Last week I joined a group of distinguished scholars on this amicus brief filed in support of plaintiffs/appellants in Tuaua v. United States, the Samoan citizenship case now at the D.C. Circuit. As I’ve discussed before, the issue is whether the Constitution allows the United States to treat inhabitants of American Samoa (a U.S. territory) as something less than American citizens (they are called “non-citizen nationals”).Details
A May 16th Food and Drug Administration news release reported that U.S. Marshals had seized more than $11,185,000 worth of unapproved drugs. They did this at the request of the FDA because the medications are unapproved and misbranded drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The FDA complaint for forfeiture in paragraph 3 states, “articles of drug, as described in the caption, which articles were shipped in interstate commerce from outside the state of Ohio.”Details
I’m pleased to report that this past week the brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas cited my work on the Necessary and Proper Clause in his concurring opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway, an Establishment Clause case that received wide publicity. This was the thirteenth citation in the third Supreme Court case in the past 11 months.Details
the power at stake here – to receive ambassadors – is expressly given to the President in what appear to be mandatory terms (he “shall” receive ambassadors).Details
An unconstitutional “law” is no law at all, which puts most of the federal register to the legal trash. But, since the federal government doesn’t recognize the constitution, the only way to render those federal acts null and void in practical effect is to resist and nullify them on a state, local and individual level.Details
Earlier this year, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy published my article showing that the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause limits presidential vacancy appointments far more than President Obama (and most prior Presidents) have claimed. I posted earlier on the same subject here.
The issue is before the Supreme Court right now.Details
I like that McGinnis and Rappaport frame the core question of constitutional adjudication as a choice among (a) originalism, (b) a “living constitution,” or, as they frequently call it, “judicial updating”, or (c) judicial deference to political branches.Details
Trying to solve these questions by judicial reasoning rather than historical inquiry converts them from questions about what the framers wrote to questions about what the judge thinks is best.Details