Blog

The Solicitor General has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Lynch v. Binderup, which considers whether 2nd Amendment rights can be restored to certain individuals who have finished their felony sentences. The en banc Third Circuit, on an 8-7 vote, ruled in favor of Binderup. (For details on the breakdown, see Eugene Volokh’s post from September).

I’ll blog more about the petition later, but for now, I will flag that the Question Presented, as stated by the SG, is misleading:

Whether petitioners are entitled to relief from the longstanding federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), based on their as-applied Second Amendment claim that their criminal offenses and other particular circumstances do not warrant a firearms disqualification.

The New York Times reports that the Trump administration may be considered executive action that would continue the cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers.

Within days of taking office, President-elect Donald J. Trump plans to announce executive actions on health care. Some may undo Obama administration policies. Others will be meant to stabilize health insurance markets and prevent them from collapsing in a vast sea of uncertainty.

“We are working on a series of executive orders that the president-elect will put into effect to ensure that there is an orderly transition, during the period after we repeal Obamacare, to a market-based health care economy,” Mr. Pence said at the Capitol on Wednesday.

He did not provide details, and Trump transition aides said they had no information about the executive orders. But some options are apparent. The federal government could continue providing financial assistance to insurance companies to protect them against financial losses and to prevent consumers’ premiums from soaring more than they have in the last few years.

These payments are illegal when the Obama Administration made them, and they will be illegal if the Trump Administration makes them. As I understand it, payments are made monthly, so fairly shortly after the inauguration, the Trump Administration will have to decide whether it will revoke a (never-released) OMB memorandum that authorized the payments. Another important decision: will the federal government continue to prosecute the appeal in House of Representatives v. Burwell.

These are important decisions to make soon.

A few weeks ago, while scrolling through the AALS Program, I noticed an oddity. The American Constitution Society is hosting a public law workshop–that is “invitation only.” The irony of a public law workshop that is private was apparently lost on the organizers.

According to the announcement, attendees at this this closed-door workshop will feature quite a lineup:

To further its mission of promoting the vitality of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental values it expresses– individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law—the American Constitution for Law & Policy (ACS) is pleased to announce a call for papers for a workshop on public law to be held the afternoon of January 5, 2017 at the 2017 AALS Annual Meeting in San Francisco. A committee composed of members of ACS’s Board of Academic Advisors will select 10 papers and each selected author will have the opportunity to discuss his/her paper in depth with two experienced scholars, from a group that includes Erwin Chemerinsky, Pamela Karlan, Bill Marshall, Reva Siegel, Mark Tushnet, and Adam Winkler.

The only other panels that restrict attendance are for Deans or Associate Deans. None of the panels at the Federalist Society Faculty Conference are invitation only.

A few weeks ago I tweeted at ACS about getting an invitation. Still silence.

I’m still waiting for an invite. No @FedSoc panels at @TheAALS restrict attendance to invitees only. https://t.co/j4767O3yl1

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) January 2, 2017

Casey Mattox (of ADF) offered a fitting tweet:

My never-ending pursuit of constitutional bric-a-brac has focused on United States v. Carolene Products. Through eBay, I’ve acquires several Carolene Products cookbooks from the late 1930s, as well as a photo of FDR’s pardon of Charles Hauser, the president of Carolene Products. Now, Hauser’s granddaughter, Donna Sattley, adds a new item to my collection: photos of a can of Carolene from 1938.

Note that it says “NOT to be be sold for evaporated milk.” I suspect this disclaimer was an effort to avoid prosecutions under the federal and state filled-milk acts. 

At some point in 1938, the name of the product was changed from “Carolene” to “Milnot.”

The cookbook in 1937 still said “Carolene.”

But in 1939 it was called “Milnut”:

 

Later in 1939, the name was changed to Milnot. It still bears that name today.