DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

Kate Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Will Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic,” to reflect on the dramatic end to the Supreme Court term. Kate Shaw: This Supreme Court term ended on a shocking note with Trump v. United States. William Baude: I don’t think the outcome was a surprise, given the arguments and the breadth of the D.C. Circuit opinion, which rejected any claim of executive immunity rather than focusing on the specifics of the Trump case. But I remain confused about what the difference is between Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s quite sensible opinion and the much more sprawling majority opinion — Justice Barrett claims to agree with most of the majority opinion, but I don’t know if we should take that at face value!

Persons: Kate Shaw, Will Baude, Stephen Vladeck, “, Trump, We’ve, William Baude, Amy Coney Barrett’s, Barrett Organizations: University of Chicago, Georgetown, Trump v . Locations: Republic, Trump v . United States

☆ When the Supreme Court Gets Mixed Up With Trump Derangement Syndrome - The New York Times
▼ + stars: | 2024-07-05 | by ( William Baude | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

At the end of another momentous term, the Supreme Court has issued major rulings that will reshape the law. For the most part, this criticism does not give the Supreme Court enough credit. In case after case, it has rightly emphasized the importance of turning to historical understandings in deciding constitutional cases rather than imposing modern policy views. Most of the court’s decisions are principled and sound — most but unfortunately not all. Still, for most of the term, the court based its decisions on historical understandings.

Persons: Donald Trump, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Biden Organizations: Appeals, Ninth Circuit

☆ How using the 14th Amendment against Trump went from a ‘pipe-dream fantasy’ to the Supreme Court
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-06 | by ( Marshall Cohen | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +19 min

‘A sheer coincidence’The journey to the Supreme Court unknowingly began even before the insurrection itself. (In the Cawthorn case, the group partnered with a retired GOP state Supreme Court justice.) CREW appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, whose members were all appointed by Democratic governors, though they originate from a pool of candidates recommended by a bipartisan panel. Trump appealed the Colorado ruling to the US Supreme Court in early January and oral arguments are set for Thursday. “It’s embarrassing, and it shows the imbalance on our state Supreme Court,” Buck told CNN.

Persons: Donald Trump, “, –, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Madison Cawthorn, coalescing, ”, Donald Sherman, Gerard Magliocca, ” Magliocca, United States …, Trump, Donald Trump’s, Jack Dempsey, Mitch McConnell, ” He’d, hadn’t, James Bopp, Greene, didn’t, Ron Fein, resoundingly, Bopp, ” Fein, Couy Griffin, ” Sherman, Griffin, ” Griffin, Trump’s, William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen, J, Michael Luttig, ‘, Sherman, Winston Pingeon, Pingeon, Sarah Wallace, ” Donald Sherman, State Jena Griswold, FDR, Norma Anderson, “ I’ve, Wallace, Magliocca, disqualifying Trump, Carlos Samour, vindicating, Ken Buck, Ken Buck of Colorado, denialism, Buck, ” Buck, …, ” CNN’s Scott Bronstein Organizations: Washington CNN, Trump, Liberal, Rep, Madison, Citizens, Indiana University, United, Capitol, AP Police, National Guard, Republican, Republicans, GOP, Amnesty, ”, Cowboys, Trump Republicans, Federalist Society, Colorado Supreme, US Capitol Police, Responsibility, Ethics, Abaca Press, Colorado, State, Colorado Legislature, Court, Democratic, Dissenting, US Supreme, Supreme, CNN Locations: Colorado’s, Colorado, Thursday’s, America, Washington, United States, DC, Colorado and Maine, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, North Carolina, Cawthorn, Georgia, New Mexico, Denver, “ Colorado, Israel, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington ,, Dissenting Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Ken Buck of

☆ Colorado Trial Will Consider Whether the 14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump
▼ + stars: | 2023-10-30 | by ( Maggie Astor | More About Maggie Astor | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Judge Wallace has laid out nine topics to be addressed at the trial, which is scheduled to last all week. These questions have been debated since the Jan. 6 attack, especially since Mr. Trump announced that he was running for president again, but there is little precedent to help answer them. The 14th Amendment was ratified shortly after the Civil War, and the disqualification clause was originally applied to people who had fought for the Confederacy. The courts have rarely had occasion to assess its modern application, and never in a case of this magnitude. But that view is far from universal among legal scholars, and several have told The New York Times over the past few months that the questions are complicated.

