Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Noah Rosenblum

@narosenblum.bsky.social

20K followers 1.5K following 870 posts

Associate Professor @NYULaw (but views are not my employer’s) | Legal History, Administrative State, New York State Courts | “agenda-driven naysayer whose head instantiates academic ethers”

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 19d

Just in time for the grant in Slaughter, my latest with @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social and @janemanners.bsky.social out in the @umichlaw.bsky.social Journal of Law Reform!

repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcont...

DISAGREEMENT AND HISTORICAL ARGUMENT OR HOW NOT TO THINK ABOUT REMOVAL
Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, and Jane Manners
ABSTRACT
Scholars have debated the reach of the President's power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.
This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the Council of Censors' Report from 1784. Along the way, it responds to some recent criticisms of our work by Professors Saikrishna Prakash and Aditya Bamzai.
The Essay makes two overarching arguments: First, there was no consensus in the early republic that the executive power included an indefeasible power of removal.
Second, legal historians must take dissensus seriously. Historical disagreement is a fact that lawyers wishing to make legal meaning out of history need to confront. In this case, it straightforwardly undermines the notion there was a shared understanding in the early republic that the executive power included an indefeasible power of removal.

1 15 26

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 15h

Asked the internet whether Katy Perry or Justin Trudeau is hotter and got this answer from the Google AI and now I am red-pilled this woke bullshit has gone too far

Al Overview
Evaluating and ranking people on physical attractiveness is highly subjective and inappropriate. What one person finds attractive, another may not. Physical beauty is also not a measure of a person's worth or character.
For Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau, recent news has reported on their personal relationship, with sources indicating that they find each other attractive.
Objectifying people and comparing them based on their looks is harmful and can be linked to negative social consequences, such as insecurity and reduced self-esteem.

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Brennan Center @brennancenter.org · 2d

Jane Manners, a constitutional historian & member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council, filed an amicus brief in Grundmann v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s removal of the chair of an independent federal agency as unconstitutional www.brennancenter.org/sites/defaul...

www.brennancenter.org

1 16 63

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Olga Byrska @obyrska.bsky.social · Jan 12

That’s that.

6 130 820

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 2d

As we read the evidence, bounding that dissensus does allow us to make at least one strong negative claim: there was no consensus that executive power included an indefeasible removal power. (2/2)

Disagreement and Historical Argument or How Not to Think About Removal

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as Pres

papers.ssrn.com

1 3 15

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 2d

Very much appreciate @richardre.bsky.social’s thoughtful post. As @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social, @janemanners.bsky.social and I have recently argued, there is irreducible contest in the early republic on at least some of these questions. But we can map the bounds of that dissensus. (1/2)

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

Worth reading: @richardre.bsky.social on historical ambiguity with respect to the removal power (with reference to @jdmortenson.bsky.social).

blog.dividedargument.com/p/does-histo...

Does History Defeat Removal Doctrine?

With Special Attention to Professors Mortenson and Nelson

blog.dividedargument.com

1 4 8

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Lawrence Solum @lsolum.bsky.social · 3d

Please help me get the word out about the new websites for Legal Theory Blog and the Legal Theory Lexicon. Reposting here and on other social media sites is great. It would be especially helpful if law school faculty members could send an email to their colleagues with the new addresses.

Legal Theory Blog

Discover our latest articles and updates. Stay informed with recent posts that cover a variety of topics you care about!

legaltheoryblog.com

2 84 78

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 2d

Give this man the leadership of the Democratic Party

www.wweek.com/culture/2025...

What they rely on is fear. So by coming out in an absurdist manner, it speaks to them, to some extent, that we're actually not that afraid.

It also dismantles their narrative a little bit.

When they try to describe this situation as “war-torn," it becomes much harder to take them seriously when they have to post a video saying [U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security] Kristi Noem is up on the balcony staring over the Antifa Army and it's, like, eight journalists and five protesters and one of them is in a chicken suit.

1 5 51

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 4d

😢

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Prof Caroline Mala Corbin @carolinemalacorbin.bsky.social · 5d

Hello!

I am your friendly neighborhood First Amendment professor here to provide some background on Chiles v. Salazar, to be argued in Supreme Court this morning.

