Really good analysis of the immunity argument from Steve Vladeck.

I agree with him that the big problem is the Court's apparent desire to write an opinion 'for the ages,' when it should just narrowly resolve this case and leave more difficult questions for another day.

At last week’s oral argument in the Trump immunity case, Justice Gorsuch defended the Court’s focus on hypotheticals by saying it’s “writing a rule … for the ages.”

Today’s “One First” explains why that’s the *exact* problem with how #SCOTUS appears to be approaching this case:

On Thursday Amy Coney Barrett signaled an awareness that the country needs a spare ruling to get the Jan. 6th trial going. The question, as Steve Vladeck writes, is whether John Roberts sees this, too, and follows his principle of deciding no more than what needs to be decided.

Some news, as they say: This is my last week at Whistler Partners. It's been an amazing time with some of the best colleagues in the business.

I am forever grateful to Whistler for taking a chance on a random law firm partner who thought she might be an ok legal recruiter.

At last week’s oral argument in the Trump immunity case, Justice Gorsuch defended the Court’s focus on hypotheticals by saying it’s “writing a rule … for the ages.”

Today’s “One First” explains why that’s the *exact* problem with how #SCOTUS appears to be approaching this case:

I’m really excited to be speaking about #SCOTUS at the Annapolis Book Festival later today (at 1 ET), with Michael Waldman and Judge Andre Davis:

keyschool.org/community/anna…

If you’re at the festival, please come say hi!

UPDATE: It sounds like the *flyer,* which is real, is a *misstatement* of UT's policy, which hasn't changed.

Good news: We're apparently *not* flagrantly violating the Constitution (at least here).

Bad news: We're not being careful before putting out these kinds of flyers.

UPDATE: It sounds like the *flyer,* which is real, is a *misstatement* of UT's policy, which hasn't changed.

Good news: We're apparently *not* flagrantly violating the Constitution (at least here).

Bad news: We're not being careful before putting out these kinds of flyers.

This new UT Austin policy seems preposterously (if not unconstitutionally) overbroad. Anyone who is *arrested* for trespassing, but never charged (let alone convicted), is permanently barred from campus? What if the arrest was bogus? What if the arrestee is a student or employee?

In today’s bonus issue of “One First” (for paid subscribers), I have some … thoughts … about yesterday’s #SCOTUS argument in the Idaho/EMTALA emergency abortion case—and why you should not just *read* about it, but *listen* to it:

For my last Federal Courts class at UTexasLaw, the students brought “emotional support cookies” from Tiff's Treats.

They (the students) are the best!!

But it’s been a week, y’all…

With the caveat that Justice Barrett is sometimes less predictable based on argument than her colleagues, this strikes me as most likely to be correct—especially that this likely comes down to Roberts, who was quite coy during today’s arguments.

Justice Alito suggests that, if former presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office, they'll be more likely to seek to unlawfully remain in office after they were defeated for re-election/their term has ended.

JFC.

We're all getting a reminder that Justice Kavanaugh is, by far, the most zealous defender of the President's *constitutional* authority among any of the current justices, if not anyone to have ever sat on the Court.

KBJ is exactly right that the scope of the criminal statutes (and whether they need a clear statement to apply to a President) isn’t properly part of the immunity appeal—but it’s hard to believe that a majority will agree.

Justice Barrett just got Sauer to concede that there are private acts alleged in the indictment—so that the trial could go forward at least in part.

Here’s the letter that the UT Austin Faculty Council Executive Committee (which includes me) sent to our colleagues this morning respecting yesterday’s events:

t.e2ma.net/message/7jm7kk…

In today’s bonus issue of “One First” (for paid subscribers), I have some … thoughts … about yesterday’s #SCOTUS argument in the Idaho/EMTALA emergency abortion case—and why you should not just *read* about it, but *listen* to it: