He writes: "A few hours ago a missile that was headed to Ben-Gurion University hit a hospital instead, and there is a lot of damage there. Many missiles are targeted at universities. (The joke among Israeli academics is that the Iranians understand the importance of higher education much better than the Israeli government does)."
Saturday, June 21, 2025
Four Days in December 1941
This is a post that has nothing to do with law. On December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked. Four days later, Hitler declared war on the United States. What happened during those four days between the United States and Germany?
What I mean by that is suppose Hitler had not declared war on us. Were we going to? Was that uncertain? What were those conversations like? Perhaps there is a history of World War II that discusses this. If so, I'd be interested to know. If not, I think that this topic could make a great book.
Posted by Gerard Magliocca on June 21, 2025 at 03:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday Music Post - Playing Favorites
Rock Legends Keith Richards and Paul McCartney (among others) have occasionally listed their favorite songs and artists. You can see some of them today at The Faculty Lounge.
Posted by Steve Lubet on June 21, 2025 at 05:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, June 20, 2025
What should trans-rights activists have done?
Having used its pages to "just ask questions" and thus launder anti-trans bigotry into empathetic medico-scientific caution, the Times bounces the rubble with a long story about how the Skrmetti litigants "gambled and lost and "set the movement back a generation." Josh Blackman reads the story as revealing something meaningful about movement politics and the shape of the left. Actually, the story represents an opportunity for the Times to support its priors by quoting a bunch of the trans movements allies saying "told you so."
This all comes down to one question: What should trans activists and their lawyers have done in the face of that Tennessee law?
They had four options: 1) Do nothing and live under a discriminatory law in Tennessee (and other states enacting similar laws); 2) Litigate in state court (or at least try state court first) as a way to buy time; 3) Litigate in federal court but do not try SCOTUS--stated differently, lose substantial rights in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio (and Michigan, next time it has a Republican governor and legislator) but allow other people in other places to enjoy those rights and perhaps fight another day;* or 4) Try what they did and live with the consequences. # 1 should not be acceptable; # 2 seems like a waste of time and money, certainly in Tennessee--there is a reason we do not require state-law exhaustion before pursuing § 1983/EpY claims. Blaming the losing litigants also ignores that SCOTUS reached out to take the case. Its docket is discretionary, so it had no obligation to hear it; there was no direct circuit split to resolve, so the Court had none of its ordinary reasons to hear the case. Which I guess reifies # 3 as the least-bad option.
[*] First they came for the trans people in Tennessee, but I did not speak out because I am a trans person who does not live in Tennessee . . .
The Times' "over-reach" framing sounds in "too soon"--the movement tried to move too fast it blew up, and now we're screwed for generations. It pushes option # 1. But as I wrote here:
The Black Civil Rights Movement was the first modern mass civil-rights movement; it operated on a blank federal constitutional and statutory slate and challenged an existing legal scheme (Jim Crow laws in place for about 50 years). Other groups--women, disabled individuals, LGB--followed on that model, challenging long-standing laws that either were part of the historical firmament (women's inequality) or had never been considered (the way the world works against people with disabilities) And there was some degree of "if this historically disadvantaged groups enjoys protection, so should we."
The trans-rights movement misaligns because it operates in mature constitutional system--it is copying prior movements rather than inventing them. Trans people seek to fit themselves into an existing statutory landscape and to be treated as their identified (rather than assigned-at-birth) gender; states have enacted new laws targeting the group after it pushed for recognition or room to operate within the existing regime. For example, hormone therapy exists, but states now prohibit one group from obtaining that therapy for one purpose.
The analogy might be Plessy and Jim Crow--a deliberate test case to challenge relatively new laws (Jim Crow began in earnest in the late 1880s and 1890s). Like 1890s state legislatures targeting Black people with new laws, 2020s state legislatures target trans people with new laws. So if option # 1 is it, does that mean trans people must live in a discriminatory environment for another 30-60 years?
If not, I return to my question: What else should trans people living in a state denying them necessary medical coverage have done?
