Alan Williams is the post trade deadline breakout star

After the NBA trade deadline, the NBA’s cellar-dwellers are giving their young talent a shot to prove their worth in the Association. The Phoenix Suns, who currently hold the second worst record in the West, are no exception. And since the Suns began moving towards this youth movement, no player has seized his opportunity as has center Alan “Big Sauce” Williams, a homegrown talent.

Since the All-Star break, Williams has averaged a double-double, putting up 15 points and 9 rebounds in 25 minutes per game. But this should come to no surprise to anyone who has followed Big Sauce’s career (as I have been, as a proud UCSB alum). Earlier this season, Williams put up similar numbers when he received extended minutes in games in which Suns’ big-men Tyson Chandler and Alex Len were unavailable.

Continue reading

Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley: A new day for Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence?

Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley was one of the most anticipated cases on the Supreme Court’s calendar this term. Although the Court agreed to hear this case in January 2016 and briefing for this case has long been complete, the Court just recently scheduled the case for oral argument in April 2017. The Court was likely waiting for a ninth justice to join the bench before considering the case to avoid a 4-4 tie.

Now that this case has been scheduled, we can jump into the fun part: the merits of Trinity Lutheran‘s arguments.

At center of this religious liberty case is a Missouri program that provides grant money to qualifying groups so that they can purchase recycled tires to build rubber surface materials. Trinity Lutheran applied for this grant so that it could acquire material to build a safer playground on its property. Students from its daycare and community members would use the newly resurfaced playground. In the application process, Trinity Lutheran ranked fifth out of forty-four applicants. The state was supposed to award fourteen grants. But Trinity Lutheran did not receive the grant. Missouri categorically barred Trinity Lutheran from receiving a grant because it is a religious institution. Continue reading

In memory of Justice Scalia

One year ago today, the world lost Justice Antonin Scalia. The late Justice Scalia was a giant. His sharp, witty, and brash dissents will influence law students for generations. Whether he was pointing out the wolf that came as a wolf or warning you of jiggery-pokery, he was always able to keep readers engaged. Certainly, some claim that Justice Scalia is overrated. Pure applesauce.

Today, many will take time to reflect on Justice Scalia’s legacy. On the first anniversary of his death, I just want to share my favorite “Scaliaism”—his opening from his concurrence in Schuette v. BAMN:
Continue reading

I’m Late to the Party, but Here are Some Thoughts on Washington v. Trump 

On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay Judge James Robart’s Temporary Restraining Order on the President’s questionable executive order suspending visas and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Considering the 48-hour turnaround between oral argument and the release of the opinion, the Ninth Circuit provided detailed and thoughtful analysis on Washington’s standing to sue, the procedural posture of the case, and the three major constitutional issues that Washington raised. Yet lacking from the 29-page per curiam (unsigned) opinion, was a discussion on 8 U.S.C. § 1882(f), the broad statute that seemingly provides the President unlimited authority to exclude any aliens he deems to be detrimental to the United States.

Some conservatives have jumped on the Ninth Circuit for failing to analyzing the 8 U.S.C. § 1882(f) in considering this case. And rightly so. Courts typically must try to resolve cases on statutory over constitutional grounds. Yet the Ninth Circuit overlooked statutory considerations and relied on the Due Process Clause to uphold the district court’s TRO.

Continue reading

Keeping San Diego classy

Regardless of who wins Super Bowl LI today, San Diego taxpayers are the winners of this NFL season.

Last month, Dean Spanos—the Art Modell (or Robert Isray) of the West—relocated his Chargers 100 miles north to Los Angeles. Ron Burgundy would be proud. The Chargers’ stint in Los Angeles has been off to an acrimonious start. Their new logo became an internet meme. Anthony Lynn, the Chargers’ new head coach, forgot what city he will be coaching in. The NFL is mad that the Chargers left San Diego. And Los Angeles declared in no uncertain terms: WE.DON’T.WANT.YOU.cropped_lame-chargers

Possibly the worst part of this story is their new housing situations. Before they become Stan Kroenke’s tenant, they will play fourteen home games (discounting their two games against the Raiders) in the 30,000 seat Stub Hub Center. 30,000 seats. That is awfully small for an NFL game. It is like your 70-year old grandma downsizing—except it’s with a multi-billion-dollar sports franchise. Continue reading

“Friedrichs Redux” over at Fed Soc Blog

The Federalist Society posted a blog post that my colleague David Dewhirst and I wrote on a follow up case to Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. That case asked the Court whether to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that the state can compel public employees to pay the agency fee for collective bargaining as condition of employment. Since Abood was decided in 1977, it has come under heavy criticism, and it looked like the Court would overrule it in  Friedrichs. Unfortunately, after Friedrichs was fully briefed and oral argument was held, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. The Court eventually deadlocked 4-4, and Abood survived another day.

