My SCOTUSBlog post on Noel Canning: “What divides the Court, and what unites it.”

As promised yesterday, I have more extended thoughts about Noel Canning as part of SCOTUSBlog’s symposium on the decision. Here’s how my piece begins:

For those who care primarily about partisan politics, labor law, or the narrative of executive overreach, the Court’s decision today in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning is a unanimous one. But for those who care primarily about constitutional interpretation, history, or originalism, the case represents a deep divide. Or at least it seems to.

In the second part of the piece (“Stepping back from the question of interpretive methodology and into a narrower role as critic …”) I also discuss the arbitrariness of the majority’s rule (“a whiff of magic”) and the question of how long the appointments last.

I wrote my piece before reading theirs, but you can find the opposing perspective from Eric Posner and Peter Shane.

Will Baude is an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, where he teaches constitutional law and federal courts. His recent articles include Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power, (Yale Law Journal, 2013), and Beyond DOMA: State Choice of Law in Federal Statutes, (Stanford Law Review, 2012).
Show Comments
Most Read National



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Next Story
Eugene Volokh · June 27, 2014