Persons: Wallace, “, Trump, William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen, J, Michael Luttig, Laurence H . Organizations: Confederacy, New York Times

☆ Efforts to Invoke Insurrection Clause Against Trump Get Their Day In Court
▼ + stars: | 2023-10-29 | by ( Lauren Camera | ) www.usnews.com time to read: +9 min

Legal experts have sparred over whether the constitutional clause applies to Trump, and even those who say it’s a legitimate challenge acknowledge that it’s a long shot. Undoubtedly, the proceedings will explore in depth whether the Jan. 6 riot was indeed an insurrection and the degree to which Trump fomented it. Trump took an oath as president pursuant to Article II, not as an officer pursuant to Article VI. Because the Insurrection Clause applies only to those who have taken an oath ‘as an officer of the United States,’ he can’t be barred by that clause from serving in any capacity,” Mukasey wrote. The losing side can – and is widely expected to – challenge the ruling at the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Persons: Donald Trump, Trump, –, ” Mario Nicolais, ”, Scott Gessler, He’s, Jack Smith, Fani Willis, William Baude, Michael Paulsen, Baude, Paulsen, Michael Mukasey, “, ” Mukasey, John Roberts, Mr Organizations: Capitol, Citizens, GOP, Republican Party, Arizona Trump, Constitution, D.C, Trump, University of Pennsylvania, Street Journal, United, Colorado Supreme Court, U.S, Supreme Locations: United States, Colorado, Minnesota, Denver, Washington, Michigan , New Hampshire , New Jersey, Arizona, U.S, Georgia’s Fulton County

☆ Legal scholars increasingly raise constitutional argument that Trump should be barred from presidency
▼ + stars: | 2023-08-19 | by ( Katelyn Polantz | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +6 min

Washington CNN —Prominent conservative legal scholars are increasingly raising a constitutional argument that 2024 Republican candidate Donald Trump should be barred from the presidency because of his actions to overturn the previous presidential election result. Not all in the legal community agree – and what the scholars are proposing would need to be tested in court. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency,” the law review article said. Luttig and Tribe acknowledge the question of Trump appearing on ballots in 2024 might ultimately have to be decided by the Supreme Court. However, one convicted Capitol rioter, Couy Griffin, was removed from an elected county office he held in New Mexico by a judge.

Persons: Donald Trump, Laurence Tribe, J, Michael Luttig, who’s, “, scrutinizes Trump, Donald J, Trump, William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Paulsen, ”, Baude, wouldn’t, ” Baude, Luttig, Marjorie Taylor Green, Madison Cawthorn, Couy Griffin Organizations: Washington CNN, Republican, U.S . Capitol, Federalist Society, University of Pennsylvania, Capitol, Trump, Presidency, Supreme, Madison Locations: Georgia, Fort Sumter, New Mexico

☆ Opinion | When the Law Is Not a Trump Card
▼ + stars: | 2023-08-18 | by ( Ross Douthat | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +3 min

Meanwhile, Segall argues against the authors’ claim that the amendment’s provisions are “self-executing,” that they can be applied to Trump or any other supposed insurrectionist immediately. This is acknowledged by Baude and Paulsen, to be sure, who argue at length that Chase was wrong. It should not happen, it would not work if it did happen, John Roberts and four more justices would not uphold it, and it would license political chaos to no good purpose whatsoever. And if the legal theorist’s response is that this isn’t the “best” way to deal with Trump, it’s just the way that the Constitution requires, then so much the worse for their theory of the Constitution. There is an irony here, which is that a similar kind of legal mentality influenced Trump’s campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Persons: Segall, Salmon Chase, Baude, Paulsen, Chase, Donald Trump, Salmon, —, … I’m, John Roberts, it’s, John Eastman’s, Mike Pence, interpose, Joe Biden’s, Pence Organizations: Trump, Eastman Locations: United States

☆ Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6
▼ + stars: | 2023-08-10 | by ( Adam Liptak | More About Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. “When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, — William Baude, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Thomas —, Baude, ‘, what’s, “ Donald Trump, —, ” Organizations: Federalist Society, University of Chicago, University of St, University of Pennsylvania

☆ The Supreme Court makes almost all of its decisions on the 'shadow docket.' An author argues it should worry Americans more than luxury trips.
▼ + stars: | 2023-07-07 | by ( Erin Snodgrass | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +10 min

The Supreme Court makes nearly all its decisions on the emergency relief docket or "shadow docket." What is the Supreme Court 'shadow docket?' Capitol Police watch an abortion-rights rally from behind the security fence surrounding the Supreme Court on June 23, 2022. Public trust in the Supreme Court is at a historic lowNadine Seiler attends a rally for voting rights while the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Moore v. Harper case December 7, 2022. The dangers posed by the shadow docket are more perilous than the wrongs of individual justices, Vladeck argues, because the shadow docket's ills are inherently institutional.