David and I explain the problems with Abood and a case that may soon be heard by the Court that will finish off what Friedrichs started. As David and I explain, if the Senate confirms Judge Neil Gorsuch, “it would appear–once again–that Abood is operating on life support.” You can read the full post here.

Will Judge Gorsuch inspire other jurists?

This evening, President Trump—after a day that felt more like the final episode of The Apprentice than a Supreme Court nomination vetting process—nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat.Judge Gorsuch—a Colorado native, Harvard Law graduate, and clerk for two Supreme Court Justices—is undoubtedly an elite legal mind and writer, fit to replace the legal lion that is Justice Scalia. Yet, back in July most legal observers would not have picked Judge Gorsuch to replace Justice Scalia. Putting aside the unlikely probability that Donald Trump would win the election, Judge Gorsuch was not on Trump’s list of eleven potential Supreme Court nominees he released in May 2016. Rather, Judg633219496-judge-neil-gorsuch-speaks-after-us-president-donald-jpg-crop-promo-xlarge2e Gorsuch appeared on Trump’s addendum to the original list released in September 2016.

Was there anything that happened between May and September that elevated Judge Gorsuch’s status? Well yes. In August, Judge Gorsuch wrote a blistering concurring opinion criticizing Chevron deference in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, a seemingly ordinary immigration case. In Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense Council, the Court held that the judiciary will defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute if the statute is ambiguous. Judge Gorsuch sharply attacked Chevron deference, noting that it obliterates Separation of Powers principles.

Judge Gorsuch’s concurrence was met with wide praise in conservative legal circles and he rocketed up Court Watchers’ Supreme Court shortlist. Indeed, other jurists on Trump’s list earned wide praise for their concurring opinions in seemingly simple cases. For instance, Justice Don Willet of the Texas Supreme Court earned national recognition after writing a concurring opinion in Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation that aggressively defended economic liberty—a subject that has long been dear to legal libertarians.

Continue reading

The Order

President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries and temporarily suspending refugee resettlement has led to an absolute debacle. The past four days seem like a law school exam hypo that could only be created by a deranged professor. In a dystopian situation, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) were barring numerous valid green card holders from returning home. And a few hours after the order was signed, we learned that the President didn’t even consult with the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) before signing the order. Instead, the executive order appears to be the brainchild of Steven Bannon—the father of the modern alt-right (i.e. White Supremacy) movement. To top it all off, President Trump fired Sally Yates Acting Attorney General on Monday because she refused to enforce his questionable executive order. Although the President was within his legal authority to remove the Acting AG, the move is undoubtedly an optical nightmare.

This situation has obviously been a huge mess. And even four days after Trump signed the executive order, I am still struggling to form a coherent response to everything. Here is my best effort.   Continue reading

‘Member when Republicans cared about federalism?

This week, President Trump signed an executive order that purports to deny federal funds to “sanctuary cities”—i.e., cities that will not cooperate with federal government in deporting illegal immigrants. For years, Republicans have made defunding sanctuary cities a legislative goal. And with a new Republican administration, it seems like the GOP will (maybe have) accomplish(ed) this goal. 

But President Trump’s executive order raises some major constitutional issues, regardless of whether defunding sanctuary cities is good policy. Namely, President Trump’s executive order may violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle. Simply, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states officials to act on behalf of the federal government.

This is normally the point when Republicans are supposed to raise hell about federal overreach.

*crickets*

‘Member when Republicans rallied behind the Tenth Amendment and federalism during the Obama Presidency?  Continue reading

Getting Started

My name is Raymond Nhan and I am a 25-year old constitutional law attorney. I am turning to blogging after years of churning out long Facebook statuses. Over the coming weeks, months, and years (hopefully), I will be sharing my thoughts on my three main passions: law, politics, and sports. But since this is my blog, I’ll be writing about anything I want.

To be clear, this is my personal blog. Although I am an attorney with the Freedom Foundation, a non-profit based in Olympia, Washington dedicated to labor reform, all views on this blog are my own. And out of an abundance of caution, I will rarely post original content on this blog about labor issues.

Please always feel free to share your thoughts or ask any questions. I hope blogging will be a fruitful experience!