This time, the number was 13.

A group of 13 conservative US federal judges are vowing to not hire Columbia University law students or undergraduates because of how the school has handled pro-Palestinian demonstrations on its campus in recent weeks.

The judges sent a letter to Columbia President Minouche Shafik and the dean of Columbia’s law school Gillian Lester, on Monday, outlining their position and describing the Manhattan campus as “ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, antisemitism and hatred for diverse viewpoints on campuses across the Nation.”

Whether you agree or disagree with the particulars of the judges’ condemnation of Columbia Law, a more basic question arises from this letter. As noted by Orin Kerr at VC, do judges have a role, any role, to play in this melodrama? Continue reading →

To be sure, there is no legal doctrine requiring that the criminal prosecution of a candidate for president be tried in advance of election day. Not that there was any reason for such a doctrine to exist until now, but there is none. That said, the prior rulings by Judge Aileen Cannon appointing a special master to oversee the search warrant inventory, reversed with the back of the Eleventh Circuit’s hand across her snout, suggested one of two things.

Either Judge Cannon wasn’t up to the job of being a federal judge, which wouldn’t come as a major surprise given her stunning lack of experience and extremely thin qualifications when she was appointed by then-president Trump. Continue reading →

At the Bulwark, Cathy Young does her typically brilliant job of parsing the Antisemitism Awareness Act passed by the House by the crushing bipartisan vote of 320-91. The crux of the act is to adopt the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and to make clear that antisemitism is included under Title VI, prohibiting discrimination in education on the basis of race, color and national origin.

What’s wrong with fixing a legally “non-binding” definition of antisemitism in education? As with so many things, it goes vague and overbroad at the fringes. Continue reading →

According to John Sailor, this is a watershed shift, the first elite school to end the practice of requiring diversity statements from faculty applicants.

On Saturday, an MIT spokesperson confirmed in an email to me that “requests for a statement on diversity will no longer be part of applications for any faculty positions at MIT”, adding that the decision was made by embattled MIT President Sally Kornbluth “with the support of the Provost, Chancellor, and all six academic deans”.

The decision marks an inflection point in the battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education. Since at least the late 2010s, diversity statements have been ubiquitous in faculty hiring, sometimes carrying serious weight in the selection process. As one dean at Emory University put it while describing her approach to hiring, “Diversity statement, then dossier.”

Continue reading →

Some college presidents responded with tough rhetoric, like “the encampment must go.” Others responded with mushy word salad about community and understanding that seemed designed to offer some solace to everyone without actually saying anything. But some of the college presidents who decided that the way out of the dilemma raised by students who refused to leave but couldn’t act to force them ended up negotiating with the protesters. Some, like Northwestern, capitulated to the protesters demands.

Lawprof John O. McGinnis explains the problem with capitulation. Continue reading →

In a painful flex, Volokh Conspirator Steven Calabresi makes a bold constitutional argument in defense of Donald Trump in the “hush money” case.

Every day breathless articles appear in the New York Times, and through-out the liberal media, about Donald Trump’s allegedly lawless payment of hush money to help out his 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, Donald Trump has a First Amendment right to spend money, as does the Trump Organization, to further his electoral ambitions. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court wrongly upheld expenditure limits on how much non-candidates could spend on elections, but it rightly held that wealthy individuals like Donald Trump could spend as much as they wanted to spend of their own money on election campaigns. And, they can spend their money on hush money payments, television or radio advertisements, or in any other legal way that would further their own campaigns or electoral ambitions.

The indictment doesn’t charge Trump with a crime for paying out hush money. He’s free to pay porn stars as much as he wants to keep them silent. This is America, after all. Continue reading →

Make sure you sit in the middle of the roller coaster when possible. This avoids the “oh shit” views from the front of the roller coaster and spares you the “whiplash effect” one notices when sitting in the back of the coaster.

Expect to wait around 30-45 minutes in line for about a 2-2:30 minute experience. It’s a theme park; what did you expect? Yes, you can buy one of those stupid “Time saver” passes if you want to be a complete douchebag about your trip.

Wooden coasters are loud and fast. Metal coasters are quieter but come with the added “benefits” of loops and steeper drops. Assess your tolerance level for such experiences before riding. Continue reading →

When I was asked to beta test its AI research bot, I informed a major legal research provider that it worse than sucked. It was dangerous. Not only did it hallucinate, which could be ascertained with minimal fact checking, but it conflated almost all the critical distinctions that make law work. It failed to distinguish between jurisdictions, both states and state and federal, as well as majority, concurrences and dissents. To AI, it was all the same, words about law, all of which melded into one amorphous mass of misbegotten but seemingly accurate “law.”

It will improve, I was told. Perhaps, but enough that it can be relied upon to tell us who wins and loses? Continue reading →

In anticipation of the police coming to eject their encampment, pro-Palestinian protesters put up barricades. Then, pro-Israel counter-protesters, wielding bats, pipes and boards, attacked.

Just before midnight, a large group, wearing black outfits and white masks, arrived on campus and tried to tear down the barricades surrounding the encampment.

Campers, some holding lumber and wearing goggles and helmets, rallied to defend the site’s perimeter.

Over several hours, counterdemonstrators hurled objects, including wood and a metal barrier, at the camp and those inside. Fights repeatedly broke out. Some tried to force their way into the camp, and the pro-Palestinian side used pepper spray to defend themselves. Fireworks were also launched into the camp.

Continue reading →

To no one’s surprise, Justice Juan Merchan found Trump in contempt of his gag order.

This Court rejects Defendant’s arguments and finds that the People have established the elements of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt as to Exhibits 2-10. This Court’s Expanded Order is lawful and unambiguous. Defendant violated the Order by making social  media posts about known witnesses pertaining to their participation in this criminal  proceeding and by making public statements about jurors in this criminal proceeding.

“Reposting,” as the court characterized it, or “Retruthing” as Trump would prefer since that will trick everyone into believing that makes it truthy, is no different than saying it sui generis. Continue reading →