Recently, I tweeted about how I started to get more out of classic chess games by studying them the way first-year law students study cases.
#Chesspunks
really liked the thread, so I expanded it into a new Substack: Common Law Chess. Here’s the first post.
I’ve always found it interesting that, at its peak, Blockbuster video employed over 84,000 people—more than twice the number of coal miners in America—yet I’ve never heard anyone bemoan the loss of those jobs.
I appreciate that so many commenters are reading this as a claim that Blockbuster jobs and coal mining jobs are identical, which is clearly what I believe and intend to convey.
David Sosa of Florida has been twice arrested on a 20-year-old warrant for David Sosa of Texas. The Eleventh Circuit said holding the wrong guy in jail for 3 days was no big deal, so he's seeking SCOTUS review. Today,
@IJ
filed a brief on behalf of David Sosas. Like, all of them.
@MrHowardDalton
@chefjeff2793
I have my own gripes about this guy, who is a terrible embodiment of freedom of speech because nobody has ever tried to censor this guy from standing up and telling the town council there needs to be a new stop sign at the corner of Maple and Elm.
Refusal to recite the pledge has been protected for 80 years and is one of the most famous First Amendment precedents of all time, yet schools routinely punish kids for it. The truth is that lots of government officials simply do not care what is and is not constitutional.
A high school student received detention for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
With FIRE's help, the infraction was removed from his record.
The 1A protects not only the right to speak and engage in expressive conduct but also the right to refrain from doing so.
Stay tuned for a debate between interns from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, discussing which political philosophy—conservatism or libertarianism— offers more effective solutions to today’s public policy issues.
@spin4srv
@HC_Richardson
They are not the same. I'm comparing to coal miners now. But at its peak in 2004, Blockbuster still had more employees (more than 84k), than there were coal miners in the United States.
Citizens United was not just correct, but obviously so. Limiting the sources of information available to voters is using censorship to control thought, and is ultimately rooted in a distrust of voters themselves. It’s hard to imagine a more flagrant First Amendment violation.
Hawley apparently plans to introduce a "bill reversing Citizens United." Such a bill would be unconstitutional, so this is just populist nonsense. But it's worth pointing out that basically everything he believes about Citizens United is wrong.🧵
John Fetterman apparently thinks consumers are morons. Everyone knows “almond milk” is not a dairy product.
But prohibiting plant- and nut-milk sellers from using the word “milk” isn’t just unnecessary, it’s unconstitutional. 🧵
Pennsylvania’s dairy farmers are at the heart of our community and critical to our economy.
In Congress, I’m fighting to pass the DAIRY PRIDE Act. This bill will protect our dairy farmers by prohibiting non-dairy products from using dairy names. 💯
This is a very niche thread, but I’ve always struggled studying classic chess games, and yesterday I had a breakthrough when I realized that it’s the same thing as the case method used to teach first-year law students. 🧵
A regular reminder that elected officials do not care at all—not one little bit—about the limits the Constitution imposes on them.
The law these student groups are being accused of violating is a prohibition on providing material support to terrorist groups….
NEW: Governor DeSantis just ordered the University of Florida and the University of South Florida to deactivate their "Students for Justice in Palestine" groups for violating Florida's laws against antisemitism.
That Marbury v. Madison “invented” judicial review and was a power grab by the judiciary. I think I was taught this in civics class and I’ve seen it many times. In fact, judicial review was a recognized component of the “judicial power” granted to federal courts by Article III.
Tell me about a common historical myth that makes your hackles rise. I don't mean actual disinformation like Holocaust denial; I mean stuff like "Napoleon was short!"
For me it's probably "corsets were torture devices for the rich" and "romantic love is a very modern concept."
Maybe that’s because the order is so clearly unconstitutional that they would not be entitled to qualified immunity. Every contrary argument I’ve seen is either palpably ignorant of the Supreme Court precedent interpreting the identical federal law or made in obvious bad faith.
BREAKING: University of Florida and University of South Florida are openly disobeying the chancellor and the governor's order to disband the student groups that have pledged material support for Hamas terrorism. This is a showdown—and the governor is determined to win it.
SCOTUS is not broadly libertarian, but one notable exception is its First Amendment jurisprudence, which has become MUCH more libertarian over the past 30 years. It's no exaggeration to say that the current Court's fundamental theory of the 1st Amend. is libertarian. 🧵
This hubbub over the pro-Palestine student group shows that a lot of people think that the government can escape the First Amendment by relabeling speech (publishing instructions on effective protesting) as unprotected conduct (providing "material support" to terrorists).
Today
@IJ
filed a First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of Jay Fink, an entrepreneur whose small business flags spam emails for customers so that they can pursue remedies under California law. The state says he needs to be a private investigator to do that!
