Dorf on Law

My latest Verdict column discusses the absurd lawsuit that Donald Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump Organization filed late last week against the IRS and the Treasury Department. The suit seeks damages for a former IRS employee having leaked the plaintiffs' tax data to the public. The case should be tossed out on a motion to dismiss because the statutes of limitations (SOLs) have run. Whether there will be a motion to dismiss is not clear, however, given that defending against the suit falls to the Department of Justice that Trump has weaponized against his political enemies and which has dropped solid cases against Trump allies. As I explain at the conclusion of the column, therefore, whether the case is tossed on SOL grounds will depend on whether the relevant SOLs are "jurisdictional" and thus not subject to waiver by the government as defendant. As I also explain in the column, the suit is grotesque for at least three additional reasons. First, Trump's c...

It is hard to think of a more extreme example of a federal government effort to "commandeer" state or local government action than the Department of Homeland Security's "Operation Metro Surge" in the Twin Cities. President Trump and AG Bondi disapprove of policy decisions made by Minnesota and Minneapolis elected officials, from the way they have chosen to prosecute federal benefits fraud cases to their limitations on cooperation with immigration enforcement agencies. So in order to coerce Governor Tim Walz or Mayor Jacob Frey to comply with its preferred policies, the Trump administration has deployed thousands of ICE and CBP agents to terrorize the people who voted for them (and who largely did not vote for Trump). On this reading , Minnesota's lawsuit alleging, among other things, that Operation Metro Surge violates the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on commandeering should be a slam dunk for the state. So why did Judge Katherine Menendez (a Biden app...

Because the frightening situation in the US and the world became even more harrowing over the last week, one part of which I discussed with some emotion two days ago, I want to end the week by talking about something else entirely.  My comfort zones are economics and tax policy, so today will involve a short foray into those welcoming spaces. As part of my self-healing, I will steer clear of the current US situation completely -- so completely that I will not even discuss current US tax or economic policies.  Instead, in this very short post I want to comment on yet another instance in which a very smart person who possesses genuine expertise about one subject took it upon themselves to opine about US tax and budgetary policy.  And why wouldn't they?  They are generally well informed, or so they think.  It all seems kind of easy, right? But just as things can go very wrong when (as I put it back in 2013 ) economists "commit politics," or when economists believe...

Let's begin with the obvious. The fact that Alex Pretti had a gun on his person in no way justified or excused the actions of the federal officers who murdered him because: he never brandished or reached for his gun; he was attacked before the federal officers even realized he had a gun; and he had been disarmed and was being held down when he was repeatedly and fatally fired upon. Even if Pretti had not had a legal license for his gun, and even if he had no Second Amendment right to carry a gun, the officers' actions would have been outrageous and utterly indefensible. Those facts make the arguments advanced by various Trump regime officials and apologists casting blame on Pretti for being armed utterly meritless. Moreover, as numerous people have noted, the blame-casting statements are extremely hypocritical coming from the political right in general--given their longstanding support for robust Second Amendment rights--and from the Trumpist right in particular--given their su...

I have no idea why, but lately I find myself thinking about May 4, 1970.  On that day, four young Americans were killed when government troops fired indiscriminately into a crowd of protesters.  Why would that pop into my head this week?  And other people seem to be talking about it as well.  Strange. Perhaps sarcasm is an inappropriate response to the latest horrors in the United States, but I cannot think of what would be appropriate.  In any event, I do think it is worth thinking about Kent State in today's context, because there are even more unpleasant/scary similarities than the obvious one.  More importantly, there is a massive difference that people are rightly taking as a possible reason for some hope in this darkest of hours in the United States. For those who were not alive at the time or who (like me) had simply forgotten most of the details, anti-Vietnam War protests were ongoing in 1970, especially on college campuses.  At Kent State, a...

For two decades, I have argued that the Supreme Court of the United States is not a real court of law and its justices do not perform their jobs like real judges. My argument is based on a perfect storm of factors: Our Constitution is almost impossible to amend and is incredibly old; we are the only country in the world with a two-century tradition of aggressive judicial review; our justices have life tenure; our justices are selected through an overtly partisan nomination and confirmation process; and most of the constitutional language the justices have to interpret is too imprecise to set logical limits on the scope of that interpretation. What all this amounts to is a tribunal that does not take prior law seriously enough to warrant the label “court of law.” I have set forth the detailed receipts for the conclusion that ideology, not law, dominates the Court's decisions in books, essays, articles, and blog posts. The main problem with the Supreme Court of the United States is t...

In 2018, Meta created an Oversight Board that quickly came to be known as the Supreme Court of Facebook. Although it still exists, it has become less important since Meta, in a transparent effort to curry favor with what was then the incoming second Trump administration, essentially abandoned content moderation a little over a year ago. Thus, comparisons between Facebook jurisprudence and that of the U.S. Supreme Court or other courts, while interesting, are not especially important these days. Meanwhile, however, AI company policies provide fertile ground for compare-and-contrast exercises. In today's essay, I'll consider the new constitution for Claude , Anthropic's AI chatbot. During the most recent episode of the podcast Hard Fork , Anthropic's in-house philosopher Amanda Askell explained the choices that went into Claude's new constitution, its purposes, and more. Although I'm more skeptical than Askell is that large language models (as opposed to AI that m...

The people who are currently running the US government have made it abundantly clear that they believe in the might-makes-right model of human interaction.  Both internally and externally, the current US regime seems to treat everything as ultimately only a question of how much they can grab, daring anyone -- the courts, Congress, states, cities, universities, law firms, protesters, and anyone and anything else -- to try to do anything about it.  Power is about macho posturing and taking advantage of every opening (and creating openings that did not previously exist), along with a huge dose of outright brutality.  International law?  It is to laugh.   The rule of law?  Whoever has the levers of power can use the law as they see fit. As shocking as all of that has been for everyone to witness for the last twelve months, disdain for norms and other social niceties has in fact been the bedrock of the academic canon in economics and other areas of the social s...

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez . The case involves a 2023 Hawaii law that was aptly described by the Ninth Circuit (which upheld the law in part) as follows: "Whereas the old rule allowed a person with a carry permit to bring firearms onto private property unless the owner prohibited it, the new rule generally prohibits the carry of firearms onto private property unless the owner allows it." As it comes to the Court, the case presents the question whether the law is valid as applied to private property open to the public (such as grocery stores, gas stations, etc.) Under the framework the Court announced in NYS Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen , that implicates a 2-part test: (1) Does the law infringe the Second Amendment right (as incorporated here by the Fourteenth Amendment)? (2) If so, does the law sufficiently fit within the history and tradition of firearms regulation? The oral argument indicated that the Court will likely divide 6-3 a...