Ilan Wurman (Minnesota) has been one of the highest-profile scholars defending Trump’s birthrigh citizenship order. He has been criticized for doing bad scholarship (especially bad history), as well as being politically motivated to defend and offer a patina of scholarly support to the Trump Administration.
On that last point, Wurman responded by accusing the “thousands” of liberal scholars of never reaching a conclusion that does not align with their political ideology, where as originalists always reach conclusions that do not align with their political views.
Not that I aPutting aside “the other side is political” as a response to an accusation of being political, but:
• I have spent 5 of the past 8 years arguing that federal courts cannot universally enjoin the Trump Administration and that Trump does not “violate the law” by attempting–until a court orders otherwise–to deprive certain children of citizenship, to fire statutorily protected federal employees, etc.
• I have spent the past 5 years arguing that Red states can enact statutes such as S.B. 8, intended to chill the exercise of certain liberally favored rights through the threat of crippling litigation and liability.
• I have continually argued that conservatives should be able to file bullshit defamation actions in federal court without being subject to anti-SLAPP motions.
• Free speech–taken seriously–always crosses political preferences, which puts me at odds with everyone–fellow Jews, fellow liberals.
So I will put that record up against the many people who discovered that universal injunctions are bad on January 21, 2025 and not when Matthew Kaczmarek was styming everything the Biden Administration tried to do.
Marty Redish used to tell his mentees “If your scholarly or legal conclusions always align with your political preferences, check your scholarly conclusions.”