Marty Lederman

On Lawfare Daily, @S_R_Anders, @Claussen_K, @marty_lederman, and @petereharrell discussed the Supreme Court’s opinion which invalidated President Trump's IEEPA tariffs and looked ahead to the legal fights to come over the other tariff authorities the Trump administration is now using to pursue its agenda.

@RichardMRe One might, I suppose, think the Trump immunity decision, and Seila Law, and Wilcox, and (to come) Slaughter, and AVAC, etc., were rightly decided (do you, Richard?). But there can't be any question that they've profoundly empowered the POTUS beyond what came before. [3]

@RichardMRe Respectfully, your suggestion of moderation, or equilibrium (or equivalence, I suppose), doesn't remotely resemble what's plain for all to see: This Court has blessed and accelerated executive aggrandizement far more than any previous Court. [2]

We have reached an interesting moment in which partisans on both the left and right are simultaneously claiming that the Supreme Court is captured by the other side.

Yes!

This is simply unadulterated, wonderful news for our school and our students. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone with greater integrity, creativity and thoughtfulness.

@eliavl It is, indeed, upside-down, Eliav. I'm curious, though: What percentage of the Israeli public views it as "extremism" to cease expanding such a plainly unlawful campaign?

רק בישראל הקריאה להפסיק לממן ישובים מחוץ לתחומי המדינה שמבוססים על משטר צבאי, מערכת חוקים מפלה, הפרת הדין הבינלאומי ושותים משאבים בצורה בלתי נתפסת = קיצוניות. ואילו השארת המצב המטורלל הקיים = מתינות. עולם הפוך בחסות השפה האורווליאנית שהשתלטה פה על כל חלקה טובה

@EdWhelanEPPC They need to thoroughly vet candidates to make sure they haven't ever given any charitable donations.

There are 48 federal judicial vacancies (current and declared future) but only 6 nominees. Lots of vacancies w/o nominees in red states. It's been more than 3 months since Eighth Circuit judge Duane Benton announced he'd be taking senior status. No nominee yet.

@ilan_wurman Am I right to read your brief to say (insinuate?) that the the U.S. federal government may deny all legal "protection" to diplomats, tribal members, and undocumented foreigners (and perhaps all foreign visitors, too)?

There are many substantive criticisms of my birthright brief on BlueSky. I will take each seriously. But I hope the critics write a brief because a lot of the criticisms seem quite unconvincing to me, and several are based on misreadings of the brief. Here’s just one example. Evan writes here as if this is a “gotcha” moment, but I literally say in the brief that safe conducts for friendly aliens disappeared around the 14th century because of statutory permission. Now Evan says I haven’t found any example “proximate to the founding” of a friendly alien getting a safe conduct. That’s true, because the founding was 400 years after the 14th century. As for his assertion that it was understood at common law that aliens from friendly nations did not need safe conduct, that is belied by all the safe conducts I describe in the brief and in my article. The Carta Mercatoria of 1303 expressly granted safe conduct to merchants from a bunch of European provinces with whom England was not at war. It literally issued as peace with France was signed. And the other provinces weren’t at war. There was no war with Cologne or the HRE in 1157 when save conducts were granted to their merchants. You can look at all the examples I cite here—Evan will not be able to establish in his amicus brief that England was always at war with the relevant nation. The opposite was true. One of the secondary sources even gives examples of “such processes [letters of protection] in peacetime conditions.” It is true that safe-conducts were issued more frequently and a lack of safe conduct was enforced more rigorously during times of tension and conflict—but that also covers many non-war instances.

@charlie_savage Not a war crime because not a war. And perfidy, in particular, makes no sense here (any more than it would if an undercover police officer used force). It's simply murder (as Charlie's other pieces have explained). bsky.app/profile/martyl…

U.S. Attacked Boat With Aircraft That Looked Like a Civilian Plane Even accepting the Trump administration’s claim that there is an armed conflict with suspected drug runners, the laws of war bar “perfidy.” nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/…

@kylegriffin1 Not a war crime because not a war. And perfidy makes no sense here. bsky.app/profile/martyl…

Breaking NYT: The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first boat attack, according to officials briefed on the matter. The laws of armed conflict forbid combatants from feigning civilian status. That is a war crime called "perfidy." nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/…

Nuggets score 27 points in final 2:53 of OT. Jokic with 56/16/15. Ho hum.

thread bsky.app/profile/martyl…

Has anyone mentioned that if only Kiner-Falefa had run through the plate rather than sliding--which presumably is what he's been taught to do--the Blue Jays would be world champions? Astonishing blunder--much worse than Buckner. And heartbreaking.

@nicholas_bagley The 0.5?: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…

I don’t mean to be a jerk about this but if the tariff challengers lose can we finally acknowledge that US Supreme Court amicus practice is 99.5% wasted time and effort?

@kevinjonheller @lawfare @just_security @ejiltalk @Articles_of_War @opiniojuris @Alonso_GD Is this what IL scholars do when all hope is lost?

Forget @lawfare. Forget @just_security. Forget @ejiltalk. Forget @Articles_of_War. The biggest and the bestest is back only @opiniojuris: our Fifth Annual Symposium on Pop Culture and International Law, organised by the great @Alonso_GD and Sarah Zarmsky! opiniojuris.org/2025/10/27/fif…

An alternative argument about why Trump lacks authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/2…

@rgoodlaw justsecurity.org/121844/trump-n…

“This is not stretching the envelope,” Geoffrey Corn said. “This is shredding it." On Administration's confidential note to Congress Completely right Drug cartels not = "armed conflict" People killed are civilians Corn is retired JAG, Army's former law-of-war senior adviser

On why Trump's determination that the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels is (i) wrong; and (ii) insufficient, in any event, to make legal the strikes against vessels in the Caribbean. justsecurity.org/121844/trump-n…