Joseph Gay

We're headed to the Supreme Court in Dept of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards! “Small businesses targeted for fines have the right to defend themselves in a real court, with a real judge and jury, rather than an agency court where the only judge is an agency bureaucrat,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Johnson (@FreeRangeLawyer). “It’s fundamentally unfair to try a business in a court where everybody involved is employed by the same administrative agency.”

@nightc322 @pjaicomo I have a high degree of confidence that Justice Scalia will not vote to uphold the birthright citizenship EO.

@JosephRGay @pjaicomo You have more faith in Thomas and Scalia believing in the constitution over Love for their supreme leader than I do.

With argument in the birthright citizenship case on Wednesday (April Fools’ Day), I’m renewing my prediction: SCOTUS will strike down the EO. Even the best of the recent academic apologia for the President’s theory requires the Court to read a word—“complete”—into the text.

@JerusalemDemsas If it becomes possible for less affluent people to live in single family home neighborhoods, some cities will literally change the law to stop it from happening. More barriers to renting makes this problem worse. x.com/realtordotcom/…

I just want progressives who believe this to take this to its logical extension: 1. People who cannot afford to buy are barred from living in single family homes 2. Neighborhoods with good schools are disproportionately made up of single family homes ...where does this end?

Instead of cutting services that serve the public, we might start with trimming bureaucracies that are threatening our rights. /end

At the same time, Arlington is proposing to shutter some community centers, withhold tax revenue that usually goes to schools, and raise property tax rates (on top of rising assessments). E.g., arlnow.com/2026/03/17/cou… 4/5

At a time when Arlington County is raising taxes and cutting services, maybe we shouldn't be spending limited funds on a board that is openly antagonistic to our rights (and that is being used as a thinly veiled effort to block affordable housing) 1/5

The docket where you can access the Montana Supreme Court decision is here: supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/case-info/acti…

The amicus brief is here: ij.org/wp-content/upl…

Great news! The Montana Supreme Court unanimously upholds statewide zoning reforms! That some reforms apply only to larger cities, or potentially impact people w/ covenants less, does not violate equal protection. And frontloading public participation is not facially invalid.

. @AriBFla & I filed an @IJ amicus brief supporting the reforms. We explain how modern zoning law completely upended the historical right to use your property for housing, that it did so largely to exclude people, and that the result has been a disaster for ordinary Americans.

The Supreme Court will decide this term, in Chatrie v. U.S., whether executing a multi-step geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The en banc Fourth Circuit deadlocked 7-7 on what they took to be the relevant question: whether the gov't conducted a "search." For years, courts have been confused about how to determine which government acts count as a "search" under the Amendment. More recently, the search tests that produce the confusion have been defended as historically rooted. They're not, and the historical evidence is overwhelming. A draft of my new article is up on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Comments welcome at jwrench@ij.org.

@IJSanders Fascinating, but possibly a typo? It's usually referred to as "Holmes v. Walton." I do hope that's wrong, though, and that it's actually Watson.

I had forgotten that (at least according to William Treanor's work) the very first case in American history where a court found a statute unconstitutional was "Holmes v. Watson" (N.J. 1780). Judicial review is elementary.

So an easy first step toward increasing the supply of modestly sized, affordable starter homes would be for local governments to just stop unconstitutionally banning modestly sized, affordable starter homes.

These bans aren't just wrong & counterproductive, they're unconstitutional. The flimsy pretexts behind many zoning restrictions (eg, traffic) don't apply to smaller homes. It's just a bare desire to exclude people who can't afford larger homes. That's not a legit govt interest.

The Washington Post reports that smaller, more affordable starter homes are increasingly rare. Causes include government regs (eg, requiring large lots), market dynamics, etc. I'll add one more: Many localities directly *ban* smaller starter homes. wapo.st/4prLnEm