David Chen (New York University School of Law) has posted Anti-Coercion Beyond the Spending Clause (California Law Review, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: NFIB v. Sebelius announced a constitutional anti-coercion principle: the federal government may neither directly commandeer state capacity, nor indirectly coerce states to give that capacity up. Yet, for all the headlines the opinion generated, the conventional understanding remains that anti-coercion applies only to exercises of the spending power.

Justin R. Pidot (University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law) has posted Participatory Abundance on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Americans do not trust the government, and the federal government least of all. An emerging abundance movement offers a vision for rekindling public trust by eliminating substantive and procedural constraints on the government’s capacity to increase the supply of infrastructure, housing, technological innovation, and other things people need to live flourishing lives.

<div> The Supreme Court has two sides. On its ordinary docket, the Court answers questions of law after briefing and oral argument. On its extraordinary docket

Conor Clarke and Eric Kubo (both Washington University in St. Louis School of Law) have posted Foreword: The Constitution and Public Finance&#8212;Why Now and Why Ever? (Washington University Law Review, forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This paper introduces the Washington University Law Review&#8217;s 2026 symposium issue on &#8220;Taxing, Spending, and the Constitution.&#8221; We situate the symposium&#8217;s ten papers within three interconnected developments in public finance law: the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent decision on the Sixteenth Amendment in Moore v.

Emily Berman (University of Houston Law Center) has posted The Uninvestigable President: Executive Accountability after Trump v. United States and Trump v. Slaughter on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Presidential accountability depends on information. Elections, impeachment, prosecution, and public judgment all require facts. And those facts are generated by a set of overlapping investigative mechanisms, including career investigators across the executive branch, inspectors general, and congressional committees, each capable of surfacing executive misconduct through distinct legal authorities and institutional incentives.

The Journal of American Constitutional History is a peer-reviewed web-based journal publishing high-quality scholarship on U.S. constitutional history. Our editorial board includes over 60 leading sch...

Over the last decade, the Roberts Court has quietly transformed separation of powers law by centering the President’s “exclusive” powers. Yet the Court does not

The Download of the Week is Fact Avoidance by Shalev Gad Roisman. Here is the abstract: The legality of the President&#8217;s exercise of statutory power depends on questions of both law and fact. Yet courts often focus exclusively on the former, without engaging with the latter. This Essay suggests that this is no coincidence&#8212;that one reason courts focus on legal interpretation is that it permits them to avoid second-guessing the President&#8217;s factual determinations.

In its October 2026 term, the Supreme Court will review <i>Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder</i>, a tort case with significant implications for t

<p><i><span>The legality of the President’s exercise of statutory power depends on questions of both law and fact. Yet courts often focus exclusively on the for

Many concerned citizens, including judges, bureaucrats, politicians, activists, journalists and academics, have been claiming that Indian democracy has been imp

<p>Federal support for scientific research has paid enormous dividends to Americans from the mid-20^th century to today. Investments in science have l

<p>The Supreme Court sits atop a judicial system on which it is deeply dependent. It lacks the capacity to superintend more than a fraction of the cases filed e

<p><span>Federal administrative law is in flux. The Roberts Court has upended its doctrinal foundations, and the Second Trump Administration has flouted its lon

Long presumed obsolete after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, the "general common law" has reemerged as a subject of serious inquiry in recent scholarship i

What is unprincipled adjudication and when, if ever, is it justified? In addressing those questions, this essay attempts to complete a project begun with Profes

Introduction In a constitutional showdown with the executive branch, the courts may seem to have limited remedial options. Once we reach a point where...

<div> Unitary executive theory has, since <i>Myers v. United States</i>, been premised on a conception of democratic accountability. On this view, the presiden

Over the last decade, the Roberts Court has quietly transformed separation of powers law by centering the President’s “exclusive” powers. Yet the Court does not