Adam's Legal Newsletter

Adam's Legal Newsletter offers comprehensive analyses of contemporary legal issues, Supreme Court cases, and legislative actions affecting constitutional rights, federal laws, and judicial processes. It delves into topics such as abortion laws, presidential powers, civil rights, and legal interpretations, providing in-depth discussions on the rulings, legal principles, and potential implications.

Constitutional Law Supreme Court Decisions Abortion Legislation and Litigation Presidential Authority and Legal Challenges Federal vs. State Legal Conflicts Legal System and Judicial Process Civil Rights and Liberties Legal Interpretation and Methodology Artificial Intelligence in Law Legal Ethics and Governance

The hottest Substack posts of Adam's Legal Newsletter

And their main takeaways

In AI we trust

399 implied HN points • 08 Jun 24

🕹 Technology AI Legal system

AI can be highly efficient and accurate in determining the ordinary meaning of English words, surpassing traditional tools like dictionaries.
AI's potential in judicial decision-making is more advanced and practical than previously thought, capable of quickly and accurately resolving cases while avoiding human biases.
Integrating AI into the legal system, especially in appellate cases, offers various benefits such as speed, consistency, and precise outcomes, though careful testing and consideration of ethics and alignment concerns are essential.

Don't blame the Arizona Supreme Court

619 implied HN points • 12 Apr 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legislature

The Arizona Supreme Court's decision regarding the abortion law was influenced by the explicit instructions from the state legislature.
The blame for the current harsh abortion law in Arizona lies with the politicians who passed legislation in 2022, not the court.
The 2022 legislation intentionally maintained the 1864 abortion law with the knowledge and consent of the lawmakers. Now, the citizens are affected by a law that many oppose.

It begins

1677 implied HN points • 08 Aug 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Judiciary Government Indictment

In United States v. Trump, Judge Cannon's order in the Southern District of Florida raises concerns about her administration of the case, despite government arguments against her recusal.
The Justice Department's motion for a 'Garcia hearing' in the Southern District of Florida raises issues of potential conflicts of interest for one of Trump's co-defendants and the need for protecting the defendant's rights to unconflicted counsel.
Judge Cannon's actions in denying the Justice Department's motion to seal and requesting briefing on grand jury proceedings in a seemingly inconsistent manner, prompting questions about her decisions and the case's future direction.

Florida man found with contraband

479 implied HN points • 07 Apr 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legislation Legal system Presidency Court rulings

The Presidential Records Act defense Trump is using isn't strong but has caused some interesting legal disputes.
The court's handling of the case's legal issues has caused confusion and potential problems, particularly regarding the classification of documents.
The outcome of the case is uncertain, with various possibilities, but the likelihood of a major, unexpected ending is low.

AHM v. FDA reaches the Supreme Court

499 implied HN points • 28 Mar 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Supreme Court FDA Abortion Standing

Plaintiffs in the case lack standing, which weakens their argument. They need to show personal harm, not just philosophical opposition.
Even if plaintiffs had standing, their claims fail on the merits. The FDA's decisions were well-reasoned and based on evidence, debunking plaintiffs' objections.
Banning mifepristone won't help the plaintiff-doctors study it; rather, it will hinder data collection. The FDA's evaluation of studies appears rational and reasonable.

Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Mifepristone and the rule of law, part II

2037 implied HN points • 10 Apr 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal FDA Judicial Abortion Safety

The district court's decision to overturn the FDA's approval of mifepristone is based on a variety of reasons, such as standing, timeliness, exhaustion, and the merits of the FDA's actions.
The court assessed issues like the criteria for standing, timeliness of the lawsuit, the exhaustion of legal claims, and the agency's compliance with regulations.
In examining the merits, the court questioned the FDA's safety analysis, imposition of restrictions, political influences, and the reasoning behind decisions made over a span of decades.

Narrow decisions, broad goals

239 implied HN points • 29 May 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court Partisanship Race

The South Carolina redistricting case was decided 6 to 3, with a majority opinion written by Republican-appointed Justices and a dissent by Democratic-appointed Justices, showing a split along party lines.
The decision-making in cases like _Alexander_ and _Cromartie II_ was influenced by the broader legal context surrounding partisan and racial gerrymandering issues, leading to close calls among the Justices.
Judges tend to apply their ideological views to non-ideological issues when those issues are close, as seen in the standing decisions related to ideological issues in cases like the student loan disputes and _Alexander_.

