Reposted by Jake CharlesLawrence Hurley @lawrencehurley.bsky.social · 51mThe phrase "cultural zeitgeist of societal elites" as it refers to trans rights might need some parsing as SCOTUS of course ruled against the transgender plaintiffs in the underlying case. 1173
Reposted by Jake CharlesMark Anthony Frassetto @mark-frassetto.bsky.social · 52mThe Founders did not believe the president had the power to suspend the enforcement of laws. Even James II only thought he had the power to dispense with individual enforcement of the law when it came to ecclesiastical matters. 231
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 05/10/2026Very exciting new resource live today, showing how context-rich the search for historical gun laws should be! firearmslaws.com 173
Reposted by Jake CharlesAnthony Michael Kreis @anthonymkreis.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Hypothetical: a president publicly discloses a private cell phone number to encourage millions to intimidate and disturb a legislator to pass a bill. It meets the criteria for state criminal harassment. Immune under Trump v. United States? Or official conduct that can overcome the presumption? 2332883
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026static.klipy.comDumb And Dumber: Lloyd's 'There's a Chance'ALT: Dumb And Dumber: Lloyd's 'There's a Chance' 000
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Maybe I’ll send a formal letter to your chancellor trying to get you fired just to make it super legit. 000
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026lol, ya never know! Standing armies, as you know, were not an overlooked subject at the founding! 010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I regret to tell you that you qualify as a scholar who tells lies and there do not qualify. www.wsj.com/opinion/an-a...wsj.comOpinion | An Award for Scholars Who Tell the TruthThe Carob Trust Prize for Academic Courage will honor social scientists who face unjustified attacks. 010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026I was raised conservative & joined the College Republicans in undergrad. There’s been a shift since, but sometimes I wonder abt whether I could still position myself to go after that $1 million award for heterodox opinions. Alas, I don’t think the kind I have is the kind the award is oriented to. 260
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Wowww he doesn’t even call it The Trump Strait…sheeesh smdh 110
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026THATS *MORE THAN* HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS IN ONE YEAR. I’m sorry but everything is Monopoly money now. That’s just how it is - I don’t make the rules. 291
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026static.klipy.comMacaulay Culkin's Iconic 'Woof!' from Home AloneALT: Macaulay Culkin's Iconic 'Woof!' from Home Alone 010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Ok, whoa, I just saw it’s a junior. I refuse to believe this. 100
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026What I hear you saying is that so long as I personally reject linearity, I’m good? 120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026This is a fun flight update to get. It’s fine that my connection leaves before I get to the connecting airport, right?? 280
Reposted by Jake CharlesBrianne Gorod @briannegorod.bsky.social · 24/09/2026If you're a law student who wants to spend your summer working in the public interest & is interested in appellate advocacy, apply to join the @myconstitution.bsky.social team this summer! www.theusconstitution.org/legal-intern... 1/2theusconstitution.orgLegal Internship Summer 2027 | Constitutional Accountability CenterAbout CAC Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) is a nonprofit law firm and think tank dedicated to fulfilling the inherently progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. ... 196
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 24/09/2026I can’t see the original post because either I blocked that person or they blocked me, but I feel lucky either way judging by these replies. 010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026The cat apparently thought these shoes just might fit her 1101
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026Wait, is it the same DOJ making laughable arguments in defense of Trump that said just says ago it will not even defend duly enacted federal gun laws that many lower courts have upheld as constitutionally permissible? @mikesacks.bsky.social 150
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026Good point - I had forgotten that the founding generation was really hoping federal judges would ensure uniformity in legislation across state lines. 020
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026🤷♂️ I have long thought the Court should deal with the most pressing issues that affect the most people - like the 922(g)(1) cases it ignores — but it has taken narrow state laws before, so possible this gets there. & then it’s anyone’s guess what persuades people under Bruen… 030
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026Whole thing here: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op... And you could say that again… 150
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026I’m not exaggerating when I say that the second proposal here is a raw violation of VanDyke’s oath to uphold the Constitution. The 10th Amendment & federalism be damned if one state has a gun law that others don’t. The full dissent is worse & VanDyke writes alone again bc no one joins tantrums. 2167
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 22/09/2026Not joking I was just thinking the other day that I really wanted to read a good history of parliament, so I am looking forward to snatching this up when it arrives! 030
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 22/09/2026Unreasonably excited for my most recent book haul—spanning quite a decent time span! 290
