Dorf on Law

The current administration's economic advisors are truly fascinating, but in the worst possible way.  Notably, however, they were for the most part highly educated at elite institutions (horrors!) and would seem at least superficially to have expertise in the subjects on which they are working.  This makes them unlike many of the other political appointees in the executive branch, which has been filled with obviously unqualified charlatans and cranks -- think Health and Human Services, the FBI, Homeland Security, and so forth. Very much like their laughably ill-equipped colleagues, however, the top economists are cringe-inducingly willing to say and do anything to please the big boss, including things that are not even necessary to defend his bad decisions. I will get into some details momentarily, but this makes the economists more like the Marco Rubio types in the administration -- not exactly the same, however, because Rubio has never demonstrated any true expertise or ins...

N.B.  Repeating its pattern of illegally cutting funds to universities without following ANY of the statutorily mandated steps, yesterday the Trump administration announced a "freeze" of $1 billion to Cornell and $790 million to Northwestern. Other than the fact that this particular iteration of the policy hits home for me, I have nothing new to say about it beyond what I've already written with respect to Columbia and other universities (e.g., here , here , and here ). Hence, I'll proceed on a different topic for today.  The following essay appeared originally  on  Balkinization   as part of its  Symposium on Legal Pathways Beyond  Dobbs . Enumerating a Post- Dobbs  Pathway For the foreseeable future, constitutional lawyers seeking progressive results from the federal courts will need to practice what  I have called  “ideological jujitsu—turning opponents’ strengths against them.” Nowhere is that more clear than in seeking to develop ar...

Four days after Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term as U.S. president, I wrote an essay for this blog titled Wait, Can He Actually Do That? Part 1: Overview and TikTok Executive Order . In it, I explained that, given the number of actions of dubious legality by President Trump and his administration, I envisioned a roughly weekly (or even more frequent) series. I am sorry to say that I was right to worry. Since then, I have been adding entries to the series in response to some, but hardly all, of the Trump administration's efforts to undermine the rule of law. Meanwhile, some of my other writings and those of my co-bloggers not titled with the "Wait, Can He Actually Do That?" brand could also be included in the series. For simplicity, however, the running list below--which I'll update each time I write a new entry in the series--includes only those essays that I've formally designated as part of the series. Meanwhile, as I've noted in various of t...

Most readers are likely aware of the basic facts of the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the El Salvadoran man who was legally living in Maryland pursuant to a 2019 court order forbidding the government from deporting him to his home country, where, the court found, he would face persecution. The Trump administration has admitted that sending Abrego Garcia to a supermax prison in El Salvador known for human rights abuses was an "administrative error" but contends before the U.S. Supreme Court that there is nothing a federal court can do about that. As I shall explain, the Solicitor General's argument ultimately rests on the claim that the president who frequently boasts about his abilities as a deal maker is a lousy negotiator. Abrego Garcia has been wrongly imprisoned in El Salvador since March 15, when he was flown there by the United States. After a hearing on Friday of last week, Federal District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to effectuate Abrego Garc...

"Democrats, disaffected (and purged ) Republicans, and independents will get their feet under them as time goes by, so the current hand-wringing about the Democrats’ supposedly being adrift is ... inevitable but also will not be the story going forward."  Or so I wrote only six weeks ago on Verdict , in " More Reasons to be Guardedly Optimistic ," the second of two February columns in which I described " the inevitable end of Trumpism ."  Until last week, however, my prediction that Democrats' hand-wringing would soon end was looking particularly wrongheaded.  And then things changed, at least a bit. Last week's big political stories involving Democrats included welcome news regarding the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which turned out to be a romp by the liberal candidate.  That result was deservedly celebrated (especially because it was an " utter humiliation " of Elon Musk), and it was one of the few political situations in 2025 in...

Guest Essay by  Alyssa King In the previous installments in this series ( here and here ), I described dangers to the independence and effectiveness of the federal courts, including attempts to change who hears the cases and interference with working conditions (anything from cutting off library access to direct physical threats). In this final essay, I consider how judges and lawyers can protect the federal courts as an institution. What is to be Done? Judges and chambers staff can prepare now for many of the threats I have outlined, reducing the risk that inevitable attacks on their impartiality and integrity will stick. US lawyers can provide support for judicial independence by insisting, loudly and repeatedly and in ways that cost us money, on our professional standards and on the version of judicial independence necessary to a free and democratic society in the common law legal tradition. Those outside the United States can also play a role. A. In Chambers The new  Judi...

Guest Essay by  Alyssa King In yesterday’s first installment in this series, I located the Trump administration’s assault on the courts and the bar in the tradition of authoritarian consolidation of control of legal institutions. I then described methods by which authoritarians ensure that legal challenges to their actions go before friendly judges: hiring friends, firing enemies, and altering jurisdiction. Today I focus on how working conditions shape judges’ ability to discover, and effectively respond to, illegal government action. These issues range from the deceptively benign—all the good faith and experience in the world is sometimes little match for a computer that will not turn on—to the overt threats.  Difficult Working Conditions The judiciary is a bureaucracy and as a bureaucracy is vulnerable to the same techniques—hiring and funding freezes, cancelled contracts, and lockouts—that are currently causing harm to so much of the non-partisan executive branch. Judges a...