On October 17, 12-1 PM central time/1-2 PM jap time, I shall be taking part in a digital panel on the Supreme Court docket’s resolution in Trump v. Anderson, which held that states can’t disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election on the premise that he was ineligible for the presidency below Part 3 of the Fourteenth Modification. The panel is sponsored by the Loyola College Chicago College of Legislation. My opponent shall be Prof. Neil Siegel of Duke Legislation College, a distinguished constitutional legislation scholar. The occasion shall be moderated by Prof. Tyler Valeska (Loyola).
Free registration out there right here. And right here is the official description of the panel:
This panel will study the Supreme Court docket’s resolution earlier this 12 months in Trump v. Anderson. That call prevented states from barring Donald Trump from their presidential ballots below Part III of the Fourteenth Modification on the grounds that he engaged in riot on January 6, 2021. The panelists will debate the Court docket’s final result and reasoning, discover the case’s implications for our democracy, and take into account how Congress and different establishments would possibly reply.
Each Neil Siegel and I’ve written articles concerning the case, and each can be found on SSRN. Listed below are the hyperlinks:
Neil Siegel, “Slim However Deep: The McCulloch Precept, Collective-Motion Idea, and Part Three Enforcement.”
Ilya Somin, “A Misplaced Alternative to Shield Democracy Towards Itself: What the Supreme Court docket Obtained Flawed in Trump v. Anderson,”
Half II of my article features a transient critique of Siegel’s.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/ZZJAZCVMVBCTRAZCBQBW6ILR3M.jpg?w=120&resize=120,86&ssl=1)
