Prof @BU_Law. JD/PhD History & dad jokes. 5th most-cited legal historian, 2019-23. https://xitter.cf/t.co/pNx2Rx4e3U https://xitter.cf/t.co/Rdnudr0EcV
Boston, MA
Joined December 2010
- Tweets39.5K
- Following1.8K
- Followers40.9K
- Likes63K
Pinned Tweet
With the outstanding teamwork of Brendan Benedict and Michael Altebrando, Evan Bernick & I proudly filed this originalist amicus brief defending birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara:
supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2…
Today 12:45 Keynote:
@CassSunstein (@Harvard_Law), “History and Tribalism in Constitutional Law”
@BULawReview Symposium Oct. 21-24
"Presidentialism and the Escalation of Executive Power"
bu.edu/law/engagements/fall-…
The site includes a Zoom link for today's keynote
Jed Shugerman retweeted
Looking forward to discussing The Constitution of Practice at BU Law this week, at @jedshug legal history series! bu.edu/law/faculty-and-staff…
Jed Shugerman retweeted
History and Tribalism in Constitutional Law, forthcoming in final form, BU Law Review. @jedshug
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
Jed Shugerman retweeted
Everyone freaking out on here that they will no longer be able to pass AI writing off as their own work due to watermarks is objectively hilarious.
Jed Shugerman retweeted
The outrage generated by this appears to entirely come from people who have been passing off AI work as their own and are worried about being busted?
Plagiarism is bad, even if the target is an LLM.
Jed Shugerman retweeted
[rubs hands in anticipation of outing so many slop generating frauds]
Anthropic says new Claude models will embed invisible watermarks in all generated text, everywhere Claude is offered.
The watermark is part of the text, it isn't metadata: "it will travel with the text when it's copied and pasted elsewhere, and may persist through some editing."
This starts with models launched on or after August 2, 2026, under an EU AI Act code Anthropic signed. Anthropic is still working on adding it to current models. The rollout is worldwide.
Jed Shugerman retweeted
This is a fatal flaw in Roberts’ analysis in Slaughter. He cites a 1780 note in which Thomas Jefferson *recognized* good behavior and term of years tenure protections.
Daily Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #4:
In Slaughter, Roberts Omitted the Parts of Jefferson's 1780 Notes that Contradicted His Theory open.substack.com/pub/jedshu…
Jed Shugerman retweeted
Shalev's work on the separation of powers is some of my very favorite recent con law scholarship - both doctrinally and normatively rigorous, sensitive to institutional design and functional considerations while properly attuned to legal form. I'm really looking forward to reading this piece.
New draft paper on SSRN: "Fact Avoidance," forthcoming in @HarvLRev Supreme Court Issue.
This Essay identifies a recurring feature in SCOTUS case law, where the Court decides presidential power cases entirely on legal grounds without engaging at all with the facts /1
Jed Shugerman retweeted
Does the Constitution grant the president power to fire anyone in the executive branch? Michael Ramsey and @jedshug discuss recent #SCOTUS decisions on the president’s removal power.
Listen to #WeThePeoplePodcast now: ow.ly/4yJT50Zs2mP
Jed Shugerman retweeted
2) And my goodness, Ilan, you wrote an entire book on First Congress while you were writing this article.
You couldn't do your own research?
Grossly irresponsible.
Everyone can hear you dodge the questions and dodge responsibility.
Here are the receipts:
jedshugerman977482.substack.…
Our "Blessings of Liberty" podcast about presidential removal & birthright citizenship is up.
I gave @ilan_wurman a week's notice to address his specific misuses of historical sources.
He dodged.
So I posted the details.
Control-F Around and Find Out.
open.substack.com/pub/jedshu…
I think listeners can hear that Wurman could not support his claims about:
the Appointments Clause and the First Congress;
his misuse of and omissions from Jefferson's 1780 note; nor his misuse of Attorney General Bates on birthright citizenship:
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…
Even better, listeners can READ for themselves:
See below w/ full quotations and links.
The podcast only for shows @ilan_wurman had ample notice and opportunity to either cite evidence or concede error.
The problem is that Roberts bought his work.
jedshugerman977482.substack.…
Jed Shugerman retweeted
Even if you had refuted his work in that clip (which you didn't), you literally don't say one word about why your use of Jefferson's 1780 note omitted both important context and the passages that contradicted your argument. :)
Can you do so, please? Or can't you?
Daily Supreme Court Historical Fact-Check #4:
In Slaughter, Roberts Omitted the Parts of Jefferson's 1780 Notes that Contradicted His Theory open.substack.com/pub/jedshu…
@ilan_wurman, care to comment on your use of Jefferson's 1780 note in your article and amicus brief?
Why did you omit the context and passages that contradicted your interpretation of the letter and your overall argument?
And @ilan_wurman, can you explain your use the First Congress & of my evidence on the symmetry rule in your article & Slaughter amicus?
Specifically:
Did a single presidentialist in 1789 actually interpret the Appointments Clause as you suggest?
papers.ssrn.com/abstract=607…
Jed Shugerman retweeted
#BULawProf @JedShug joins Sam Bagenstos (@michiganlaw) on Dahlia Lithwick’s Amicus podcast to deconstruct SCOTUS decisions that will affect millions of Americans for years to come.
Listen: spr.ly/6013BEHq3R spr.ly/6011BEHq3P
Daily SCOTUS Historical Fact-Check, Part 1:
I'm starting a daily SCOTUS fact-check after a whopper term, full of erroneous historical whoppers.
1. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the result. Why did he bend over backward to call it a dissent?
open.substack.com/pub/jedshu…
2/ Our conversation on "Bad History":
The Robert Court, presidential power & birthright citizenship
Posted on Independence Day... poetic justice, given the Roberts Court's royalism & misuse of historical evidence from the Founding.
More fact-checking TK
slate.com/podcasts/amicus/20…