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
NOTEWORTHY: Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules that there are no 4th Amendment rights in your Google search terms. When you search on Google, you tell them your search terms; the government can get those queries without a warrant. The third-party doctrine applies.
You know that you're being tracked, the Court says, and your decision to use the Internet (or at least search engines) anyway makes your actions voluntary.
The Terms of Service at Google make this clear, according to the Court: Under Google's TOS, you're on notice that you don't have privacy. Under the TOS, you can't claim privacy. Carpenter doesn't apply.
This isn't my area, so maybe this is wrong, but it does seem to me that the unitary executive theory of control over prosecutions and the executive pardon power are something of an odd combination.
As I understand the history, at common law, prosecutions ordinarily were brought by private parties. A private victim would prosecute the criminal, sort of like a tort action except with the possibility of being hung if the defendant is convicted.
In that world, an executive pardon power made a lot of sense. Private parties would seek punishments when justice didn't require it, so someone was needed to be a check on the system of private prosecution.
Debates about when originalism first became a theory of constitutional interpretation are interesting to me in part because, in Fourth Amendment law, originalism has pretty much *always* been considered a critical method—if not the main method—of interpretation.
Take the first main Supreme Court case on Fourth Amendment law, Boyd v. United States (1886). It's all about how to apply the principles of the 18th century cases, like Entick v. Carrington (1765), that inspired the 4A's enactment. tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
Or take Carroll v. United States (1925), introducing the automobile exception. It's all very explicitly originalist: "The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted" tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
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. 🧵