Orcinus summarizes recent developments on other briefings to GW Bush besides the infamous smoking memo. Most interesting to me is the stuff at the end, discussing how the administration is abusing the classification procedures. The national interest certainly may be damaged by the release of sensitive information about the content of a briefing. But once the info is out, how is the national (as opposed to political) interest hurt by releasing the names of the recipients of a memo?
Recent Bluessky Posts- Judicial recusal (in FL and I presume elsewhere) is required for "a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them [judge or spouse], or the spouse of such a person". Parent- and siblings-in-law thus are covered. July 31, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Jotwell Int'l: Jaclyn Neo, Responsiveness as a Constitutional Value, JOTWELL (July 31, 2026) (reviewing Rosalind Dixon, The New Responsive Constitutionalism, 87 Mod. L. Rev. 799 (2024)), intl.jotwell.com/responsivene.... July 31, 2026 Jotwell
- And to think I used to feel a bit guilty for teaching at a private university. (It's expensive, although there are lots of scholarships.) July 31, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Sure but it's a vivid and handy example of what he could reasonably have feared. AGs in FL and TX are headline-chasing MAGA-pandering zealots and one ignores their existence at one's peril. July 30, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- That's not what you'd advise your client, is it? Surely the safe course is to be silent? And certainly his legal right. July 30, 2026 Michael Froomkin
