June 14, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Pour one out for all the lawprofs out there having to explain stare decisis and why it's a fabricated concept ignored at will
June 28, 2024 at 3:03 PM
Pour one out for all the lawprofs out there having to explain stare decisis and why it's a fabricated concept ignored at will
June 14, 2025 at 7:00 PM
/2 Lawprofs C-Z, citizens, lawyers, normal people: What a load of bullshit, what are you doing? Why are you lending your credibility to such a freakish and contemptible enterprise?
Lawprof B: Oh my stars and garters why are you all being so shrill? This is an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE
Lawprof B: Oh my stars and garters why are you all being so shrill? This is an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE
March 5, 2025 at 8:12 PM
/2 Lawprofs C-Z, citizens, lawyers, normal people: What a load of bullshit, what are you doing? Why are you lending your credibility to such a freakish and contemptible enterprise?
Lawprof B: Oh my stars and garters why are you all being so shrill? This is an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE
Lawprof B: Oh my stars and garters why are you all being so shrill? This is an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE
/3 Lawprofs C-Z: Dude he is literally making up stupid shit about Canadians not being human while fascists are pushing to invade Canada
Lawprof B: That’s no excuse to be uncouth. This is DEBATE. It’s perfectly moral to come up with edgy justifications to kill people as an PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL.
Lawprof B: That’s no excuse to be uncouth. This is DEBATE. It’s perfectly moral to come up with edgy justifications to kill people as an PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL.
March 5, 2025 at 8:15 PM
/3 Lawprofs C-Z: Dude he is literally making up stupid shit about Canadians not being human while fascists are pushing to invade Canada
Lawprof B: That’s no excuse to be uncouth. This is DEBATE. It’s perfectly moral to come up with edgy justifications to kill people as an PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL.
Lawprof B: That’s no excuse to be uncouth. This is DEBATE. It’s perfectly moral to come up with edgy justifications to kill people as an PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL.
Att'n all lawprofs: This is a model for our students.
This is the courage required of people who serve at the Justice Dept. Sassoon resigns, at no small personal cost, to protest the unjust order from DC to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams. Without fear of favor. www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/n...
Manhattan’s Federal Prosecutor Quits After Adams Case Is Ordered Dropped (Gift Article)
Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, quit after the Justice Department told her to withdraw corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams.
www.nytimes.com
February 14, 2025 at 10:39 AM
Att'n all lawprofs: This is a model for our students.
The thing to remember about lawprofs is they had a colleague who for decades would explicitly say "I think Black people are dumber than other races solely because of their skin color" and instead of booting her from the profession in horror they said she had some good points
To those skeptical of or upset by Ilan's claim that an "entire literature" supports the birthright citizenship order, the best response is to substantively engage w/ the claim & assume llan's good faith..While some have done this, I’m dismayed by the many ad hominem attacks on a respected colleague.
I very much get where this is coming from, but I think we should resist this framing. As long as they're acting with integrity (which we should presume unless proven otherwise), academics need to be given the space to pursue their ideas in good faith, wherever they lead. 🧵
January 24, 2025 at 6:08 PM
The thing to remember about lawprofs is they had a colleague who for decades would explicitly say "I think Black people are dumber than other races solely because of their skin color" and instead of booting her from the profession in horror they said she had some good points
Lawyers need to be purged from institutions (specifically anything not directly related to the practice of the law) but lawprofs need to be PURGED purged
January 24, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Lawyers need to be purged from institutions (specifically anything not directly related to the practice of the law) but lawprofs need to be PURGED purged
I know the birthright thing has led to many complaints abt structural flaws in the legal academy, many of which I’ve made myself.
But also? How many lawprofs are really making this anti-history argument. It’s 3 or 4, right?
There are ~10,000 law profs in the US.
That points to something else.
But also? How many lawprofs are really making this anti-history argument. It’s 3 or 4, right?
There are ~10,000 law profs in the US.
That points to something else.
March 30, 2026 at 1:25 PM
I know the birthright thing has led to many complaints abt structural flaws in the legal academy, many of which I’ve made myself.
But also? How many lawprofs are really making this anti-history argument. It’s 3 or 4, right?