Rather than continue the debate about whether this excellent brief is ghost-written, this is a good opportunity for folks who haven't done cert-stage briefing to acquaint themselves with some of its differences with merits-stage briefing. 🧵
There are arguments on both sides for ghost-written briefs in opposition, but, like, does anyone think the Justices are fooled into thinking that a New York consumer fraud attorney in a two-person law firm wrote this?
@WOB74475098
@IJ
This case is particularly messed up, because it should have been clear from the face of the warrant they were different guys. Different birthdays, different sizes, different tattoos.
This our whole criminal justice system. We waive part of the penalty in almost every case. The only exception is if you invoke your right to have the government prove your guilt, in which case they seek the harshest application of the broadest possible interpretation of the rule.
A situation with "the rule is too harsh, but also, don't worry, we usually waive it because it's too harsh" is one of the most obviously abusable systems.
This is about Harvard's plagiarism policy, but it's also a about a ton of other things.
All babies born in New Jersey have blood drawn to test for diseases. But NJ then keeps the samples for 23 years, with no limits on what it can do with them! It can give them to police, or even sell them. That's wrong, and
@IJ
just sued to stop it.
@JasonKPargin
In the event of an accident, our patented seatbelt tie rapidly and painlessly breaks your neck, saving your family potentially thousands in hospital bills.
Something a lot of men don't like to admit:
All of your hobbies and ambitions are to attract women.
Nature doesn't care how much personal fulfillment you get from them. Those things are cool, but they're a coincidental positive externality to the prime objective:
To keep the
What if, over the parking spaces, we allowed companies to build enclosed spaces that people can live in? The companies could even make the enclosures bigger than the parking spaces if they stack them up in layers.
At 10 a.m. tomorrow, my
@IJ
colleague Anya Bidwell is going to be arguing an important 1st Amendment case at the U.S. Supreme Court. If you're interested in tuning in, here's a listeners' guide explaining what it's all about, with a link to the livestream:
Reading through SCOTUS's decision today in Moore v. Harper and there's a good discussion of the history of judicial review. It's common to hear even educated people claim that SCOTUS invented judicial review as a sort of power grab in Marbury v. Madison, but that's not correct.
Huge win! Congrats to all my colleagues who worked on the case, but especially Anya Bidwell, who did a tremendous job in her first SCOTUS argument and earned the W.
🚨BREAKING 🚨
@IJ
wins
#FirstAmendment
retaliation case, Gonzalez v. Trevino!
#SCOTUS
holds that probable cause does NOT preclude a claim for retaliatory arrest when evidence of retaliation is present.
Follow this link and thread for updates:
Caroline Products is the reason “unenumerated rights”—from the right to work in the occupation of your choice to the right to procure an abortion—receive almost no constitutional protection. We threw out huge swaths of American liberty at the behest of the dairy industry.
People are dunking on this, but you need to understand that, as a formal federal prosecutor, Christie is incapable of distinguishing between things he thinks should be illegal and things that are actually illegal. It’s called rights-blindness and it’s in the DSM. Be better.
There is a big difference between free speech and hate speech. There is a difference between free speech and violence. There is a difference between incitement and free speech. And we must call out that difference.
What is happening on our college campuses today is not free
Advice is speech, but lower courts twist themselves into knots trying to explain why states can regulate advice without having to comply with the First Amendment. Today,
@IJ
filed a brief explaining where they go wrong and what's tripping them up. 🧵
Indeed, one of the most disastrous rulings for individual rights in our nation’s history, United States v. Caroline Products, involved a successful effort by the dairy industry to outlaw competition in the market for canned milk. .
.
@IJ
just released a new nationwide study on qualified immunity (QI), a legal doctrine that shields gov't officials from liability when they violate the Constitution. The study makes a number of surprising and important findings about this doctrine.🧵
But first, let be clear what’s happening: The dairy industry is not worried about confusion, it’s worried about competition. More consumers are looking for dairy alternatives. The dairy industry want to make those alternatives harder to find or less appealing. Think “soy juice.”
The world is substantially less shitty than it has ever been, and by a wide margin. But we now have the means to learn instantly about every shitty thing that happens everywhere in the world, instead of just in our neck of the woods. So we see a higher percentage of the shit.
@ebwhamilton
If the First Amendment protects the paintings of Jackson Pollock--which convey no discernable message--it should definitely protect architectural design choices that the state objects to on purely aesthetic grounds!
It’s a new era at the Institute for Justice. We’re growing. And officials who hate accountability are terrified. 😱
A special thanks to
@CresaDC
, our project manager for this endeavor!
This isn’t the first time the dairy industry has tried to use government power to restrict competition or make nondairy alternatives seem gross. When margarine was invented, dairymen successfully lobbied for laws requiring that it be dyed pink.
