Dan Epps
Howard and Caroline Cayne Distinguished Professor of Law, WUSTL. Con law 📜, crim law/pro 👮, SCOTUSology 🏛. Cohost 🎤 @dividedargument.bsky.social.
- I very much appreciate Mark’s engagement and think he makes some good points worth reading!
- New post from me on the @dividedargument.bsky.social blog: "Case v. Montana and the General Law Approach to the Fourth Amendment" blog.dividedargument.com/p/case-v-mon...
- What you want today: Tariffs, Voting Rights What you’ll (probably) get instead: USPS v. Konan (liability for undelivered mail); Coney Island Auto Parts (time limits for motions to set aside void judgments)
- Reposted by Dan Epps[Not loaded yet]
- When you’re waiting for huge opinions, never, ever underestimate the Court’s ability to disappoint you.
- Reposted by Dan Epps[Not loaded yet]
- Regardless of one's view of politics, is it a better world if courts declare—even in ordinary breach-of-contract cases—that "Plaintiff wins because he's a Dem" (or R based on who appointed the judge)? Even if you dislike judicial review, we need courts for ordinary disputes. We need law for those.
- Pretty sure I'm one of the folks Mark's subtweeting. While I don’t feel compelled to respond, this actually provides a beautiful lesson for how academics and other serious observers might think about engaging with the Court and law. (thread)
- To establish my bona fides: I'm no staunch defender of the Court. I was one of the earliest advocates of Court reform in the wake of the AMK --> BMK rightward shift, and that work played a role in 2020 Dem primary. And I worked for Sen. Whitehouse during the ACB confirmation.