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 20, 2025 at 06:24 PM in Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)
More on "To the President of the United States"
A reader emails about my post on the unknown origins of the Chief's "To the President of the United States" toast at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner. He writes
Its origins pretty plainly lie in the elite adaption of the Loyal Toast in the United Kingdom -- simply "The Queen," as it was for most of my life, or "The King" -- and has been a feature of U.S. military and civic dinners since at least the late 1800s. It absolutely reeks of undiscerning Anglophilia -- an affliction this country can't seem to shake off -- and I'm not surprised that the Court's historical society perpetuates such a un-republican tradition.
This supports my head-of-state theory and the problem with making the same person head of the state and the government.The connection to the U.K. takes it another state by making the head of state the sovereign, the embodiment of the nation, something we supposedly discarded in 1776. Of course, given how Trump seeks to govern and the power Republicans seem intent on giving him, perhaps it fits.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 20, 2025 at 02:03 PM in Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 19, 2025
"Some gallows humor from an Israeli academic friend," per Brian Leiter
Brian Leiter writes,
Some gallows humor from an Israeli academic friend
An alternative punch line is that the Iranians have taken their cue from American professors who advocate the academic boycott of Israeli universities.
Posted by Steve Lubet on June 19, 2025 at 05:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Skrmetti
Yeah, I missed badly on this one, sorry to say. 6-3, by the Chief, following the usual political lines and arguments. Justice Kagan's short dissent argues the position I thought the Court would take--heightened scrutiny applies (she joins Sotomayor's primary dissent on this), kick it back to the lower court.
Also, I hope this ends the "Barrett is less conservative and more moderate than everyone thinks" bullshit in non-legal media. On every "culture-war" issue (such as equal protection and discrimination), she is in lockstep with the Republican-appointed supermajority. In fact, she went further than the majority here, with a concurrence (joined by Thomas and echoed by Alito in a separate concurrence) arguing that transgender people are not a discrete-and-insular minority with a history a de jure discrimination as to warrant quasi-suspect classification and heightened scrutiny. (The majority said the law did not discriminate on trans status and thus no need to decide the suspect-class issue).
Now, that is fine if that is her jurisprudential position. She is a member of the Court and gets to make those decisions according to her judicial philosophy. But the mainstream media continues to fail (and fail and fail) at its basic job if it writes softball stories suggesting Barrett is something other than what she is, at least on the stuff of larger societal import.*
[*] See also all the simplistic stories about the Court's new-found unanimity.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 18, 2025 at 11:24 AM in Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Canada and the NPR Solution
The Trump administration's threats to funding for NPR, and demand to annex Canada, reminded me of this 2006 column that may actually suggest a stop-gap solution. Twenty years ago, we probably all enjoyed joking about NPR. The Trump attack isn't funny, but maybe this will help us recall better times. Also, everyone should join their local public radio stations, and subscribe to local newspapers. Independent journalism is more important now than ever.
WBEZ has air time to fill? Tune in on the Canadians
Chicago Sun Times (IL)
May 15, 2006
Steven Lubet
Just about everyone in town has an opinion about the impending changes at WBEZ, Chicago's public radio station, that will eliminate jazz and other music programming in favor of a 24-hour news-and-talk format. Bebop afficionados are threatening to hold their breaths and turn (appropriately) blue if the decision isn't reversed, while news junkies are salivating at the thought of even more current events coverage -- let's call it All Things Considered ad Nauseam.
But for all the erudite sturm und drang, no one has put their finger on the real problem. Where is WBEZ going to get 24 hours worth of news and talk? Sure, talk is cheap, but that doesn't mean it's easy to find, especially since it will have to fit public radio's hyphenated template -- super-serious, self-possessed, ultra-rational, and mostly non-partisan.
Fortunately, I know just the place where deadly earnest content abounds, where time limitations know no bounds, and where NPR's grave solemnity is exceeded by leaps and bounds. Yes, I'm talking about Canada. WBEZ simply needs to point its antenna to the north, and it will be able to fill virtually endless hours with in-depth coverage of subjects like software licensing in Toronto or the importance of weatherproof paint in New Brunswick.
