Reposted by @ctminde.bsky.social
the birthright citizenship question is, to me, the clearest evidence that originalism as practiced is just living constitutionalism for right-wing jurists. the originalist answer is the conventional one is the textual one, but that was basically unacceptable to much of the right.
![MINUTE ORDER: Defendants' 55 Motion for a Stay of Permanent Injunction Pending Appeal is hereby DENIED. "A stay pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy" and may only be granted if the traditional stay factors are satisfied. KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC, 119 F.4th 58, 63 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). Defendants have not carried their burden to establish that a stay of the Court's May 29, 2026 permanent injunction concerning the Kennedy Center's renaming is warranted pending an appeal of the underlying ruling to the D.C. Circuit. Most notably, for the detailed reasons laid out in the Court's ruling, Defendants have not "made a strong showing that [they] are likely to succeed on the merits" of any appeal. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). Nor have Defendants demonstrated that they "will be irreparably injured absent a stay," id. (quoting Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776), given both the de minimis resources that would be required to restore the Center's current name in the event of a successful appeal and the lack of record evidence linking increased donations to the current name. Further, Defendants have apparently taken substantial steps toward complying with the Court's May 29 permanent injunction order on renaming. See Mot. for Misc. Relief, ECF No. 51, Ex. A (June 4, 2026 memorandum from the Kennedy Center's Office of General Counsel directing staff to comply with the Court's permanent injunction on renaming). These efforts undermine the notion that Defendants face irreparable harm in complying with the order in full. The failure to demonstrate irreparable harm is "fatal" to a movant's stay request, KalshiEx, 119 F.4th at 64, as is the failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits. What's more, issuance of a stay pending appeal would not be in the public interest, which is rarely served by the "perpetuation" of "unlawful" governmental action. League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bfdiyietterineb3cvu3ddco/bafkreicmam45d3ekpcgdqvjotdupmyyrpwt4k34h4cajjt2zzhs4tqrrvq)
![[See page 10 of linked PDF]
Figure 2 from Vincent Rollet’s job market paper. FAR stands for Floor Area Ratio. Most redevelopments in the sample period had an existing built FAR below 2 and very few net-negative redevelopments occurred (see below the 45 degree line on 2(a), and left of zero in 2(b)). Above zero on the x axis, figure 2(b) shows lots with permission to add 1-1.5FAR had a ~7% chance of redevelopment over ~20 years; 1.5-2FAR was closer to 10%, and 2+FAR raised the odds above 15%.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ec4gjbntroed6oairgpbvjc4/bafkreidfp7v57ber54utwbqwk6yczn73tvvdzmnatqlg4k5hn75u7lshou)