There are ~10,000 law profs in the US.
That points to something else.
But also? How many lawprofs are really making this anti-history argument. It’s 3 or 4, right?
There are ~10,000 law profs in the US.
That points to something else.
I've said this before, but the fact that legal academia (especially at top schools) has significantly turned away from concern with doctrine—in helping judges figure out how to resolve hard cases—creates an opportunity for those lawprofs who want to have actual influence on how law develops.
December 3, 2024 at 12:10 AM
I've said this before, but the fact that legal academia (especially at top schools) has significantly turned away from concern with doctrine—in helping judges figure out how to resolve hard cases—creates an opportunity for those lawprofs who want to have actual influence on how law develops.
I agree with Lawprofs C-Z on Canadians. But, what about Ohioans? Can we get more wiggle room there?
March 5, 2025 at 8:24 PM
I agree with Lawprofs C-Z on Canadians. But, what about Ohioans? Can we get more wiggle room there?
Lawprofs delenda est
Some, I assume, are good people....but I have yet to meet one with any functioning brain cells
It's no accident the only one of the three to say "this is fucking dumb, y'all are being fucking dumb" is the one who has never been a lawprof
Some, I assume, are good people....but I have yet to meet one with any functioning brain cells
It's no accident the only one of the three to say "this is fucking dumb, y'all are being fucking dumb" is the one who has never been a lawprof
Kagan: "Consider a hypothetical law that is the mirror image of Colorado's. Instead of barring talk therapy designed to change a minor’s sexual orientation/gender identity, this law bars therapy affirming those things." Adds when state suppresses one side, "constitutional issue is straightforward"
March 31, 2026 at 3:41 PM
Lawprofs delenda est
Some, I assume, are good people....but I have yet to meet one with any functioning brain cells
It's no accident the only one of the three to say "this is fucking dumb, y'all are being fucking dumb" is the one who has never been a lawprof
Some, I assume, are good people....but I have yet to meet one with any functioning brain cells
It's no accident the only one of the three to say "this is fucking dumb, y'all are being fucking dumb" is the one who has never been a lawprof
Lawprofs had a colleague who quite literally argued for the genetic inferiority of Black people and a bunch of them spent a couple decades saying maybe she had a couple good points
January 24, 2025 at 3:40 AM
Lawprofs had a colleague who quite literally argued for the genetic inferiority of Black people and a bunch of them spent a couple decades saying maybe she had a couple good points
The question of birthright citizenship is answered specifically and clearly by the text of the 14th Amendment, and there's a cottage industry of lawprofs saying we should just ignore the text because the framers might have written the amendment differently if they could be teleported to the future
Every law professor on here just posts stuff like “the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit gas chambers so it’s an open question whether Trump’s extermination of the untermenschen is legal.”
So far, I tend to favor the birthright citizenship side of the debate, but it's close. The difficulty I see is that the situation we have now (illegal immigration) wasn't a thing when the 14A was adopted, so it's hard to say how it applies in this context.
April 10, 2025 at 10:48 PM
The question of birthright citizenship is answered specifically and clearly by the text of the 14th Amendment, and there's a cottage industry of lawprofs saying we should just ignore the text because the framers might have written the amendment differently if they could be teleported to the future
Amy Wax has entered the chat (the list of lawprofs who fell all over themselves to make excuses for their learned colleague being a fuckin outright unrepentant racist is long and undistinguished)
bsky.app/profile/jame...
bsky.app/profile/jame...
it also seems to me that there are actual categories of argument that on their face fail the test of "acting with integrity." if i had a colleague who wanted to argue for the genetic inferiority of black people, i think i should be able to dismiss that without consideration.
January 24, 2025 at 3:38 AM
Amy Wax has entered the chat (the list of lawprofs who fell all over themselves to make excuses for their learned colleague being a fuckin outright unrepentant racist is long and undistinguished)
bsky.app/profile/jame...
bsky.app/profile/jame...
