Elon Musk just created ~5,000 new millionaires, current and former $SPCX employees. Of those ~5,000 people, roughly 400 of them will see stakes worth $100 million.

I'm not sure I would call it interesting legally speaking, since it's black letter law (Evans v. Abney). I'm more surprised that a race exclusive scholarship was deemed by a court to have an illegal purpose at all, considering how common they are.

Gifted and Talented, or G&T, programs have long been a perennial subject of debate, particularly in New York City, where it has bedeviled mayors for years. Some parents have already washed their hands of the whole G&T business, refusing to participate in what they view as a corrupt system of segregation. But countless others still place significant stock in the G&T designation and what it offers and are comfortable relying on cognitive testing, should it be required, to determine whether a child qualifies. “When your intelligence is the foundation of your self-perception, failing to achieve feels like soul death,” writes Katie Arnold-Ratliff. But if the limited amount of information we have about gifted kids long-term is any indication, most lead, at best, ordinary lives of modest accomplishment. A 35-year study of 677 gifted children found that by age 50, only 12.3 percent had reached a level of “eminence,” defined as “full professors … Fortune 500 executives … judges and lawyers, leaders in biomedicine, award-winning journalists and writers.” This means 88 percent never did. Arnold-Ratliff digs into the myth of the gifted child, and how our notions of intelligence may be inherently flawed: nymag.visitlink.me/9mc2Wh

v thankful for Times New Roman

We're hiring! @CatoInstitute is looking for a legal fellow to join our Constitutional Studies team. You'll write and edit amicus briefs, author op-eds and blog posts, and speak to the media and the general public about legal and constitutional issues from a libertarian perspective. Link to apply below.

🔥Hot off the presses: @TheJusticeDept issued an opinion today explaining that disparate-impact liability under federal employment law is *unconstitutional*. This is an earthquake in federal civil rights law. If right, this is the foundation to overturn that pernicious regime.

Office of Legal Counsel Concludes That Disparate Impact Liability Under Title VII Is Unconstitutional. Two decades after Justice Scalia's Ricci concurrence, the "war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged" very soon. reason.com/volokh/2026/06/09…

🔥Hot off the presses: @TheJusticeDept issued an opinion today explaining that disparate-impact liability under federal employment law is *unconstitutional*. This is an earthquake in federal civil rights law. If right, this is the foundation to overturn that pernicious regime.

The CA Legislature tried to strike these words from the state constitution in 2020 (put there by Prop 209 in 1996). The voters smacked them down when 57.23% said NO—despite the YES campaign outspending the NO team by more than 14 to 1. Now they’re trying again—calling it a “clarification” instead of an effort to gut the provision’s application to public education. Don’t believe them. If approved by the voters, this would be a major change. The aim is to pave the way for the recommendations of California’s Task Force on Reparations. The Task Force wants to make college free to African Americans no matter how well off their parents are and to get school districts to fund individual schools based on the race of the students who attend. @christopherrufo