A few random and unhelpful thoughts on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, a thread.
FWIW, I don't know Judge Barrett well, although we've met. She was a fellow at @gwlaw in 2001-02, during my first year on the faculty there. I spent at least some time with her back then, and I recall her as very impressive. I recall her as super smart and very personable.
Of course, I realize that a lot of readers couldn't care less whether she is smart or personable. On Twitter, some may be annoyed by even mentioning those things. I gather many want to know how she will vote: the right way (as they see it) or the wrong way (as they they see it).
On that front, I have no special expertise. However, I haven't seen anyone suggest she would be a swing vote on any foreseeable issue. And that's my working assumption, that she'll be a reliable conservative vote, moving the Court's 5th vote in many cases to Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.
I assume the result is the most conservative court we will have seen in almost a century, although of course it's hard to compare eras. Either way, very conservative.
It may be moderated somewhat by three factors. First, the Chief may take big cases for himself and write more narrowly than the other 5 conservatives want. Second, I think Gorsuch will sometimes vote on the liberal side in big cases.
And third, I suspect (although I don't know) that Kavanaugh is influenced more by an institutional sense than others, not quite at the Chief level but in that direction, which may matter in some cases. But still, that's a very conservative court on which that matters. /end
There's a twitter rule that when you formally end a thread with "/end", you must immediately come up with more thoughts. So here are some more random and unhelpful thoughts:
With recent nominations, there has been a lot of criticism that all of the Justices went to a small number of academic institutions. If you cared about that, then note that Barrett didn't go to Ivies, etc. She could have, no doubt, but didn't.
Also, from a resume perspective, this is a very traditional pick. Barrett comes as a Court of Appeals judge (like 8 of 9 Justices on recent court); former law professor (like 3 of 9 Justices on recent court); and former SCOTUS clerk (like 5 of 9 Justices on recent court).
Also, for anyone who cares about legal scholarship, I would guess that having Barrett on the Court will fuel more public law scholarship on originalism (whether you like it or not, it's harder to ignore when three Justices are explicit adopters of it).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Several notable 4th Amendment rulings in this 5th Circuit opinion today. Most importantly: People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in stored online contents—here, the contents of a Dropbox account. (Per Oldham, J., w/Richman & Ramirez)
Plaintiffs, Heidi Group, is a pro-life group that briefly had a contract with the Texas state government. A former employee named Morgan went to state investigators and said she had access to Heidi Group's documents b/c she was still given access to their Dropbox account.
A state investigator, Dacus, encourages Morgan to look through Heidi Group's files for evidence what Heidi Group did when it was a state contractor. Morgan does. Heidi Group realizes someone is accessing its files, eventually sues state officials for violating its 4A rights.
First off, the conservative/GOP bona fides of Bill Burck and Robert Hur have been covered elsewhere. telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/0…
But as @WilliamBaude notes, Lehotsky Keller Cohn is on the brief, with name partners Steve Lehotsky (Scalia clerk, former Bush-era OLC); Scott Keller (former Texas SG, Ted Cruz Chief of Staff, Kennedy clerk), and Jonathan Cohn (Thomas clerk).
DC Circuit denies the motion for an emergency stay in the Boasberg case 2-1, with a brief order and 92 pages of concurrences (one by Henderson, one by Millett) and a dissent (Walker).
I'm going to scan through the opinions and select out key parts. 🧵
Magistrate judge in the 5th Circuit, asked to sign off on warrants for routine "tower dumps," declines to do, writing an opinion concluding that all tower dumps are likewise unconstitutional in light of the 5th Circuit's recent geofencing opinion. 🧵
#N storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Other courts have broadly ruled that tower dumps are not searches at all. I think this is wrong, as it's based on the erroneous mosaic theory. I explain why that's wrong in my new book. So I don't have a problem with the search holding, holding that a search will occur.
As for the idea that a warrant can't be used in this setting, I think it's bananas. But then it's based on the 5th Circuit's bananas geofence warrant ruling, so hey, if bananas is Fifth Circuit law, you're going to get a lot of bananas.
The Acting US Attorney of the SDNY resigned today, and she sent this letter yesterday to the Attorney General explaining why she refused to drop the charges against NYC's mayor. Read the whole thing, but the last two pages are in the screenshots. static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/d…
The Deputy AG replies— among other things, putting all the AUSAs who were "principally responsible" for the Adams prosecution on administrative leave and referring them to OPR. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Also, the SDNY is taken off the case, which is given to main Justice so the motion wanted will be filed.
Sorry if this is nitpicky, but headline writers, it's maybe worth noting: Smith's report argues that the evidence would have been *legally sufficient* to convict. It does not claim, as your headlines say, that a jury *would have convicted.* Smith is a lawyer, not a soothsayer.
et tu, WSJ? Sheesh.
ABC News is getting this headline right, at least.