Continue reading "Canada and the NPR Solution"
Posted by Steve Lubet on June 17, 2025 at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Buck Stops Somewhere Over There, I Guess
Judicial nominations are one area in which it doesn't much matter whether one holds a unitary executive theory of the presidency or not. In other cases, it does. For example, if an FCC chairman were to grossly abuse his office, raising or dropping investigations selectively for partisan purposes, or leaning on a media company that is in the middle of merger negotiations to encourage it to settle a lawsuit brought by a patron of that chairman, the president would obviously want to fire him; who could have confidence in such a person? The president's inability to do so would be a point in favor of the unitary executive theory, which emphasizes that, as the saying goes, the buck stops here. When it comes to judicial nominations, things are simpler. The president alone makes the nomination. He can be a lawyer or a felonious reality TV star, a genius or a semi-literate dope, but his nominations are his call.
So it seems odd to read Josh Blackman saying, in this of all areas, that if Donald Trump made bad choices of judges in his first administration--he did, although, rather conspicuously, not in the case of the one judge Blackman is discussing--then "the blame should not lie with President Trump." Of course it should. Where else could it lie?
Is it true that "[i]t's not the President's job to vet the pool of Supreme Court nominees?" Well, say rather that it's unlikely that any president will do his own Westlaw searches. But he can’t delegate making judicial nominations, and vetting the pool of potential nominees is much more his job, and much more within his capacity for decision-making, than, say, evaluating nuclear reactor safety or interest rates, or other jobs over which this president insists on control and random tinkering. And picking the people who do the vetting, or at least the people who pick those people, is certainly within his capacity and responsibility. It very much is his job.
Whether he makes a bad choice because he personally chose the wrong judge, because he picked the wrong people to do the vetting, or--and this seems to have been the case—because he made a deal about who would do the vetting, either to satisfy a constituency or to spare himself the trouble of having to care about something boring, is quite irrelevant. He, or his apologists, can't, to coin a phrase, post-emptively pin the blame on unnamed lawyers. To be sure, those lawyers were responsible to Trump. But Trump, like any president, was still responsible for the choices. If he doesn’t want to be blamed for things—and he sure doesn’t! What is his perversion of the office and the rule of law if not an extended temper tantrum over losing an election?—then he shouldn’t have run for president.
As it turns out, I think Trump made some sound choices for judges during his first administration. (At least, given his priors, or more accurately those of more interested and intelligent people working for him. I would have made other choices, unsurprisingly, but I ain’t the president.) Also some terrible choices, and some plausible choices who I think have embarrassed themselves on the bench with blowhard speeches, dubious decisions, and an addiction to dicta. I would guess that the current regime, burdened as it is by a surfeit of misplaced loyalty and ambition and a deficit of intelligence, experience, and integrity, will make a few good nominations and a lot of terrible ones. (I also imagine that first-term appointees in the "terrible choice" and "plausible but ultimately embarrassing" categories will be first in line for any Supreme Court seats. But it's just a guess.) But given that Trump, and his political dependents, are hardly shy about placing him "at the helm" when they want to flatter him (and reap political and financial benefits, and placate the mob), surely they should place him there when—after the fact—they dislike his choices. Especially, it seems, the intelligent, temperamentally judicious ones.
It’s true that, as they say, Trump consistently disrupts all political norms, none more than the sound, sober, and selfless ones. But "the buck stops here" is a pretty good norm. We should totally keep that one.
Posted by Paul Horwitz on June 17, 2025 at 07:51 AM in Paul Horwitz | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, June 16, 2025
Cross-ideological benefits
SCOTUS granted cert in First Choice Women's Resource Ctrs. v. Platkin to resolve "'[w]hether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court." That is, can the target of an investigator subpoena challenge the subpoena in federal court or must it wait until the state seeks to enforce the subpoena, at which point Younger and preclusion kick-in.
The petitioner is a crisis pregnancy center seeking to challenge a subpoena from the New Jersey AG seeking donor information as part of a fraud investigation. Support for the petition cam entirely from conservative organizations. Mark Joseph Stern describes this as "a spite grant: The conservative justices are mad that New Jersey has dared to investigate a "crisis pregnancy center," so it will once again contort the law to shield CPCs from legal scrutiny. The biggest losers will be "patients" scammed out of obtaining actual health care services."
