Originalism

The Immigration Impact of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II

How a Silent Supreme Court Ruling Is Already Reshaping America’s Trucking Industry Folks, let’s cut the polite nonsense. Last week, the Supreme Court dropped a unanimous 9-0 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that, on its face, looks like a dry statutory preemption case about freight brokers and negligent hiring. Justice Barrett’s opinion never once utters the words “immigration,” “illegal alien,” or “CDL fraud.” Yet within 72 hours, truck-stop videos from Ohio to Texas were showing brokers suddenly blocking carriers with “foreign drivers,” load boards lighting up with refusals, and the spot market shifting in real time. This is…

Continue ReadingThe Immigration Impact of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II

A Once-in-a-Generation Constitutional Trifecta

Three Supreme Court Cases That Could Restore the Foundations of Self-Government In most Supreme Court terms, we see important cases that refine doctrine or settle discrete disputes. But every so often, perhaps once in a generation, the docket aligns on questions that strike at the structural pillars of how Americans choose their representatives, conduct their elections, and define membership in the polity. The 2025–2026 term appears poised to deliver exactly that kind of moment with three pending cases: Louisiana v. Callais, Watson v. RNC, and Trump v. Barbara. In essence, these cases ask: May race predominate in drawing congressional districts to…

Continue ReadingA Once-in-a-Generation Constitutional Trifecta

Trump is Wrong on Loan Forgiveness

Trump’s Expansion of Loan Forgiveness: An Originalist and Principled Critique The Trump administration’s October 2025 decision to process $400 billion in student debt cancellation for 30 million borrowers under the Higher Education Act (HEA) represents a significant act of executive overreach. By accelerating forgiveness through adjustments to income-driven repayment (IDR) plans-reducing timelines to as little as 10 years for many-the Department of Education has revived and broadened a framework originally developed under prior administrations. This move comes despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, which invalidated a comparable $430 billion plan for lacking explicit congressional authorization. As an…

Continue ReadingTrump is Wrong on Loan Forgiveness

Supreme Court Roundup: Originalism vs. Delegation in Landmark Cases

Supreme Court Roundup for the 2024-2025 Term The Supreme Court’s 2025 term grappled with fundamental questions of constitutional structure, delegation, and equality, as evidenced by three pivotal cases: FCC v. Consumers’ Research, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., and Louisiana v. Callais. These cases probe the boundaries of Congress’s authority to delegate power, the executive’s appointment processes, and the tension between statutory mandates and constitutional protections. Each decision reflects a clash between modern judicial deference and strict originalist interpretations, emphasizing the Framers’ intent to safeguard democratic accountability and equal protection under the law. The analyses below explore the majority, concurring, and dissenting…

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Roundup: Originalism vs. Delegation in Landmark Cases

Paxton Decision Affirms State Power to Shield Kids from Online Pornography

An Originalist Victory in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. ___, upheld Texas’s H.B. 1181, a law requiring age verification for websites with material deemed “obscene for minors.” From an originalist perspective, interpreting the Constitution by its 1791 public meaning, this ruling affirms state authority to protect societal welfare while honoring the First Amendment’s core protections. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, applied intermediate scrutiny, aligning with the Founding-era…

Continue ReadingPaxton Decision Affirms State Power to Shield Kids from Online Pornography

A Victory for Parents Rights

Parental Rights Upheld: An Originalist Victory in the Landmark Mahmoud v. Taylor In its landmark 6-3 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Supreme Court bolstered parental rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, shielding families from state-mandated curricula that clash with their religious beliefs. From an originalist perspective, interpreting t Like this post? Become a Citizen Producer! he Constitution by its 1791 text and public meaning, this ruling echoes the Framers’ commitment to protecting religious liberty from government overreach. Yet, it also sparks debate about balancing individual rights with state authority over education-a tension rooted in Founding-era principles. Drawing…

Continue ReadingA Victory for Parents Rights

Trump v. CASA, Inc. is an Originalist Triumph

The Supreme Court’s Rebuke of Universal Injunctions: An Originalist Victory in Trump v. CASA, Inc. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, decisively curtailed the use of universal (nationwide) injunctions in legal challenges to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which seeks to redefine birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. From an originalist perspective, rooted in the Constitution and statutes like the Judiciary Act of 1789, this ruling stands as a triumph for confining judicial remedies to their historical limits, thereby preserving the separation of powers envisioned by…

Continue ReadingTrump v. CASA, Inc. is an Originalist Triumph

An Originalist Perspective on Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

An Originalist Perspective on Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic: State Sovereignty Triumphs in Medicaid Funding Dispute On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, upholding South Carolina’s authority to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program without facing private lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983. From an originalist perspective, the ruling reflects a faithful adherence to the original public meaning of §1983 (enacted in 1871) and the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution), reinforcing state sovereignty, judicial restraint, and legislative authority. This column explores the…

Continue ReadingAn Originalist Perspective on Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

The War Powers Resolution is Unconstitutional

An Originalist Case Against the War Powers Resolution In the sweltering Philadelphia summer of 1787, the Framers of the Constitution grappled with a question that had plagued republics and monarchies alike: who should wield the power to wage war? Drawing on the lessons of European monarchs who dragged nations into ruinous conflicts, they sought to craft a system that balanced deliberate democratic consent with the need for swift action in times of crisis. The result, enshrined in Article I, Section 8, gave Congress the power to “declare War,” while Article II, Section 2 designated the President as “Commander in Chief” of…

Continue ReadingThe War Powers Resolution is Unconstitutional

Fisking the NY Times on Skrmetti

A Fisking of The New York Times’ Article on United States v. Skrmetti: A Synthesized Narrative The New York Times article, “How a Landmark Case on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors Was Built on Flawed Politics and Uncertain Science”, published on June 19, 2025, provides a detailed account of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The piece frames the ruling as a significant setback for transgender rights, attributing it to a conservative backlash and a strategic misstep by transgender advocates. While the article offers a nuanced perspective, blending…

Continue ReadingFisking the NY Times on Skrmetti