Revenge of the Statesmen

539 implied HN points • 09 Mar 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Judicial Elections Constitution Federalism

Marbury v. Madison case set a precedent where judicial decisions can have questionable rationales but still deliver impactful results
In the Trump v. Anderson case, the Supreme Court aimed for practical solutions, left doors open for legislative action, and made decisions that balanced unanimity with legitimacy
States should have the authority to apply federal law, including constitutional law, without needing explicit permission, as highlighted by the issues faced in the Trump v. Anderson case

In praise of robotic judging

239 implied HN points • 13 May 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court Law Due process

In judicial decision-making, applying precedent like a robot can lead to simple and predictable case resolutions.
Civil asset forfeiture cases can be complex, leading to unfair outcomes for innocent owners, with issues such as timing, burden of proof, and lack of initial judicial oversight.
While some judges have specific judicial philosophies, there is an argument for mindlessly applying precedent to simplify and predict case outcomes, potentially reducing division and making the judicial process less dependent on individual justices.

It's on, baby!

698 implied HN points • 09 Jan 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Constitutional Law Supreme Court Elections First Amendment

The Constitution does not require states to include currently ineligible candidates on the ballot, even if they may become eligible in the future.
Allowing ineligible candidates on the ballot can lead to confusion for voters and cause controversy if an ineligible candidate wins the election.
Interpreting the Constitution requires sticking to the text rather than overly creative lawyering to avoid confusion and promote understanding among citizens.

They're always guilty ... or are they?

439 implied HN points • 27 Feb 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Philosophical Policy

The case of Diaz v. United States appears simple on the surface but is actually filled with complex disagreements about legal and philosophical issues.
Interpreting legal rules like Rule 704(b) involves considering historical context, policy concerns, and the balance between being too persuasive or not persuasive enough.
Judges have a lot of discretion in interpreting laws, which can lead to differing outcomes based on methodological approaches, making consistency and the role of AI in judging potential areas for improvement.

Mifepristone and the rule of law, part III

1377 implied HN points • 13 Apr 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Standing Abortion FDA

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially granted the FDA's motion regarding mifepristone, subjecting it to pre-2016 regulatory requirements.
The Fifth Circuit's decision was criticized for its analysis of standing, with concerns raised about statistical certainty and the potential harm to doctors.
The court's reasoning on timeliness and exhaustion was questioned, with issues seen as less relevant due to the stay on the 2000 approval of mifepristone. The argument that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act was also discussed.

Is the Supreme Court seriously going to disqualify Trump? (Redux)

659 implied HN points • 21 Dec 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Law Supreme Court Election Insurrection Constitution

Chances of the Supreme Court disqualifying Trump are low but improving, now estimated at around 20%.
The conventional wisdom leans towards the Supreme Court reversing the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, considering factors like democratic norms and legal arguments.
There is a small chance, about 15%, that the Supreme Court might affirm the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to disqualify Trump, based on the quality of legal reasoning in the case.

The Fifth Circuit's mifepristone opinion is wrong

918 implied HN points • 17 Aug 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal system Abortion Standing Medical Ethics

The Fifth Circuit's opinion on standing related to mifepristone is controversial and may be overturned.
Plaintiffs in the case lack standing as their claims are speculative and not aligned with the interests of their potential patients.
The court's reasoning may have far-reaching implications, allowing doctors to challenge a wide range of government regulations based on personal aesthetic preferences.

On Disney v. DeSantis

1038 implied HN points • 15 May 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Law Government Contracts Free speech Constitution

Florida's actions against Disney in response to their criticism of new laws may violate Disney's constitutional rights, including the First Amendment and the Contracts Clause.
The specific laws enacted by Florida to target Disney and revoke their contracts could be considered unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause, regardless of the stated intentions of the lawmakers.
The legal battle between Disney and Florida showcases the complexities of constitutional law and the potential implications of using legislation to retaliate against private entities for exercising their rights.