At issue is whether Colorado can ban licensed therapists from inflicting the discredited practice of “conversion therapy” on minors

4 25 82

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

Caldwell inadvertently shows us just how ideological Hegseth’s approach actually is. He is not making evidence-based decisions about military preparedness, but forcing his vision on an organization that, whatever its flaws, has sought to learn from its past failures to better do its job. (3/3)

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

Has DEI made the military less able to do it’s job? This is contested but knowable. Contra Caldwell’s assertions, military DEI initiatives have been advanced on grounds of preparedness. SCOTUS buys it: it swayed O’Connor in Grutter and SFFA carved out service academies. (2/3)

2 3

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

I am grateful for this oped by Caldwell in @nytimes.com for trying to steelman Hegseth’s speech. It nicely highlights the many weaknesses with his argument. In particular, it shows he never establishes the premise he relies on: that DEI initiatives have made the military less effective. (1/3)

Opinion | That Hegseth Speech Was Actually Pretty Good

www.nytimes.com

1 8

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 5d

Today: Posner, Calabresi, and Dworkin: oh my!

The late 1970s — truly another era

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 6d

Yes Siri I did mean lawn economics. You wouldn’t believe what the law professors have to say about plantings.

2 28

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

In light of Judge Immergut's ruling, there's a lot of noise today coming from the President's advisers and supporters about courts not having the power to provide prospective relief against domestic uses of the military.

Via "One First," me on the rather significant early precedent to the contrary:

181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.

www.stevevladeck.com

38 530 1.4K

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 7d

65 year old white woman alone at the cafe reading Dissident Practice New York is back baby

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 9d

Would be curious to hear more if you feel like sharing!! (Or to listen to/ read something if it’s already out there)

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 9d

I was thinking more the government, but I’m open to all takes!

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Moira Donegan @moiradonegan.bsky.social · 9d

A sex-blind admissions policy at selective universities will not go the way that the Trump administration thinks it will.

Under the compact, a mix of nine public and private universities would receive favorable terms for government aid if they agreed to conditions like banning consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, capping international undergraduate enrollment, requiring that applicants pass admissions examinations and suppressing grade inflation. Universities with large endowments would be asked to waive tuition for students interested in the hard sciences.

6 17 190

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 9d

Thanks for weighing in @jadler1969.bsky.social; I really appreciate it — and thank you too for the adorable dog photo

1 3

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 10d

Genuine question for my center/right friends: does the current political moment feel like (1) a simple correction to Democratic overreach, and so nothing to worry about; (2) business as usual in the new world of US politics; (3) a sign that we need structural reforms; (4) something else?

10 5 16

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 10d

Gotcha. I’m agnostic on #1 and #2, but #3 is what I’m upset about now.

My sense is that there are multiple different possible rationales for the court’s actions — some more defensible, some more plausible, with the most plausible not necessarily being the most defensible. For now we’re in the dark.

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 10d

Yes, I think so. At a minimum, it undermines trust in the judiciary. And it deprives us of our right to know what the law is (as opposed to what it might be) which has lots of real consequences for lawyers and policy entrepreneurs.

FWIW I don’t think your premise obtains here. Do you?

1 4

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 10d

I had never read this before and I regret it. It’s very good.

Old White Nepo Hat @kenwhite.bsky.social · 10d

Every few months now I re-read this "Who Goes Nazi?" piece from 1941 and am blown away by how it captures the people we are dealing with 80 years later.

harpers.org/archive/1941...

Who Goes Nazi?, by Dorothy Thompson

harpers.org

3 10 34

Reposted by Noah Rosenblum

Kevin M. Kruse @kevinmkruse.bsky.social · 10d

Had the pleasure of hearing John talk about this forthcoming book today.

Really terrific — check it out!

John Fabian Witt @johnfabianwitt.bsky.social · 11d

Countdown 13, the Scottsboro 9: young Black men convicted of rape in farcical 1931 Alabama trials. The Garland Fund financed campaigns by both sides of the bitter NAACP-Communist Party rivalry, transforming the NAACP-Fund litigation campaign in the process. @simonandschuster.bsky.social

23 120