Chris Moore

@TradVat2 Yep! Latin is rusty, but I believe “visibile” “omne” and “invisibile” are 3rd declension i-stem. So to form the genitive plural, as you need for “of all things visible and invisible,” you add the ending “-ium.” So you get “visibilium omnium et invisibilium.”

For the Latin speakers: In the Creed, why is it "visibilium omnium et invisibilium" ? That is says "caelia et terrae" makes sense given that those two words have their referent in "factorem" (i.e., creator of heaven and earth). I would have assumed that "of all things visible and invisible" would have a similar declension. I'm not learning the declensions directly, only indirectly via Lingua Latina, so forgive me if this is stupid.

One possibility: Use the cause of action apparently provided by California. See Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1. As a co-author and I argue in a forthcoming article (link below), such causes of action should avoid constitutional/statutory problems. Nor would QI necessarily apply.

Unclear to me the precise nature of this order. Still, in a spirit of shameless self-promotion, I think it may be a good time to bump this piece on "administrative stays" of executive action. Link below.

Worth a read: So-Called “Administrative Stays” in Trump 2.0, by Chris Moore. texaslawreview.org/wp-content/upl…

@EliNachmany @EliNachmany thank you so much. Just trying to follow in your footsteps!

Excited that my Essay, So-Called "Administrative Stays" in Trump 2.0, is now out in the Texas Law Review Online. I argue that recent administrative stays of executive action are conceptually confused and lack any apparent legal basis. Links below.

SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=51577… TLR: texaslawreview.org/so-called-admi…

Another outstanding article authored by our Research Fellow, @tylerblindley, that's well worth a read.

Update: My essay on the so-called "administrative stays" being issued by DCts at the dawn of Trump 2.0 is forthcoming in the Texas Law Review Online. Thrilled to work with the editors of my undergrad alma mater. Hook 'em! Link here: ssrn.com/abstract=51577…. Comments welcome!

Interesting theory in today’s Alito dissent about how sovereign immunity interacts with the general law of equity. (Maybe too interesting to be worked out in an application to stay a TRO, but likely to be a recurring issue.)

My effort at a very simple primer on emergency orders and why they will be so important in Trump 2.0. Part II later this week. open.substack.com/pub/executivef…

A new paper: The Presidency After Trump v. United States. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…. Forthcoming, Supreme Court Review. Comments welcome.

@fedjudges Great q. Would need to look at the details of that particular case. In general, though, what I call “true administrative stays” (ie, admin stays of agency action) pose slightly distinct qs. See my analysis in Part IV.

@chris_d_moore Good piece. How would you categorize the CA5 admin stay of the OSHA vaccine mandate? That was an ex parte stay and maybe the first time this happened?

Here's a short-ish essay I wrote on the so-called "administrative stays" being issued at the dawn of Trump 2.0. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Bottom line: I argue the so-called "administrative stays" of executive action are probably unlawful.

Very timely piece by @chris_d_moore explaining "administrative stays" and how and why they are often abused today by district courts reviewing Trump administration actions. "So-Called “Administrative Stays” in Trump 2.0"

@jacklgoldsmith This is one of the most beautiful sights I have ever beheld.

This was hard and involved many people. Thanks to co-editors, past editors, colleagues, research assistants, and student users.

It is amazing how I can re-read a volume from David Currie's "The Constitution in Congress" and be in awe and inspired each and every time. I can't think of another book on the Constitution that has had that effect on me.

My big-picture take on Trump v. US. Weedier comments later. lawfaremedia.org/article/broad-…