Persons: Steve Vladeck, —, Vladeck, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Scott Applewhite, mifepristone, William Baude, Nathan Howard, it's, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden's, Chip Somodevilla, Roe, Wade, Obama, Bush, Trump, Nadine Seiler, Harper, Drew Angerer, stokes Organizations: Service, Supreme, Supreme Court, AP, University of Chicago, Capitol Police, Getty, Former, — Locations: United, Joe Biden's State, Texas, U.S, Moore

☆ Nearly all of the Supreme Court's decisions are made on the 'shadow docket.' It poses an even bigger ethical concern than luxury trips and disclosure forms.
▼ + stars: | 2023-07-06 | by ( Erin Snodgrass | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +10 min

The Supreme Court makes nearly all its decisions on the emergency relief docket or "shadow docket." What is the Supreme Court "shadow docket?" The court's emergency docket is where justices make quick decisions to address emergency relief requests and other procedural matters. But the vast majority of orders that reach the emergency docket are of little interest to the general public. The dangers posed by the shadow docket are more perilous than the wrongs of individual justices, Vladeck argues, because the shadow docket's ills are inherently institutional.

Persons: Steve Vladeck, —, Vladeck, mifepristone, William Baude, Nathan Howard, it's, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Roe, Wade, Obama, Bush, Trump, Nadine Seiler, Harper, Drew Angerer, stokes Organizations: Service, Supreme, Supreme Court, University of Chicago, Capitol Police, Getty, — Locations: Texas, U.S, Moore

☆ Casting a Bright Light on the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-17 | by ( Jennifer Szalai | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +3 min

The boy had been asking, “Why?” about a perceived injustice — an order to leave the playground before he was ready. But merits decisions turn out to be “only a small sliver” of the Supreme Court’s output, Vladeck writes. All the soaring rhetoric and painstaking legal analysis amount to little more than 1 percent of the court’s decrees. The shadow docket doesn’t just serve as a neutral realm of routine case management; instead, “the court’s new conservative majority has used obscure procedural orders to shift American jurisprudence to the right.”Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an analyst at CNN, chronicles how the shadow docket came to be. But it was capital punishment, he says, that really gave rise to the shadow docket as we know it.

☆ The case to block Biden's student-loan forgiveness keeps getting weaker, legal experts say
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-25 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +7 min

Some legal experts say the lawsuit's standing is questionable due to MOHELA's involvement. The latter case has had some legal experts particularly confounded due to the central role MOHELA has taken in the case. "There's no threat that Missouri may suffer harm to the Lewis and Clark fund when the Lewis and Clark fund hasn't been paid into for over a decade," Nahmias said. Even two law professors who believe Biden's plan to cancel student debt broadly is illegal aren't convinced by the states' lawsuit. "On one hand, when the state created MOHELA over 40 years ago, it made clear that MOHELA is separate," Nahmias said.

☆ Why 2 law professors who think Biden's student-loan forgiveness is illegal believe the GOP-led states that blocked the debt relief 'utterly lack standing'
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-15 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +5 min

Two law professors filed an amicus brief to SCOTUS regarding Biden's student-debt relief. They said they don't think the relief is legal, but the six GOP-led states who sued do not have standing. The states cannot use student-loan company MOHELA in this case, the professors said. The states "utterly lack standing for the remedy they received"Bray and Baude's central argument is that Missouri should not be bringing this lawsuit. If MOHELA will suffer revenue loss from loans it would have serviced prior to debt relief, then MOHELA is the entity that should be suing, they said.

☆ Biden's student loan forgiveness plan is 'unlawful,' two professors say, but legal challenges carry 'dangerous implications'
▼ + stars: | 2023-01-12 | by ( Annie Nova | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +3 min

Although they call President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan "unlawful," two university law professors are urging the Supreme Court to reject the legal challenges that have been brought against it. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two of those legal challenges. The law professors say it's supposed to be the party most affected by a policy that challenges it in the courts. But the law professors say that, in that case, MOHELA should have brought the legal challenge, not the states. "Missouri is not the proper party to pursue relief for MOHELA's lost loan servicing fees," Baude and Bray wrote.

Search resuls for: "Baude"

14 mentions found