My colleague Stephen Vladeck has a guest column at JURIST in which he looks at Jose Padilla and the Mulligan Problem. It’s a very clear explanation that should appeal to both lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Recent Bluessky Posts- Liberty U career serv job advice, "The two most important requirements are you MUST be aligned politically with President Trump and his administration and you must be willing to work hard. Don’t be scared off by the transcript requirement. GPA is not a strong factor." abovethelaw.com/2026/03/law-... March 3, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Markets being perfect yadda yadda I should be able to buy a put on my lovely South Florida home, no? Or sell with a life estate remainder? March 2, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- For ages MS Word has shown black bars when I select text--but only after waking from sleep. Restarting Word solves it, but if you have many docs open it is a pain. At last I think I've found the solution in a registry hack! learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answer... (See 1st response, not the complaint.) March 2, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Quantum computing, like fusion power, is always a few years away. The fusion horizon only very gradually shrinks, but timelines for useful QC are shrinking a lot faster. Still can't tell if it's hype or not, but folks are talking as if it's coming soonish. Cf. technologyreview.us11.list-manage.com March 2, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- The terrific preliminary program for We Robot 2026, to be held April 23-25, in Berlin is now online! 🤖 Get your tickets now! pretix.eu/werobot26/ti... March 2, 2026 Michael Froomkin
He makes a very scary point about the likelihood of the Court just bouncing it to Congress, and Congress complying… but… suppose Congress did pass a law suspending the writ. Would that law, Milligan or otherwise, be constitutional? Can we rely on Scalia to vote as a good little originalist that “Rebellion or Invasion” as the constitionally prescribed condition for suspending the writ means “Rebellion or Invasion” and not “amorphous fears of terrorism?
Resisting the temptation to talk in the third person, I think that _that_ is the real question… The Supreme Court has _never_ even tried to construe the language of the Suspension Clause, most recently bending over backwards to avoid doing so in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). [Although it’s possible that the REAL ID Act of 2005 will render the constitutional question presented in St. Cyr entirely unavoidable, but I digress…]
The problem is that the government’s argument on this point is immediately self-apparent: Jose Padilla, if he really _is_ a member of al Qaeda, is “invading” the U.S. just as the saboteurs did in _Quirin_… The better hook, I think, would not be the “rebellion or invasion” prong of the Suspension Clause, but the “when . . . the public safety may requite it” prong. Even if this _is_ an “invasion,” does the “public safety” really require suspension of the great writ? I sure hope not…
Resisting the temptation to talk in the third person, I think that _that_ is the real question… The Supreme Court has _never_ even tried to construe the language of the Suspension Clause, most recently bending over backwards to avoid doing so in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001). [Although it’s possible that the REAL ID Act of 2005 will render the constitutional question presented in St. Cyr entirely unavoidable, but I digress…]
The problem is that the government’s argument on this point is immediately self-apparent: Jose Padilla, if he really _is_ a member of al Qaeda, is “invading” the U.S. just as the saboteurs did in _Quirin_… The better hook, I think, would not be the “rebellion or invasion” prong of the Suspension Clause, but the “when . . . the public safety may require it” prong. Even if this _is_ an “invasion,” does the “public safety” really require suspension of the great writ? I sure hope not…