapons raises more questions than it answers about how the military addresses these risks. It requires senior Pentagon leaders to review whether autonomous weapons enable “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.” But it’s unclear how this standard is satisfied when the weapon leaves no room for commanders or operators to override technical blind spots in life-and-death decisions. Congress should urgently impose safeguards to align autonomous weapons with the laws of war — and restrict the use of weapons that fall short.

Emile Ayoub and Amos Toh: Senior Counsels, Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice ( @emileayoub.bsky.social and @amostoh.bsky.social):

Great article…

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship was limited to "newly freed slaves and their children."

This 🧵⬇️from @sam-breidbart.bsky.social explains how the amicus brief from @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social demolishes that argument...

Trump is leading an ongoing and relentless campaign to convert the federal spending power into a tool for coercion, retaliation, and political favoritism.

This is one the clearest themes to emerge from the first year of this administration.

State Law Gives Litigators Extra Tools to Counter Originalism Unique features of state courts allow lawyers to go beyond arguments available in federal courts.

State Court Report's @cisozaki.bsky.social outlines some extra tools state law gives litigators to counter originalism. Learn more:

Trump is leading an ongoing and relentless campaign to convert the federal spending power into a tool for coercion, retaliation, and political favoritism.

This is one the clearest themes to emerge from the first year of this administration.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Constitution's grant of birthright citizenship was limited to "newly freed slaves and their children."

This 🧵⬇️from @sam-breidbart.bsky.social explains how the amicus brief from @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social demolishes that argument...

Trump Administration, in Apparent Reversal, Tries to Continue Fight Against Law Firms

The administration is trying to give up on giving up its fight against law firms.

Retired federal judge Shira Scheindlin "said the abrupt take back was highly unusual. 'How embarrassing to reverse yourself after all the bad press,' she added."

www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/u...

We win when we fight

Martha S. Jones (2013 ACLS Fellow) and Kate Masur (2020 Charles A. Ryskamp Research Fellow) have submitted a historians’ amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara.

Learn more about scholars working to increase public understanding and inform policymakers on birthright citizenship: bit.ly/4pz9XEk

The only thing funnier I’ve heard all week than this vignette about Michael Jackson and “Superthug,” is a Gen Xer at the gym playing “Superthug” on his phone to a couple of Zoomers who had never heard the song before. It takes a full 40 seconds on YouTube to get to the “whatwhatwhatwhat.”
Superawk

We win when we fight

60-inch TV screens
I can view from a side angle
In my crib you could got lost,
Like the Bermuda Triangle
- Koopa!

Amicus briefs aren't just court filings. The best are compact and compelling reads from leading scholars on the biggest issues of the day... and they're FREE!

All of which is to say, check out the latest from @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social on birthright citizenship ⬇️...

One of the more satisfying events during my time @brennancenter.org was Justice Jackson asking Trump's S.G. to rebut arguments in @janemanners.bsky.social amicus brief and Sauer totally flopping.

Anyway, here's an article from Jane and @levmenand.bsky.social explaining that a bit/lot more ⬇️

Amicus briefs aren't just court filings. The best are compact and compelling reads from leading scholars on the biggest issues of the day... and they're FREE!

All of which is to say, check out the latest from @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social on birthright citizenship ⬇️...

And I took that personally…

As scrutiny of SCOTUS ramps up ahead of the birthright citizenship arguments on April 1, keep in mind that maintaining birthright citizenship won't require unprecedented feats of progressive jurisprudence...

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

Historians’ Amicus Brief in Trump v. Barbara Two historians and professors of legal history represented by Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP have filed a brief supporting a challenge to President Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citi...

« The historians’ brief — authored by Professor Martha S. Jones and Professor Kate Masur — centers on the pre–Civil War advocacy of free Black Americans for a broad and inclusive principle of birthright citizenship. » www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

Here’s the link to Martha Jones and Kate Masur’s powerful amicus brief which leaves no doubt: Trump’s assault on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional

www.brennancenter.org/media/15301/...

"The framers [of the 14th Amendment] constitutionalized the universal view of birthright citizenship that free Black Americans advanced and the common law guaranteed."

@marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social provide a powerful history lesson in the form of a legal brief

There is no pair better qualified to speak on this matter. I am so glad they shared their arguments with the Court.

And, whoosh, this goes straight into the readings for my history methods and theory course.

1/ @marthasjones.bsky.social and @katemasur.bsky.social have drafted a seminal brief: (a) that centers Black American beliefs on birthright citizenship and (b) uses a set of primary sources, such as speeches and Colored Conventions, fought for (and won) broad birthright citizenship for everyone.

Making my way through the amicus briefs filed in support of respondents in Trump v. Barbara and more than 10 of them address the risk of statelessness in a fairly significant way. Many others at least mention it in passing. A thread on the most significant arguments re: statelessness 1/

Historians’ Amicus Brief in Trump v. Barbara Two historians and professors of legal history represented by Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP have filed a brief supporting a challenge to President Trump’s executive order purporting to end birthright citi...

« The historians’ brief — authored by Professor Martha S. Jones and Professor Kate Masur — centers on the pre–Civil War advocacy of free Black Americans for a broad and inclusive principle of birthright citizenship. » www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

⏰Historians @marthasjones.bsky.social &
@katemasur.bsky.social have filed a NEW brief in the birthright citizenship cases. It shows how the story of free Black Americans' advocacy for birthright citizenship unravels Trump's lead justification for his EO.

📑⬇️ www.brennancenter.org/sites/defaul...