@IJ's Research Attorney for Legal History. Posting amusing historical finds plus the occasional paper. Views mine (or centuries old).
Joined February 2026
- Tweets 103
- Following 85
- Followers 54
- Likes 114
24 Photos and videos
May 29
Always love being on the show!
Our Latest Podcast: Stateless in Seattle
With @danielznelson & @GrimHogun!
youtu.be/wg5Smr19cpI?si=geZb…
1
18
Daniel Nelson retweeted
Apr 16
The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause be supported by “Oath or affirmation” before a warrant can issue, but the Supreme Court effectively removed that requirement in Jones v. US.
Today, @IJ filed a cert. petition in Mendenhall v. Denver, urging the Court to put it back.
5
36
198
22,330
Mar 31
Today, in Chiles v. Salazar, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" is a viewpoint-based restriction on speech and remanded for full, First Amendment scrutiny.
The outcome was expected, as @PaulMSherman and I note in our forthcoming paper.
1/
2
2
5
589
Mar 31
Colorado justified its speech ban by invoking a historical tradition of regulating the conduct of licensed professionals. The Supreme Court rightly held this history was too general, as it did not evince a history of regulating professional speech in particular.
2/
1
1
3
109
Mar 31
Despite Chiles holding that professional speech is protected speech, governments likely will double their efforts to make a historical case for regulating it. @PaulMSherman's and my paper traces the relevant history and shows no such case exists:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
2
5
572
Mar 31
Not only did @PaulMSherman and Bob McNamara anticipate—years in advance—where SCOTUS would go, they also anticipated the arguments governments would eventually attempt to make to justify regulating the speech of doctors, therapists, lawyers, and other licensed workers.
Mar 31
You know who's looking extremely prescient right now?
Me (and my @IJ colleagues).
harvardlawreview.org/forum/v…
1
102
Daniel Nelson retweeted
Mar 31
Defeating judicial immunity to hold a judge accountable for retaliating against someone for his speech would be a lot of fun and a huge step forward for free speech and government accountability.
It gets worse. This weekend after seeing the video, a veteran criminal defense lawyer (with no cases in this guy’s civil court) wrote this judge an email telling the judge he needed to apologize. The judge responded by accusing the lawyer of making an ex parte communication and ordered him to appear next week under threat of contempt.
I’m a member of the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association “Strike Force,” a group of several lawyers tasked with defending lawyers against judicial overreach at a moment’s notice. We’ll be there to make sure this judge does not try to jail a veteran lawyer just for exercising his First Amendment rights in criticizing an elected judge’s behavior.
9
86
5,002
Mar 25
U.S. Camel Corps. never got a fair shake.
Mar 23
A camel named Douglas served with the Confederacy during the Civil War.
This is his grave.
123
Daniel Nelson retweeted
A dead pope being put on trial
6
10
85
3,744
Mar 24
Very excited to work and publish with the Journal of Law and Civil Governance at Texas A&M!
Mar 24
I'm pleased to report that my article with Daniel Nelson, "The (Weak) Historical Case for Licensing Speech," is now forthcoming in the Tex. A&M Journal of Law and Civil Governance!
2
103
Daniel Nelson retweeted
Mar 24
A knight in a boat drawn by a swan. 15th century.
7
102
686
9,296
Daniel Nelson retweeted
Mar 12
Thrilled to share that my recent article, "The Original Meaning of 'Searches,'" is forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law @PennJCL.
SSRN link below, and comments very welcome!
Feb 25
The Supreme Court will decide this term, in Chatrie v. U.S., whether executing a multi-step geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The en banc Fourth Circuit deadlocked 7-7 on what they took to be the relevant question: whether the gov't conducted a "search."
For years, courts have been confused about how to determine which government acts count as a "search" under the Amendment. More recently, the search tests that produce the confusion have been defended as historically rooted. They're not, and the historical evidence is overwhelming. A draft of my new article is up on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.… Comments welcome at jwrench@ij.org.
12
47
8,071