But it seems to me a decision making it easier for subpoena targets to win the race to to the federal courthouse (which Stern believes will be the likely outcome) will benefit liberal groups targeted by MAGA state governments. Consider Ken Paxton's crusades against Media Matters (also seeking donor and similar First Amendment-protected information) or Pre-Musk Twitter, similarly alleging fraud or consumer deception). Stern and other liberals reject the underlying premise of the lawsuit--that crisis pregnancy centers have First Amendment rights to engage in what these people regard as medical fraud. Fair enough on the merits. But the immediate precedent procedural/jurisdictional issue the Court will decide is not unique to conservative, religious, or anti-choice organizations.
Unless I am missing something. I am surprised at the one-sidedness of the response thus far. I look forward to seeing what the merits briefing looks like and how the U.S. positions itself in this case.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 16, 2025 at 10:54 AM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, June 15, 2025
Read your damn book
The Forward reports on attorney Steven Ludwig's loud resignation from the board of Philadelphia's ADL chapter to protest the direction that Jonathan Greenblatt has taken the organization. The letter quotes from Greenblatt's 2022 book It Could Happen Here, then argues that the things Greenblatt warned against--infringements on voting rights, infringements on the rule of law, censorship, and attacks on immigrants) are happening under Trump 2.0. But the ADL has not stood up or spoken out because none deals directly with antisemitism and, in fact, the administration is doing many of these things in the name of stopping antisemitism (and anti-Zionism as antisemitism).
Here is the ending of the letter:
At this rate, the ADL will invariably give an award to Trump for being the GREATEST fighter against antisemitism and for doing more for American Jews than anyone ever? (After all, Trump did more for Blacks with the possible exception of President Lincoln.)
Before it is too late, please fulfill ADL’s historic mission to fight for civil rights and to stand up for what’s right while there is still time.
Read your damn book.
The ADL downplayed the resignation, stating that it loses 1-2% of its 800 members across 23 regional boards each year. Still, this is a well-done argument, showing Greenblatt's mistakes, without having to reach for low-hanging fruit, such as Elon Musk's Nazi salutes.
The Forward story also said that Greenblatt walked back his support for Trump administration attacks on universities in a note to leadership, promising to "make a point to continue to call out to the administration the need and constitutional right for due process.” This highlights one of my criticisms of Greenblatt--he does not seem to object to deporting people or punishing colleges and students over protected speech that he deems antisemitic (e.g., Rumeysa Ozturk's op-ed), so long as they receive due process. That cannot be the limits of civil rights.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 15, 2025 at 01:08 PM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, June 14, 2025
Saturday Music Post - Love and Marriage
Songs idealizing marriage -- if sometimes only fleetingly or implicitly -- used to be pretty common in popular music, even in '60s rock. I am insufficiently up-to-date to know whether that's still the case, but there are some old examples, along with a with a bonus or two, in today post at The Faculty Lounge.
Posted by Steve Lubet on June 14, 2025 at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, June 13, 2025
Teaching and intellectual evolution
This Atlantic piece has stuck with me since first published in 2019 (I blogged about it). The Atlantic website recirculated it in today's daily email. I will highlight the piece that captures teaching and the academic connection.
As Bach demonstrated, teaching is an ability that decays very late in life, a principal exception to the general pattern of professional decline over time. A study in The Journal of Higher Education showed that the oldest college professors in disciplines requiring a large store of fixed knowledge, specifically the humanities, tended to get evaluated most positively by students. This probably explains the professional longevity of college professors, three-quarters of whom plan to retire after age 65—more than half of them after 70, and some 15 percent of them after 80. (The average American retires at 61.) One day, during my first year as a professor, I asked a colleague in his late 60s whether he’d ever considered retiring. He laughed, and told me he was more likely to leave his office horizontally than vertically.
Our dean might have chuckled ruefully at this—college administrators complain that research productivity among tenured faculty drops off significantly in the last decades of their career. Older professors take up budget slots that could otherwise be used to hire young scholars hungry to do cutting-edge research. But perhaps therein lies an opportunity: If older faculty members can shift the balance of their work from research to teaching without loss of professional prestige, younger faculty members can take on more research.