This story implies Thomas criticized the decision that struck down separate but equal (Brown 1). But he didn’t. He criticized how later courts have applied the view of equitable remedies taken in a follow-up case (Brown 2).
Clarence Thomas issued a strong rebuke of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, suggesting the court overreached its authority in the landmark decision
Today
@IJ
filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari in an important First Amendment case being litigated by
@InstFreeSpeech
. The case raises important questions about the limits on the government's power to require disclosure in political ads. 🧵
This is one of the reasons why it should be a national scandal that so many states prohibit interstate teletherapy, even within existing therapist/patient relationships. Good therapists can be irreplaceable.
@IJ
has a pending cert petition at SCOTUS that could change that.
Why? Because the First Amendment protects the right to use language as it is commonly used. Various plant extracts have been referred to as “milk” for centuries. The Oxford English Dictionary records “almond milk” being used as early as 1381.
.
@IJ
is going to the Big Show! This morning the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in our lawsuit on behalf of a Texas farmer whose land has faced devastating floods ever since the state expanded I-10. We think they should have to pay for that! This is our 11th case at SCOTUS!
I interrupt my Buffalo vacation content to share some exciting news!
#SCOTUS
has granted review in
@IJ
's case seeking compensation for a Texas farmer whose land has faced devastating floods ever since the state expanded I-10.
If you break it, you buy.
Part of my job is reviewing writing samples by attorney applicants, many of whom have extremely impressive credentials but need to work on their writing skills. Here are four thoughts on how young lawyers can make their writing stand out. 🧵
Jay isn't staking out cheating spouses or planting listening devices. Jay's business is literally reading emails given to him by customers and creating a spreadsheet showing the ones that violate California's anti-spam law. The creation of that data is protected by the 1st Amend.
Campaign finance law doesn’t get as much attention as it did 10-15 years ago, but it remains dominated by the most insane vibes. Today the 2nd Cir. held that allowing established political parties (the groups most likely to control state politics) to accept 15x greater
Does the First Amendment protect the right of nonlawyers to provide legal advice? It absolutely does. And
@IJ
has filed a new lawsuit in North Carolina to vindicate that right.
Citizens United was not just correct, but obviously so. Limiting the sources of information available to voters is using censorship to control thought, and is ultimately rooted in a distrust of voters themselves. It’s hard to imagine a more flagrant First Amendment violation.
.
@USOPM
may be closed, but the Supreme Court isn’t!
@IJ
attorney Bob McNamara is braving the elements to visit with his colleagues before his big argument in DeVillier!
#IJatSCOTUS
And that’s enough. America is not France. We do not have an Académie that decides how we are allowed to use words, and we certainly don’t auction off control of the English dictionary to whatever industry has the most powerful friends in Congress.
After the Supreme Court struck that law down, dairymen successfully lobbied for laws that imposed ruinous taxes on artificially colored margarine, forcing it to be sold in its unappealing natural white color, along with a dye packet.
.
@IJ
is hiring attorneys! Currently looking for folks for our HQ in Arlington, VA, and our office in Austin, TX.
If you’re considering the switch to public interest work, or a law student thinking about making the switch one day, here are some tips. 🧵
This seemed very clearly to be the correct outcome on the text of the statute. Remarkably, the dissent almost entirely ignores one of the biggest problems with its reading, which is that it would mean that every gun that can be bump-fired is a machine gun.
BIG: The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN the federal ban on bump stocks, holding that it is not authorized by existing statute. A 6–3 decision with all three liberals in dissent.
Make the interns as extremely libertarian and conservative as you can possibly convey in pictures. God himself could not conceive of or create a more libertarian or more conservative intern. They are the ultimate apotheoses of their competing political ideals.
But this shouldn't surprise us. Speech is the most peaceful means we have of interacting with one another. When you take speech off the table, you take persuasion off the table, and the only remaining means of getting what you want is coercion.
First of all, before Citizens United was decided, the rule that it announced--that corporations can spend money on electoral advocacy--was already the rule in a majority of American states. There's no evidence those states were more corrupt or less well governed than the minority
But this view is nonsense. There is no platonic "will of the people" to be uncovered. Elections are simply measures of public opinion on a specific Tuesday in November. Elections do not have "right" or "wrong" outcomes beyond correctly tabulating the votes.
Which is why it’s obvious this bill has nothing to do with protecting consumers and everything to do with protecting the dairy industry from honest competition.
That is not a legitimate use of government power. And under the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional.
Every
@Chessable
opening course should have a chapter titled “Just the Blunders.” Would be particularly helpful at low levels. My opponents aren’t going to play 15 moves of theory, but they are going to play lots of natural-looking moves on move 7 or 8 that end up losing a pawn.
