Recently, I asked ChatGPT to write some poems about hallucinations. Why? In part, because it’s summer and I think watching ChatGPT create poems is fun. I also asked because I’ve been thinking about how to cover generative AI with my…
Continue Reading Summer Hallucinations, Plagiarism, and ChatGPT

Last week I saw an article on Law.com about the Legal Accountability Project, “a nonprofit focused on preventing harassment in the judiciary that is creating a database of reviews from former law clerks on their judges as managers and the…
Continue Reading Clerkship Transparency

This post responds to Robert Peck and Phillip Seaver-Hall, two contributors to this blog. Before I respond, I would like to thank Robert and Phillip for responding to my post, and for a great discussion on constitutional interpretation. I respect…
Continue Reading "We Are All Originalists": A Response to Robert Peck and Phillip Seaver-Hall

Each week, the Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup presents a few tidbits of news and Twitter posts from the past week concerning appellate advocacy. As always, if you see something during the week that you think we should be sure…
Continue Reading Appellate Advocacy Blog Weekly Roundup Friday, June 23, 2023

I recently read (well, listened to–thanks, Audible!) John McWhorter’s Words on the Move, which was excellent, as so many of his books are. One of his points really stuck with me and has come to mind several times when reading…
Continue Reading "Well" and that personal touch

Last week, Professor Lamparello argued on this blog that “originalism, although not perfect, is the best method of constitutional interpretation.” I’m skeptical. Admittedly, in the vacuum of political theory, originalism has a certain elegance and persuasive force. The Framers created…
Continue Reading Originalism’s Frailties: A Reply to Professor Lamparello

Like many of you, I read the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 143 S. Ct. 1142 (2023) very carefully. Not just because the dormant commerce clause is cool, but because the various opinions offer…
Continue Reading Court opinions are more than soundbites

The quest for an interpretative construct that would produce principled decisions in construing the Constitution is an impossible dream, a chimera presuming that there lies a single best answer. The search for a singular approach that answers all questions seeks…
Continue Reading Originalism, Not What It’s Cracked Up to Be

In case you missed it, a plaintiff’s lawyer in New York was recently featured in the New York Times for submitting a document to a court that was drafted by ChatGPT and replete with fabricated case law resulting from artificial…
Continue Reading The Case for Grace

It is finally summer, which means I have more time to read. And while much of my free time (and energy) has been consumed with potty training my youngest, I have still managed to read a few law-related books. My…
Continue Reading At the Altar of the Appellate Gods–A Partial Book Review

Justice Elena Kagan once stated, when referring to the justices on the Court, that “we are all originalists.”[1] She is right. Originalism, which has many variations, is the predominant interpretive theory in American constitutional law – and for good reason….
Continue Reading The Supreme Court and Originalism

Federal law limits appeals to “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The limitation on reviewing final dispositions presupposes that an appeal of a final judgment “brings up all antecedent issues,” In re Kilgus, 811 F.2d 1112,…
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules Purely Legal Issues from Summary Judgment Remain Available for Appeal

The preliminary statement, or introduction, is among the most critical parts of a brief. Indeed, the preliminary statement affords you the opportunity to concisely and persuasively explain why you should win, and thus make an excellent first impression on the…
Continue Reading Drafting a Strong Preliminary Statement