16 May 2025
Whom Is Citizenship For?
On Thursday, May 15, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in “the birthright citizenship case.” Instead of deciding on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order (EO) banning birthright citizenship for certain classes of individuals, the Court is asked to decide whether lower courts exceeded their authority in placing a nation-wide injunction on the government’s order. But this doesn't make the decision any less significant. Continue reading >>
0 
16 May 2025
Undoing the American Rechtsstaat
Donald Trump’s return to the forefront of U.S. politics brings an urgent constitutional question back into focus: Can the American administrative state survive another presidency driven by executive absolutism? Recent developments before the Supreme Court, especially in Trump v. U. S., suggest that long-standing norms and legal safeguards are under siege. This post explores how a second Trump term might exploit structural vulnerabilities in U.S. public law, with consequences that extend far beyond American borders. Continue reading >>
0
06 May 2025
Trump 2.0 as ‘Dual State’?
Donald Trump’s radicalized efforts to transform US constitutional democracy into personalized executive-centered rule have again generated a predictable avalanche of invocations of Carl Schmitt. Less predictably, recent political commentators have turned to one of Schmitt’s contemporary critics, the mid-century socialist jurist and political scientist, Ernst Fraenkel, claiming that his account of the Nazi “dual state,” in which rule-based normative and discretionary prerogative legal spheres uneasily coexisted, provides a useful template for making sense of Trump 2.0’s highly selective rendition of legal fidelity. Continue reading >>30 April 2025
Harvard Under Attack
Since Donald Trump took office as the 47th President of the United States of America, hardly a week has gone by without academic institutions coming under attack. The U.S. government is now claiming that Harvard - and other universities - are violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by serving as “breeding grounds for anti-Semitism”. This raises numerous constitutional questions. Continue reading >>
0
30 April 2025
Diabolus Advocati
Der Überfluss an verfassungsrechtlichen Sünden der Trump-Administration kaschiert manchmal die Unbegreiflichkeit der einzelnen Tat. Ein Baustein des Angriffs auf den Rechtstaat in seiner Gesamtheit ist der Feldzug der Regierung gegen bestimmte Anwaltskanzleien. Die Vorgänge werfen nicht nur berufsrechtliche Fragestellungen im Hinblick auf die in Deutschland zugelassenen Rechtsanwälte dieser Kanzleien auf – sondern auch nach der Resilienz der Anwaltschaft in Deutschland. Eine sinnvolle Resilienzmaßnahme wäre eine Verankerung der Anwaltschaft im Grundgesetz. Continue reading >>30 April 2025
The Legal Authority (or Lack Thereof) for Trump’s Tariffs
The Trump tariffs have increased the average weighted U.S. tariff to 23% – a ten-fold increase from a year ago. Outside observers have been puzzled about how one person, even the U.S. president, has the power to single-handedly enact such sweeping changes to the U.S. and global economy. In fact, President Trump may not – and in my view, does not – have the power to impose most of his tariffs. Continue reading >>29 April 2025
Harvard Under Attack
Seit dem Amtsantritt von Donald Trump als 47. Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika vergeht kaum eine Woche, in der wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen nicht attackiert werden. Die US-Regierung macht nun geltend, dass Harvard – und andere Universitäten – gegen Title VI des Civil Rights Acts verstießen, indem sie als „Brutstätten für Antisemitismus“ dienten. Das wirft allerlei verfassungsrechtliche Fragen auf. Continue reading >>
0
11 April 2025
The U.S. President’s Electoral Power Play
On March 25, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) purporting to restructure American election administration. The ironically titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” EO sets out to, among other things, require those registering to vote in federal elections to present documentary proof of citizenship, and threatens to penalize states that accept late arriving ballots (i.e., mail ballots that are sent prior to, yet not received until after, Election Day). The EO has several legal deficiencies and much of it should be invalidated by the federal judiciary. Continue reading >>
0
31 March 2025
Silencing Greenpeace
In a stark example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), a United States (US) state court compelled Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for facilitating trespass, conversion, nuisance, defamation, and civil conspiracy. The EU has correctly recognized the harm posed by SLAPPs in so far that they diminish civil society’s capacity to represent under- or unrepresented interest groups, and leverage civil law proceedings to stifle dissent in favor of the economically and politically powerful. Now, we will see if the Anti-SLAPP Directive is robust enough to protect European civil society actors from abusive lawsuits. Continue reading >>26 March 2025