And if you'd like to know more about Anya, this Bloomberg article tells the story of how she made her way from her native Kyrgyzstan to arguing at the U.S. Supreme Court! Suffice it to say she knows a bit about the dangers of government overreach.
But another reason is that campaign spending is a blunt tool for influencing policy. That's why the amount that corporations spend on campaign advocacy is a tiny fraction of the amount they spend on direct lobbying, which is far more focused and effective.
To be sure, the government can regulate to address actual consumer confusion. But even here, it has to first prove the confusion is real and then regulate in a manner that burdens speech as little as possible.
I don’t think there’s any significant consumer confusion here.
Big win for
@Valancourt_B
, represented by my colleagues
@IJ
.
A few years ago, the federal government sent a letter to Valancourt Books, threatenign it with thousands of dollars in fines because it had published books without giving free copies to the feds.
If you want to learn more about how the First Amendment applies to commercial speech and the important work my colleagues
@IJ
are doing to defend those rights, you can check out some our cases—including cases about plant-based meat alternatives—here:
But Caroline Products spared those rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.
And the First Amendment is fatal to any law that would outlaw product names like “almond milk,” “soy milk,” or “oat milk.”
Because MCLE is a scam designed solely to enrich CLE providers! The bar doesn’t care about the content, and the people taking the classes don’t care about the content (or, at a minimum, content takes a distant third place to cost and convenience). So the content largely sucks.
This isn't rocket science. But writing a good BIO--or a good response to a motion to dismiss, or a good motion for summary judgment--is an acquired skill. Each has a different tone and emphasis. Whoever wrote this BIO did a fantastic job. And if it's his first he has a real gift.
But the feds were still requiring small publishers to send them free books, amounting to tens of millions of dollars in property every year ($44 million in FY 2021 alone). All for no benefit.
Today, the D.C. Circuit held that's a taking, and it violates the Fifth Amendment.
But even if there were, there are less restrictive ways to deal with it than declaring non-dairy milks “mis-branded” (and, hence, illegal to sell).
The most obvious would be to require that products labeled “milk,” “cheese,” etc. disclose that they are plant-based.
Unsurprisingly, products already do this voluntarily. Indeed, it would be astonishing if they did not! Manufactures of dairy alternatives want vegan, lactose-intolerant, and other health-conscious consumers to be able to easily identify their products.
Monty shows you 100 doors and tells you there’s a prize behind one. You pick door 7. Monty opens all the doors except 7 and 52 to reveal that none of them have a prize. Then he gives you the option to switch doors. Do you switch, or is it 50/50 either way?
.
@whignewtons
suggests on the latest Advisory Opinions podcast with
@DavidAFrench
that SCOTUS passed on Tingley v. Ferguson because they have another vehicle for getting to the "is counseling speech" question. And I think I have a hunch what it is....
And if voters can just listen to any "woke" corporation, they'll vote "wrong" (meaning, they'll disagree with me).
It's a supremely insulting view of voters as empty vessels who have opinions poured into their heads. If that's true, political ads are the least of your concerns.
I feel like i am taking crazy pills. Critics of the opinion think that the phrase “single function of the trigger” encompasses a firing technique that everyone agrees requires a complete forward and backward movement of the trigger for every round fired. They don’t argue that the
In addition to butchering the statutory text beyond all recognition, Justice Thomas' opinion today gets the history dead wrong. He uses a false account of ATF's alleged 180 on the regulation of bump stocks to reject the agency's expertise on machine guns.
Being malnourished is good actually.
Here’s why:
-Being malnourished worked for humanity for millennia; almost all of your ancestors were malnourished and they’re the reason you’re here!
-No one argued over what they were having for dinner; it was always gruel.
-Obesity
Feudalism was actually a pretty good system.
Here’s why:
-everyone had a defined role that served society as a whole: peasants, vassals, and lords all had responsibilities to each other
-it was extremely decentralized
-it’s hierarchy ensured long-term stability
-with
The Court is much more protective of "low-value" speech than at any other time in history. Everything from depictions of animal cruelty to violent video games to vile protests by the Westboro Baptist Church to lies about having received military honors have been held protected.
As for how I learned this stuff, it was mostly from working alongside my brilliant colleagues
@IJ
, who have been to the Supreme Court 12 times, including twice this term! You can check out their work here:
If you play the Scandinavian, I think 3...Qd6 is very sneaky
* White rarely faces it, always hard to remember
* Black has a lot of options beginning on move 4-5, adding to memory problems
* Provocative and tricky
BUT you must be comfortable snatching pawns and scrambling
When Citizens United was decided, there were all sorts of concerns raised that for-profit corporations would pour billions into elections and dwarf individual contributions. But in fact that hasn't happened. Increases in campaign spending have largely been driven by individuals.