The Fifth Circuit's mifepristone opinion is wrong, part 2

818 implied HN points • 21 Aug 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal system

The Fifth Circuit's opinions on the FDA's decisions regarding mifepristone were deemed wrong by the author due to the misconception of safety considerations.
The author criticizes the Fifth Circuit's decision for not acknowledging the FDA's rationale that changes to mifepristone were made based on thorough safety analyses.
The litigation exemplifies a contradiction, where decisions by the FDA, medical professionals, state government, and individuals are overruled by the court, impacting access to medical care.

It ain't over 'til it's over

419 implied HN points • 16 Jan 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Abortion Intervention Standing

The judge's ruling allowing intervention in the mifepristone case is considered an abuse of discretion and faces criticism for being based on weak arguments and misinterpretation of legal principles.
The states filed a motion to intervene in the case to continue prosecution if private plaintiffs lose standing, but their arguments for intervention are criticized for being speculative and lacking legal basis.
The judge's reasoning for granting intervention is flawed, showing errors in assessing timeliness, prejudice, and the impact of the district court's judgment on future actions.

Trust the Border Patrol

359 implied HN points • 06 Feb 24

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Judicial system Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, vacated an injunction that restricted the Border Patrol from cutting a fence near the Rio Grande. Governor Abbott disagreed with the decision, claiming Texas's constitutional authority above federal statutes.
Texas put up concertina wire fences near the border to stop illegal immigration, leading to clashes with Border Patrol officials who cut the fences. Issues arose as to whether cutting the fence was justified in enforcing federal immigration law.
The Fifth Circuit granted an injunction to Texas to stop the cutting of the fence, but the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, vacated this injunction without providing any explanation, sparking disagreement and criticism.

Is the Supreme Court seriously going to disqualify Trump?

619 implied HN points • 03 Sep 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal analysis Supreme Court Insurrection Presidency

There is a 10% chance that the Supreme Court finds Trump ineligible for the Presidency under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal challenges to Trump's eligibility would have to navigate multiple obstacles, including Supreme Court acceptance and factual interpretation of the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
The legal argument that the 1872 and 1898 Amnesty Acts remove Section Three's prohibition may present a significant threshold objection to Trump's disqualification.

Reflections on AHM v. FDA

679 implied HN points • 22 Apr 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Judiciary Government Justice Policy

The Supreme Court's order in AHM v. FDA indicates the FDA will likely prevail; legal arguments have been thoroughly aired and further briefing is not expected to change the outcome.
The litigation in AHM v. FDA will continue, with the Fifth Circuit hearing oral arguments next; the Supreme Court may reverse a Fifth Circuit decision if needed.
Proposals to prevent similar situations include eliminating single-judge divisions to avoid forum shopping and improve the administration of justice without needing broader, unwarranted changes.

Contrived cases make bad law

519 implied HN points • 06 Jul 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Court Cases Social Issues Standing

Contrived cases can lead to bad legal precedent - The case of 303 Creative highlights how manufactured or contrived cases can have implications on legal decisions and create potentially problematic precedents.
Verification of claims is crucial - The need to verify claims before relying on them is essential, as seen in the case where a fake request impacted the standing argument of 303 Creative.
Supreme Court involvement in contrived cases - The case of 303 Creative raises questions about whether the Supreme Court should involve itself in controversial issues through manufactured litigation.

Mifepristone and the rule of law, part IV

559 implied HN points • 16 Apr 23

The Fifth Circuit found issues with the FDA's decisions in 2016 regarding mifepristone, specifically regarding safety considerations and changes to labeling.
Another area of contention was the FDA's 2021 decision to no longer enforce an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, with the Fifth Circuit deeming this decision as arbitrary and capricious.
The Fifth Circuit also denied a stay on the approval of a generic version of mifepristone in 2019, without providing any clear explanation for this decision.

The horseshoe theory of law

399 implied HN points • 16 Oct 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Judicial system Legal analysis

The Fifth Circuit's order in the Louisiana redistricting litigation showcases a convergence in judicial approaches between very conservative and very progressive judges, illustrating what can be termed as the horseshoe theory of jurisprudence.
The previous style of progressive judging, exhibited by judges like Stephen Reinhardt and Harry Pregerson, often involved ruling on grounds not argued by parties, relying on personal sense of justice as established law, and taking extraordinary measures for desired outcomes.
The Fifth Circuit's recent mandamus order reflects principles commonly associated with progressive judges, such as ruling sua sponte, viewing the Supreme Court as an antagonist, and deciding issues with a primary goal of advancing personal vision of justice.

