Some interesting Supreme Court history I stumbled upon wasting time on Wikipedia:
On April 21, 1844, Justice Henry Baldwin died while in office. President Tyler had a little over ten months left in his Presidential term. Tyler tried to fill the seat, but was unsuccessful.
On June 5, 1844, President Tyler nominated Edward King to fill the seat. But Tyler had little support in Congress, and the Senate voted to table the King's nomination and not consider it on the merits. govtrack.us/congress/votes…
President Tyler withdrew the nomination, and then nominated John Read for the seat. The Senate ignored that nomination. President Tyler's Presidency ended with the seat still vacant in March 1845.
President Polk took office in March 1845 and had trouble filling the seat. It didn't happen until August 1846, after Polk had been in office for 17 months, with confirmation of Robert Grier. Grier was nominated August 3, 1846, and unanimously confirmed the next day.
If I follow the history, the seat was vacant for over two years. Anyway, I didn't know this, seemed interesting. (No, I don't have a grand normative lesson. It just seemed interesting.) /end
• • •
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. 🧵