Ironically, the move to vigorous post-tenure review since 2019 (most prominently at Florida schools) flies in the face of this six-year-old article's insight--a 60-year-old who has taught for 25 years cannot be as productive a scholar as a 40-year-old in her first decade of teaching, and schools should adjust job assignments, expectations, and evaluation accordingly. Post-tenure review potentially flattens that evolution.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 13, 2025 at 02:27 PM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 12, 2025
Procedural law v. procedural culture
One interesting feature of teaching Civ Pro involves balancing formal rules and statutes against subtler, less formal practices (some from standing orders of each judge, some from the ether of the court system, some from general legal culture). Edith Beersden (Temple) has written about this as to discovery and other areas.
That distinction runs through Thursday' opinion in Parrish v. United States. A federal prisoner did not receive the district court order dismissing his civil rights action because he was released from federal prison and transferred to state prison the day after the order. When he received the order three months later, he sent a letter to the court that he called a notice of appeal. The Fourth Circuit recognized Parrish's letter/notice as a motion to reopen the time appeal; the district court granted that motion. But the Fourth Circuit, over the disagreement of both parties, held that Parrish had to file a new notice of appeal within the newly reopened time period; his original, premature notice (the letter to the district court) was insufficient.
The Court decided 8-1 that the original notice sufficed (Justice Gorsuch would have DIGed the case). But they split 6-2 as to why.
Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor focused on the controlling statutes (§ 2107 and FRAP 4). Those provisions codify the pre-existing common law concept of "relate-forward" (a prematurely filed document becomes effective later in time). Parrish had filed a premature notice of appeal, which related forward and became effective once the district court reopened the time to appeal and made the noticed appeal possible. Concurring in the judgment, Justice Jackson (with Justice Thomas) focused on the how litigants operate "everyday in federal court." When a party seeks leave to file a paper, it attaches that proposed paper to the motion; if the court grants the motion, it orders the underlying substantive paper docketed. Parrish filed a notice of appeal that the court treated as a motion to reopen the time to appeal (treating it as, in effect, a motion to reopen accompanied by a notice of appeal); having granted that motion (applying the requirements of § 2017), the district court follows regular practice of docketing the notice of appeal whose filing it approved.
Sotomayor and Jackson are the only members who have served as district judges (Sotomayor for about six years, Jackson for almost eight). And the other Justices often do not seem to understand or appreciate how things work in district courts. So it is interesting to see Sotomayor and Jackson on opposite sides of a divide between the legalistic approach and the cultural "this is how the trains operate" in the courts approach.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 12, 2025 at 06:20 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reported Entry-Level Hiring by US News Rank
Building on my earlier post about hiring at schools ranked in the top 25 by US News, this post provides information about reported hiring based on US News rank of hiring school. As this post shows, the overall hiring over time graph hides significant variation between schools in different US News tiers. Schools ranked in the top 50 had a drop-off in reported hiring after 2011, but recovered fairly quickly. Schools ranked between 51 and 100 had an even more significant drop-off and recovered more slowly. Schools ranked 101 and higher had a very significant drop-off and never fully recovered.
This post draws from the data the Lawsky Entry-Level Hiring Report report. Therefore, it is incomplete. It does not reflect all entry-level hires, only those reported to me during the period in which I was collecting information for that year's report. You can see more information about the report and its limitations at the longer report posts. At the time of this writing the 2025 report is available at another site. The 2025 report is still in an early draft, and the information below reflects that early draft.
To create these graphs, for hiring Year X, I used the rank of the law school that was published in Year X - 1. For example, to determine whether hires reported in 2025 were for a school ranked in the top 25, I checked the US News rankings published in 2024 to see the rank of the school. (The name that US News gives to each year's rankings does not match the year in which the rankings were published.)
If a school was not ranked, I assigned the rank 999. All ranges are inclusive. The ranges do not include the same number of schools.
Looking first at the schools in three groups, 1-50, 51-100, and 100 and higher.
