Jamal Greene

Dwight Professor of Law @ColumbiaLaw. Author of How Rights Went Wrong. Here to teach and to learn. Find me as well at

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@OrinKerr But it seems like you *do* think the actual policy, if it aligns with the sign, might have significance? What if, anytime ICE agents walk in the open door, they are immediately asked to leave (as seems plausible here)? If that pattern is established, may ICE ignore that demand?

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@JCMacriNBA

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@OrinKerr I haven't followed his other posts so won't comment on his views on heckling, but this post seems...not about that? It's about writing letters of objection, and saying since this (not heckling) is the student's only recourse, it isn't ominous. Do you think that's "just wrong"?

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@joshtpm @danepps @PJSobkowski I agree that, depending on definition, much of the elite legal academy has been skeptical (beyond term limits) until recentl, but I don’t think “unthinkable” is accurate on any definition. And to Dan’s broader point, it has long been more bullish on reform than most nonacademics.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

Odd debate. It is true that serious court reform has only approached being mainstream in the left legal academy in the last 5 years or so, but it’s been discussed there for much longer and as far as I can tell it is *more* popular in the academy than outside it.

[Josh Marshall @joshtpm]

2/ Like I barely have the heart to argue about it. Because it just barely STARTING to happen. And to the extent the small minority of reform voices want to speak louder that's precisely what i support. And if they want to claim a lot of support within the academy, well great...

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@Stuart98_ @AnthonyMKreis @SenLouiseLucas Legally, I think the legislature would only need a strong basis in evidence for believing it needed to override state law to comply w/ fed law, somewhat parallel to the posture of Bartlett v. Strickland. Callais provides such a basis. But I agree the VA court would bog this down.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@OrinKerr Thanks! I still don’t read her as necessarily saying “No, A means exactly what it always has.”

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@OrinKerr I didn’t see what she was replying to. I was going off her quote-tweeted words, which are consistent with either agreement or disagreement with the descriptive claim, hence my response to your post so saying. IOW, her post is equally consistent with “you’re wrong” and “so what.”

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@OrinKerr In Shakespeare's time, "bully" referred to a sweetheart. It now refers to a ruffian. Does this mean sweethearts have changed into ruffians over time? If not, why must the meaning of "A" also remain constant over time?

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@HoffProf Also, FDR would like a word.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@whignewtons @jadler1969 I agree that the immunity decision isn’t responsible for his election win and I do think at least some on the Court thought they were shielding Biden at least as much as Trump, but the opinion was nonetheless wildly irresponsible and has emboldened Trump in this term.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@JCMacriNBA How about this... how much a loss counts toward lottery order diminishes slightly each game of the season until the AS break, then starts turning slightly negative. Could create anomalies when you get teams like Charlotte this year, but makes a true tank much less likely.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@Greg651 One would be forgiven for asking why this case is in federal court. He styles it as if judges made Washington pass this law.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@dilanesper Not disputing that, just saying it’s not apples to apples

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@dilanesper Important to note though that the eviction moratorium decision was an emergency order vacating a lower court’s stay, so (unlike the tariff decision) the dissenters’ dispute there extended to the equities of emergency relief, not just statutory interpretation.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@jadler1969 Of course not, but when the charge is hypocrisy or disingenuousness--a serious charge--you need something more than a prior case where she relied on MQD, since her only claim is that it isn't needed here. You'd need to show that she's clearly wrong that it isn't needed here.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@jadler1969 The words are important in judicial opinions.

[Jamal Greene @jamalgreene]

@jadler1969 @CBHessick Not joining analysis they find unnecessary to the holding is different from refusing to adhere to prior precedent. Seems straightforward to me, especially when the additional analysis is controversial.