Chad Squitieri

Today I had the honor of testifying at the U.S. Senate, where I discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright.

I’m planning to take a Twitter break during Lent. Wishing folks the best!

February ❄️

@PrawfBainbridge In re El Paso?

In class tomorrow, I'll be telling an old joke about investment bankers.

@OrinKerr FYI I *think* you can post the draft link without waiting for the approval. It’s just labeled draft or what have you on the website. I could be misremembering though.

I've (finally) submitted a draft of The Moving Property Problem in Fourth Amendment Law to SSRN, and will post a link as soon as they make it available. This was a fun one, but also really challenging to write. Hope people like it.

This month’s podcast features Tyler Dobbs discussing his article, “The Emergency-Docket Dilemma.” Check it out: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the…

In a new post on @YaleJREG's Notice & Comment blog, I analyze the Supreme Court's announcement of a new clear-statement rule in a recent AEDPA case, over a spirited dissent by Justice Gorsuch. (Link below.)

@Aaron_L_Nielson “Amicus ably discharged her responsibilities except for those relating to Parts III and footnote 7 of this opinion”

Perhaps the most minor observation in history of X: SCOTUS usually thanks the amicus (“ably discharged her responsibilities”) at the end of the background section. But a couple of times recently, the Court has done it in the middle of analysis.

@johnpelwood Nice post, I gave it a shoutout in my own: x.com/chadsquitieri/…

Some initial impressions from this morning's argument: arnoldporter.com/en/perspective…

Last month the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in an Article II challenge to qui tam litigation. Today, at the @YaleJREG blog, I offer a structural middle path for resolving such challenges. The post draws on my forthcoming article in the @NCLRev. yalejreg.com/nc/qui-tams-co…

January

@sarahhgustafson @GreenPlusAnE Congrats!

Men, find yourself a Harvard PhD. / ballerina.

@KannonShanmugam As a Lions fan, I can relate.

This is the Chiefs football I grew up on.

It was fun to have Elias on this month’s episode of the podcast. Give our conversation a listen—and read his stuff!

December

Looking forward to discussing Marc's essay this week at our faculty workshop!

The Proclamation mentions other laws, and when asked to defend the tariffs in court the Nixon Administration clearly relied on (and won with) TWEA. The fact that Nixon allegedly said something different in a decades’ old secret meeting is legally immaterial. Giving weight to that type of amicus “evidence” would seem to undermine courts’ abilities to rely on the executive’s representations in court. But I gather we disagree, so probably best to leave it at that. Hope you are having a nice holiday weekend.

@ChadSquitieri @ilan_wurman Did the Proclamation rely on TWEA? Did Nixon actions disrupt the existing legal structure governing tariffs? And why would we place so much weight on one portion of a post hoc litigating position? Current doctrine rightly says that's weak sauce compared to longstanding practice.

In the revolutionary controversy, the distinction between tariffs that were impermissible external taxation (eg Townsend Duties of 1767) and those that were permissible “regulations of trade” was whether they were imposed “solely” to raise revenue. If the revenue was incidental, even if substantial, it was regulation and not taxation. Not an expert on Trump’s tariffs but it seems to me many are on solid footing if the revolutionary distinction is applied. Not sure if the modern congress had it in mind though.

@jadler1969 @ilan_wurman The brief refers to Nixon expressing his alleged view in a 50 year old “secret meeting.” What is the “fair characterization” of the brief that would counsel in favor of crediting that secret hearsay over the Nixon’s Administration explicit reliance on TWEA in open court?

@ChadSquitieri @ilan_wurman If that's what the brief did, it might not be serious. But that's not a remotely fair characterization of the brief in question or the relevant evidence.

@jadler1969 @ilan_wurman Are you suggesting that it’s serious to credit an amicus brief about what a deceased president allegedly said 50 years ago, when such statements are in tension with what that President’s own administration told an article iii court?

@ChadSquitieri @ilan_wurman Suggesting this is just something that came up with oral argument without engaging with the relevant brief is not serious. As for the other, the founding area understanding of a different document really doesn't tell us much about the 1970s statutory meaning.

@jadler1969 @ilan_wurman x.com/chadsquitieri/…

@ChadSquitieri @ilan_wurman On the other point, I think that's quite a use of "traditional" that doesn't really do the work you want it to.

It’s the only example, and it cuts in the admin’s favor. So you’ve got the traditional understanding for at least 40 years after the Founding, plus the only modern example cutting in the admin’s favor (and consistent with the traditional understanding). As to the secret Nixon tapes argument: I think it’s silly and legally irrelevant. yalejreg.com/nc/regulatory-…

@ChadSquitieri @ilan_wurman It's the only example, and Nixon actually disclaimed that he was using the language for that purpose. The Hills/Wolff brief addresses this in detail.