Me too. Judges were politicians with robes, and cases like West Coast Hotel confirmed it
Needless to say I was not liked by several of my lawprofs 🙃
Needless to say I was not liked by several of my lawprofs 🙃
June 28, 2024 at 3:11 PM
Me too. Judges were politicians with robes, and cases like West Coast Hotel confirmed it
Needless to say I was not liked by several of my lawprofs 🙃
Needless to say I was not liked by several of my lawprofs 🙃
In case you didn’t see! #lawprofs #legalscholarship
Well, better late than never, I'm finally ready to get the new podcast "Legal Scholarship Aloud" off the ground!
What am I looking for? I want you, fellow law profs and legal scholars, to send me recordings of yourself reading your law review articles. Will I edit them for you? Nope. 1/x
What am I looking for? I want you, fellow law profs and legal scholars, to send me recordings of yourself reading your law review articles. Will I edit them for you? Nope. 1/x
November 11, 2024 at 7:15 PM
In case you didn’t see! #lawprofs #legalscholarship
Excited to join these amazing lawprofs & make the cover!
February 2, 2025 at 1:24 AM
Excited to join these amazing lawprofs & make the cover!
Lawprofs, I have a dumb question (because I can't bring myself to read their propaganda): how do the scholars arguing *against* birthright citizenship think ANY of us can prove our citizenship? Personally, I have no way to show my great-grandparents were citizens.
May 15, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Lawprofs, I have a dumb question (because I can't bring myself to read their propaganda): how do the scholars arguing *against* birthright citizenship think ANY of us can prove our citizenship? Personally, I have no way to show my great-grandparents were citizens.
This is why I (genuinely) think all lawprofs should have to be on social media (seriously).
I once explained an article I was writing in 12 tweets. I only half-joked that was enough, and the final piece would be the 12 tweets + filler footnotes.
I was 95% correct.
Twitter taught me terseness.
I once explained an article I was writing in 12 tweets. I only half-joked that was enough, and the final piece would be the 12 tweets + filler footnotes.
I was 95% correct.
Twitter taught me terseness.
The other thing? They’re just way too long. Maybe that’s the one thing that kills 1/3 of them for me.
April 8, 2026 at 9:59 PM
This is why I (genuinely) think all lawprofs should have to be on social media (seriously).
I once explained an article I was writing in 12 tweets. I only half-joked that was enough, and the final piece would be the 12 tweets + filler footnotes.
I was 95% correct.
Twitter taught me terseness.
I once explained an article I was writing in 12 tweets. I only half-joked that was enough, and the final piece would be the 12 tweets + filler footnotes.
I was 95% correct.
Twitter taught me terseness.
PLEASE READ THIS! (And, lawprofs, please share it with your students.)
Some thoughts on the resignation of Danielle Sassoon as acting US Attorney for the SDNY and what it means for how we educate lawyers:
open.substack.com/pub/bradwend...
open.substack.com/pub/bradwend...
Danielle Sassoon and Professional Identity
In the last Legal Ethics Stuff (Feb.
open.substack.com
February 14, 2025 at 1:49 PM
PLEASE READ THIS! (And, lawprofs, please share it with your students.)
getting angry all over again remembering the pundit and wannabe pundit lawprofs who spent much of november and december 2020 authoring op-eds along the lines of "biden shouldn't even bother investigating trump no matter what" or sharing those online with comments like "hmmm much to consider"
May 11, 2024 at 6:59 PM
getting angry all over again remembering the pundit and wannabe pundit lawprofs who spent much of november and december 2020 authoring op-eds along the lines of "biden shouldn't even bother investigating trump no matter what" or sharing those online with comments like "hmmm much to consider"
Have any of y’all lawprofs had a child go to law school? Bc one of mine is starting next month & I am stresssssed about it
July 24, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Have any of y’all lawprofs had a child go to law school? Bc one of mine is starting next month & I am stresssssed about it
It seems like almost none of the insufferable Volokh/FedSoc-aligned lawprofs so common and loud on Twitter have made their way over here.
That alone is worth the price of admission.
That alone is worth the price of admission.
November 22, 2024 at 11:31 PM
It seems like almost none of the insufferable Volokh/FedSoc-aligned lawprofs so common and loud on Twitter have made their way over here.
That alone is worth the price of admission.
That alone is worth the price of admission.