Can the government unambiguously waive sovereign immunity by accident?

399 implied HN points • 26 Sep 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal theory

Sovereign immunity is hard to waive, and waivers must be unequivocal and unambiguous to be valid.
In cases like Department of Agriculture v. Kirtz, the issue of inadvertent waiver of sovereign immunity highlights debates between textualism and purposivism in legal interpretation.
When determining legal rules, prioritizing simplicity can save time and costs in litigation, making the law more accessible to the public.

Contrived cases make bad law, part 2

379 implied HN points • 15 Jul 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal LGBTQ+ Supreme Court Freedom of Expression

In legal cases like 303 Creative, contrived situations can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.
The Supreme Court's debate over government's power to compel individuals to act against their beliefs reveals a complex tension.
The lack of genuine, high-stakes conflicts between same-sex couples and opponents of same-sex marriage post-Obergefell shows unexpected harmony.

The Law of Trump - Part II

299 implied HN points • 22 Nov 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Law First Amendment Speech Political Campaigns

The First Amendment is being challenged by the unique case of Trump's statements, requiring the creation of new laws governing his speech.
The court faces challenges in determining the risks justifying a gag order and in assessing the evidence and mental state of Trump's statements.
Trump's political speech blurs the line between protected speech and intimidating behavior, posing challenges for traditional legal analysis.

Supreme Court Roulette

339 implied HN points • 04 Aug 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court Judicial system Decision-making

One proposed idea is Supreme Court Roulette, where a randomly selected Justice's view becomes the opinion of the Court.
The current system of majority rule in the Supreme Court does not necessarily guarantee better or more reasoned decisions.
Implementing Supreme Court Roulette could lead to more moderate decisions reflective of the country and improve incentives for the Justices.

Mifepristone and the rule of law

519 implied HN points • 04 Mar 23

The plaintiffs' case to take mifepristone off the market is weak and likely to fail due to issues with standing and statute of limitations.
The plaintiffs have not exhausted their claims, even though they are required to do so as a prerequisite to judicial review.
The plaintiffs' argument that the FDA violated the FDCA by relying on studies that do not match the conditions of use under the approved label is not supported by any specific statute and is based on an unconventional strategy.

Imprisoning innocent people is bad

319 implied HN points • 02 Jul 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Policy Justice Legislation Reform Courts

Imprisoning innocent people is bad. It's crucial to ensure that those who were wrongfully convicted are not kept in prison.
The rules on post-conviction challenges for prisoners need to be fixed. The current system can prevent innocent prisoners from proving their innocence.
Congress should amend Section 2255 to allow prisoners to bring successive challenges when new Supreme Court decisions establish their innocence. This fix is important to rectify an unfair system.

Why does doctrine get so complicated?

359 implied HN points • 08 May 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Law Legal system Supreme Court Constitutional Rights

Legal disputes can often involve convoluted procedural issues and complex legal analysis, even when the underlying dispute is simple.
The legal system is structured to balance respect for state courts and federal rights, leading to a complex web of conflicting doctrines that can make cases like 'Reed v. Goertz' seem arbitrarily complex.
Path dependence and accretion of legal doctrines contribute to the complexity of the legal system, as past cases and precedents shape the development of law over time.

The Law of Trump - Part I

239 implied HN points • 20 Nov 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal First Amendment Court Cases

The appeal in Trump's case highlights new legal questions that need resolution due to his unconventional actions, leading to the creation of 'The Law of Trump.'
Trump's statements about the prosecutors, judge, and witnesses are at the center of the appeal against a court order restricting his speech, raising First Amendment concerns.
There is a split among lower courts on the constitutionality of gag orders against criminal defendants, with examples like _United States v. Ford_ and _United States v. Brown_ showcasing different perspectives.

Does standing follow the merits?