Reposted by Jake CharlesMichael Smith @msmith750.bsky.social · 21/09/2026My essay, "The Absence of Original Meaning in Second Amendment Cases," is forthcoming in the Quinnipiac Law Review! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... I argue that the Court's Second Amendment cases from 2022 to last term indicate an increasing unwillingness to engage in historical, textual meaning. 1379
Reposted by Jake CharlesMike Sacks @mikesacks.bsky.social · 19/09/2026Trump’s DOJ says it will not enforce the federal law barring gun sales to 18-20 year olds because it violates the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS has so far declined every opportunity to resolve the circuit split. www.justice.gov/olc/media/14... 43120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 18/09/2026NEW: I have a more staid, in-depth look at the Second Amendment assault weapon case the Supreme Court will hear in December in this piece over at the Society for the Rule of Law Institute. 📝 chkbal.substack.com/p/the-suprem...chkbal.substack.comThe Supreme Court’s Coming Assault Weapon Stress TestThe justices will grapple with the brittleness of Bruen’s past-bound test in the face of vast change 394
Reposted by Jake CharlesJake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026Gift link to my @slate.com piece criticizing the assault weapon challengers' invocations of democracy. One response to the argument I make is that the Constn is the expression of We The People & so arguing to strike these laws isn't anti-democratic. Two points in reply 🧵 slate.com/news-and-pol...slate.comWe Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term (Gift Article)This fall, the Supreme Court will entertain a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Viramontes v. Cook County. 177
Reposted by Jake CharlesNiko Bowie @nikobowie.bsky.social · 17/09/2026Here's a gift link to our piece today in Slateslate.comJohn Roberts’ New Role Model Demonstrates Everything Wrong With the Supreme Court (Gift Article)If the court is curling up anywhere, it is at the feet of a presidency increasingly unchecked by law. 0136
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026That's a bad misreading of history. It's also problematic bc it frames this as a dispute over who decides b/t "the people" (read gun owners) or judges. It's really a dispute b/t the people who want these guns & the people who want these laws. The challengers are the ones forcing *judges* to decide. 031
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026(2) Their argument is even sillier than that. They are not pleading for courts to protect "The People" of 1791's decision. They are literally & expressly arguing for judges to overrule the decisions of today's voters to protect the purchasing choices of TODAY'S GUN OWNERS. They say this repeatedly. 130
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026the challengers making the case for why these laws should be struck down under the Second Amendment. I won't pretend the question is excessively simple under Bruen. Just don't say you are doing it to protect decisions by "the people" against decisions by judges. 120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026in particular cases, but to the extent one defends the practice across the board, it seems to me it's got to be defended as justified despite its conflict w/ democracy (as the long-running debates over the "counter-majoritarian difficulty" have framed it). In other words, I don't begrudge 120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026(1) I don't really buy that on its own terms, for reasons that are too complex to outline here. The short version is that, except for some issues affecting the democratic process (like voting restrictions), the Court isn't enhancing democracy when it voids laws. Maybe you think that's good or bad 120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026Gift link to my @slate.com piece criticizing the assault weapon challengers' invocations of democracy. One response to the argument I make is that the Constn is the expression of We The People & so arguing to strike these laws isn't anti-democratic. Two points in reply 🧵 slate.com/news-and-pol...slate.comWe Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term (Gift Article)This fall, the Supreme Court will entertain a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Viramontes v. Cook County. 177
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026hey i'm sure they would not mind being called winsome 120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026New from me in @slate.com: the challengers who want to invalidate assault weapons ban cloak themselves in the language of democracy, but their goal is to undermine the people's right to govern, not preserve or protect it. 👇 slate.trib.al/qePXfCAslate.trib.alWe Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court TermThis fall, the Supreme Court will entertain a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Viramontes v. Cook County. 275
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026Thank you! I always hoped to achieve this great honor!! 020
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026Am I the only one who gets embarrassed to be so enthusiastically congratulated on *standing up* after sitting for an excessively long time?? I mean, heck, I’ll take the praise where I can get it, but it still feels like a few rungs below a participation trophy. 150
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 15/09/2026But the court suggests Wolford made ANY restriction encompassed within the plain text. I think that reading is wrong. It vastly expands the plain text inquiry beyond recognition. It means that ANY restriction on any subsidiary step toward keeping and bearing automatically implicates the plain text. 130
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 15/09/2026the court notes that other circuits have gone further--requiring "meaningful constraints" on the ability to acquire a weapon for a law to implicate the plain text of "keep[ing]". That approach is the one I argued was the best approach in the piece the court cited: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... 120