The schools ranked in the top 50 experienced some drop-off in hiring from 2011, but this rebounded fairly quickly. The lowest number of reported hires was in 2015 (29), about 55% of the hires in 2011, the year with the highest number of reported hires (53). But as early as 2016, these schools were back to hiring close to their highest-hiring year.
2011: 53; 2012: 47; 2013: 36; 2014: 35; 2015: 29; 2016: 45; 2017: 32; 2018: 38; 2019: 50; 2020: 38; 2021: 38; 2022: 49; 2023: 40; 2024: 40; 2025: 39. The total reported hires over this time period is 1482. The total reported hires at schools ranked 1 to 50, inclusive, is 609. Therefore 41.1% of the total reported hires were at schools ranked between 1 and 50, inclusive.
The schools ranked 51-100 had their highest hiring year not in 2011, but in 2012. The dropoff in hiring in schools in this range was more severe--the lowest number of reported hires, 16 reported hires in 2014, was only 31% of their highest number of reported hires. And rebounding took much longer--it was not until 2023 that these schools reported hires of more than about tw0-thirds of their highest-hiring year.
2011: 41; 2012: 51; 2013: 33; 2014: 16; 2015: 17; 2016: 18; 2017: 18; 2018: 18; 2019: 24; 2020: 28; 2021: 18; 2022: 32; 2023: 51; 2024: 44; 2025: 30. The total reported hires over this time period is 1482. The total reported hires at schools ranked 51 to 100, inclusive, is 439. Therefore 29.6% of the total reported hires were at schools ranked between 51 and 100, inclusive.
Schools ranked 101 and above, including unranked schools (recall that 999 means unranked), faced a much starker scenario than either of the other groups. The drop-off here from 2011 was steady, with a low in 2019 (when other schools had already rebounded) of only 13% of their highest hiring year. These schools did not reach even as high as two-thirds of their 2011 reported hiring until 2025.
2011: 59; 2012: 42; 2013: 35; 2014: 23; 2015: 23; 2016: 20; 2017: 11; 2018: 21; 2019: 8; 2020: 26; 2021: 17; 2022: 38; 2023: 38; 2024: 33; 2025: 40. The total reported hires over this time period is 1482. The total reported hires at schools ranked 101 to 999, inclusive, is 434. Therefore 29.3% of the total reported hires were at schools ranked between 101 and 999, inclusive.
Because the last post looked at the top 25 schools, break out the top group, 1-50, into 1-25 and 26-50. These two groups look roughly the same.
2011: 26; 2012: 28; 2013: 19; 2014: 19; 2015: 18; 2016: 21; 2017: 16; 2018: 17; 2019: 26; 2020: 20; 2021: 18; 2022: 32; 2023: 27; 2024: 17; 2025: 21. The total reported hires over this time period is 1482. The total reported hires at schools ranked 1 to 25, inclusive, is 325. Therefore 21.9% of the total reported hires were at schools ranked between 1 and 25, inclusive.
2011: 27; 2012: 19; 2013: 17; 2014: 16; 2015: 11; 2016: 24; 2017: 16; 2018: 21; 2019: 24; 2020: 18; 2021: 20; 2022: 17; 2023: 13; 2024: 23; 2025: 18. The total reported hires over this time period is 1482. The total reported hires at schools ranked 26 to 50, inclusive, is 284. Therefore 19.2% of the total reported hires were at schools ranked between 26 and 50, inclusive.
Finally, bring all of the hiring together into one graph. This graph does not provide new information; it simply combines the previous information in this post.
Posted by Sarah Lawsky on June 12, 2025 at 12:26 PM in Entry Level Hiring Report | Permalink | Comments (0)
Kimmel on Trump
Long, but worth watching to the end:
Posted by Steve Lubet on June 12, 2025 at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Pussy communists
Admit it: Prior to this week, most people had heard of posse comitatus from this scene in the very-'80s film Tank, starring James Garner, Shirley Jones (pay attention, Civ Pro fans), C. Thomas Howell, and perrenial bad guy G.D. Spradlin. Forgive the poor sound quality.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 12, 2025 at 12:00 AM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)