@JoshKovensky 3/ This email from Chesboro to Eastman and Epshteyn is crazy:

@beau_baumann @jedshug Thank you. Skimming it quickly I can see this is very significant, especially when coupled with @jedshug 's research and essay linked below. This is causing me to rethink. https://t.co/5ChZIccpRf

(1) New essay and blog post up with the great @jedshug. We bring together a decade of scholarship to argue that the quasi-judicial category is both consistent w/ original public meaning and synonymous with a deeper Anglo-American “history and tradition.”

.@jedshug⁩ and Lawson on removal

Read this by @jedshug and Gary Lawson. I think I will end up disagreeing with the authors on some particulars, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT ARTICLE I, not Article II. This is a helpful pivot.

2/ My amicus brief in Slaughter that summarizes our argument: The Necessary & Proper Clause is a stronger originalist basis to replace Humphrey's Executor, to limit congressional power, & to confirm narrow traditional exceptions for the FTC & the Fed: https://t.co/8bqEmfxtnC

From Gary Lawson & me: "Presidential Removal as Article I, Not Article II" Limits on congressional power to create independent agencies like the Fed & FTC don't come from Art II "Executive Power" absolutism. See the Necessary and Proper Clause instead: https://t.co/cXQy9qmzPS

Bombshell - Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation of Article II!

Sorry, this is the correct link to the Trump v. Cook amicus brief on the official SCOTUS site: https://t.co/FWH0WWEFih

SCOTUS link to amicus brief (Trump v. Cook) here: https://t.co/jTc2d8stSC

I filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Cook (the emergency appeal over the firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook) with @DemocracyFwd, whose lawyers were amazing on a tight lightning docket schedule. Special thanks to Jane Manners @FordhamLawNYC https://t.co/53upF5TuJv

Trump has done more to establish a unitary executive than all the judges and legal scholars in the world could ever do. And Trump has done more to discredit and expose the unitary executive theory as lawless authoritarianism than any judge or legal scholar could ever do.

They say prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich... but apparently not the guy who threw a ham sandwich. At least Trump's hack prosecutors can't.

My draft article goes into depth on the key statutory term "alien enemies." It had a widely understood legal meaning in 1798. Tren de Aragua members do not fit that meaning, even though the group is a designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization."

In 1798, "invasion" and predatory" incursion in the Act clearly had a war-military meaning--an attack on US territory. The Trump administration's interpretation is incorrect. I may have used a sledgehammer to kill a gnat, but it seemed important . . . .

I've just posted "The Alien Enemies Act of 1798," a draft article doing a deep dive into all aspects of the statute and background law -- what it all meant in 1798. It defines "invasion" and "predatory incursion," among other provisions.

Netanyahu, according to staff: “The die is cast – we’re going for full conquest." Bibi is quoting Julius Caesar, meaning "point of no return." The point of no return is on Bibi. He must be stopped. "Conquering" Gaza would be a disaster for everyone. https://t.co/611TUMZuFx

There are bigger problems in the world, but @StevePhillipsGM @SIRIUSXM @MLBNetwork just gave some mindless, soulless baseball commentary. Co-host Xavier Scruggs disagreed, but let it go: "I'm just gonna drink my tea." Phillips got nasty: "Drink it with your pinky up." WTF???

Some thoughts during the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and new international support for Palestinian statehood, on my blog: "The Logic of Zionism = The Logic for Palestinian Statehood" https://t.co/xkz6xs2DhV

The correct answer: “President Taft”

Wrong answers on the AP US exam: “54 40 or fight" was a debate over President Trump’s pant size