359 implied HN points • 30 Apr 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal issues Supreme Court

Plaintiffs need to establish standing to file lawsuits in federal court, showing a concrete injury caused by the defendant.
In the Supreme Court, controversial cases may involve standing disputes unrelated to the main merits issue, like determining if plaintiffs have the right to sue.
Justices' views on standing may not always align with their views on the case's merits, leading to intriguing discrepancies in their decisions.

Judging as plumbing

239 implied HN points • 07 Nov 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Law Court Tax Politics Constitution

Judges should focus on providing practical solutions to concrete problems, rather than deeply philosophizing the law.
The case of Moore v. United States involves determining whether a tax is a property tax or an income tax, showcasing the complexity of tax law.
The Sixteenth Amendment allowed Congress to tax incomes without apportionment, highlighting the historical context and significance of constitutional amendments in shaping tax laws.

Sometimes you just have to muddle through

219 implied HN points • 24 Jun 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Supreme Court Constitution Law enforcement

The Supreme Court deals with cases in various ways, from overturning prior decisions to affirming them, based on the current Court's stance and interpretation of the law.
The application of laws, especially when dealing with Congressional spending conditions and private plaintiffs suing states, can result in complex legal interpretations and require balancing conflicting interests.
Legal tests and interpretations sometimes need to be messy and leave doors partially open when history and constitutional ambiguity make clarity difficult to achieve.

The least significant cases of the decade

239 implied HN points • 28 May 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal analysis Supreme Court Civil Service

The Supreme Court ruled on cases that were deemed to be the least significant of the decade, based on various factors like legal issues, difficulty, and practical impact.
The cases analyzed had low scores for interesting facts, law, and difficulty, with some even receiving a total score of zero for insignificance.
Specific cases like 'Kloeckner v. Solis' were highlighted for being particularly unremarkable in terms of facts, law, significance, and practical impact.

In AI we trust, part II

22 HN points • 16 Jun 24

🕹 Technology AI Legal Judiciary Ethics Innovation

AI can adjudicate complex legal cases with impressive accuracy and efficiency, demonstrating a capacity to act as a Supreme Court Justice or law clerk.
AI like Claude can generate creative legal solutions, identify errors in expert testimony, and propose novel legal standards effectively.
The future of AI in the legal industry is promising, as demonstrated by Claude's ability to produce high-quality work at a rapid pace and its potential for further improvement with more training.

Regulating AI in the practice of law

179 implied HN points • 11 Jun 23

Regulating AI in the legal profession is a complex issue with varied concerns like AI mistakes, lack of human discernment, and potential for lying.
Court orders for lawyers to certify AI use and disclosure might impact legal processes, but overly restrictive regulations may hinder efficiency and access to justice.
The debate on AI in law includes considerations of potential displacement of humans, sentimental aspects of lawyering, and existential risks, highlighting the need for careful observation and balanced regulation.

Preserving religious freedom in the workplace

79 implied HN points • 04 Apr 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Religious freedom Supreme Court First Amendment

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects religious freedom in the workplace but requires employers to make accommodations without causing undue hardship, often defined as minimal harm or cost to the business.
Interpreting Title VII in line with traditional conceptions of religious liberty can help navigate the complex idea of 'undue hardship' and ensure protections while avoiding financial burdens on employers.
The case of Groff v. DeJoy highlights the challenge of balancing religious accommodations with fair treatment to all employees, showing the importance of upholding anti-discrimination principles in interpreting the law.

The Last of Us: Part II

79 implied HN points • 17 Mar 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legal Judges Presidents History

In the 19th century, there were actively-serving appointees of 12 different presidents at two different times.
Franklin Pierce played a significant role in the number of judges appointed and serving during his presidency.
Senior judges can play a unique role in the judiciary system, contributing to the historical context of concurrently serving judges from different administrations.

The Last of Us

79 implied HN points • 10 Mar 23

🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Judges Supreme Court

Judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, serve for long periods of time, often among the last to retire from their appointing Presidents.
Many longest-serving judges are district judges who were elevated to courts of appeals, suggesting motivation to seek promotion despite already being lifetime judges.
The data shows a trend where judges interested in promotions tend to keep a full caseload into their older years, contributing to their long and active service.