10 April 2025
Gaming Procedure, Gutting Due Process
The Trump administration has admitted that sending Abrego Garcia to a supermax prison in El Salvador known for human rights abuses was an “administrative error” but contends before the U.S. Supreme Court that there is nothing a federal court can do about that. As I shall explain, the Solicitor General’s argument ultimately rests on the claim that the president who frequently boasts about his abilities as a deal maker is a lousy negotiator. Continue reading >>
0 
31 March 2025
The Executive’s Responsibility for the Constitution
Who is responsible for safeguarding the constitution? Traditionally, constitutional lawyers have focused on the courts. But the alarming actions of Trump 2.0 and democratic backsliding across the world suggests we should think far more about the role of the executive. The UK House of Lords Constitution Committee (“the Committee”) has recently published a report on Executive oversight and responsibility for the UK constitution, which emphasizes institutions, in particular the civil service, as a solution the threats to constitutional governance posed but the executive. But this may be wishful thinking. Continue reading >>
0
13 February 2025
Transgender Rights at a Crossroads in the United States
In his first month in office, US President Donald Trump has issued a series of sweeping executive orders targeting transgender rights. These orders build on political terrain that is now exceedingly hostile to transgender rights. In this post, I briefly examine the landscape for transgender rights in the United States, analyze what President Trump’s executive orders on transgender rights aim to do, and then discuss the stakes of United States v. Skrmetti, the pending Supreme Court case that will likely set out the framework that federal courts will use in adjudicating transgender rights cases under the Trump administration and beyond. Continue reading >>
0
31 January 2025
Carte Blanche for Judicial Appointments?
In the recent Valančius judgment, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice or ECJ), ruled on Union law requirements for the judicial appointment procedure to the EU General Court. Having previously clarified the Union law requirements for the selection procedures of national judges, the Valančius case at first sight confirms the applicability of these requirements to the selection procedure of EU General Court judges. However, a closer look reveals that the judgment risks effectively giving carte blanche for Member States to design the national stage of the appointment procedure regarding EU General Court judges. Continue reading >>24 January 2025
The US Supreme Court and Plutocracy
Populist authoritarianism is a global phenomenon. However, the US is the only so-called consolidated democracy where its ascent has been eased by the systematic dismantling of legal limits on campaign donations. US elections are now not only the world’s most costly, but they are also directly subject to the inordinate influence of wealthy individuals and corporations. The Supreme Court of the United States’ 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling has paved the way for the emergence of so-called “super” PACS (political action committees) that, while formally barred from coordinating with candidates or parties, can accept unlimited corporate contributions. Continue reading >>22 January 2025
On Peru’s Constitutional Crisis
Two hundred years after gaining independence, Peru finds itself in a state of political instability. Over the past six years, the country has had six different presidents — largely due to a persistent power struggle between the Legislative and Executive branches. The ongoing turmoil indicates that Peru finds itself in a constitutional crisis– a crisis that encompasses both the constitutional text, tainted by its authoritarian history, and the political constitution, understood as the actual form of government. Continue reading >>
0
28 November 2024
Of Minor Benefits and Major Costs
Is general and indiscriminate data retention permissible under the EU fundamental rights framework? In La Quadrature du Net II, the Court tilts the metaphorical scale towards data retention. The take-away could contribute to the enlargement of privatised surveillance that rests on a generalised pre-emptive data retention scheme. The ECJ’s findings could cement intrusive practices emerging from the counter-terrorism narrative to regular state practice at the expense of fundamental rights protection. Continue reading >>
0
26 November 2024
Protecting Victims Without Mass Surveillance
Mass data retention is on the rise. In the current heyday of security packages in Germany, we are now witnessing a “super grand coalition” in favor of mandatory IP address retention. Some are calling for greater protection for victims through data retention. Yet, what one often overlooks is the following: The investigative capacities of law enforcement authorities have never been better, and the digital data pools that can be analyzed have never been larger. Hence, victims must be protected without mass surveillance. Continue reading >>
0
26 November 2024
Eyes Everywhere
Ten years after its groundbreaking judgment declaring the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the EU Charter, the Full Court significantly eased its previously strict requirements. On 30 April 2024, it issued La Quadrature Du Net II and, for the first time, declared the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses permissible for the purpose of fighting general crime. Given the CJEU’s fundamental change of heart, we have gathered a range of scholars to contextualize the judgment and situate it within the broader debate on mass data retention, online surveillance, and anonymity. Continue reading >>
0