Explore

@umichlaw.bsky.social Oct 7, 2026, 10:10 PM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

Abundance and the Supreme Court

by Professor @nbagley.bsky.social

www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...

@umichlaw.bsky.social Oct 2, 2026, 12:41 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

Preserving Both Agency Expertise and Accountability in the Unitary Executive

By Professor @chrisjwalker.bsky.social in @ssrn.bsky.social

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Abstract
In response to the Supreme Court’s increasingly unitary executive approach to presidential power, this symposium essay sketches out a vision for the administrative state that preserves both accountability and expertise in regulatory governance. In particular, it makes the conservative case for a professionalized civil service—one with meritocratic hiring and firing practices—that operates within a politically accountable structure. This argument may cut against the “deep state” narrative on the political right, but it reinforces traditional conservative values of protecting liberty and preventing government overreach as well as promoting innovation and free markets through fostering more effective, efficient, predictable, and stable regulatory environments.

This vision is not new. It is the “standard model” Congress embraced in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. Nor is it unconstitutional under the Roberts Court’s unitary executive precedents or inconsistent with the Court’s formalist approach to separation of powers. Indeed, last Term, in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, a 6–3 majority confirmed that this vision for regulatory governance that “preserves both expertise and accountability” is “fully consistent” with separation of powers. As such, even after the Supreme Court overrules Humphrey’s Executor this Term in Trump v. Slaughter, one should resist the parade of horribles that the unitary executive theory’s next target is the civil service. The Court answered that question the Term before in Braidwood. In so doing, the Braidwood Court preserved Congress’s ability to structure executive branch institutions that ensure the political chain of accountability while allowing the agency to leverage the expertise of a professionalized civil service.

@umichlaw.bsky.social Oct 1, 2026, 1:38 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

The President and the Power Grid

—Professors Alexandra Klass & Dave Owen (@uclawsf.bsky.social) in @michlawreview.bsky.social

michiganlawreview.org/the-presiden...

@umichlaw.bsky.social Sep 30, 2026, 1:57 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

The fundamental confusions of federal Indian law

by Professor Matthew Fletcher in @scotusblog.com

www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/the-...

@victoriaxiaoxiaoma.bsky.social Sep 29, 2026, 6:03 PM

Tuesday #eveningread
D. H. Lawrence’s ‘Bavarian Gentians’

Busy Michaelmas. But tomorrow is another story!

@umichlaw.bsky.social Sep 28, 2026, 12:12 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

"What's the Point of Reparation?"

Professor Daniel Fryer in the Tulsa Law Review

digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcont...

Despite its ancient history in philosophical and legal thought, importance to progressive social movements, and relative simplicity as a notion of fairness—if you break
something, you ought to fix it—reparative justice is largely misunderstood. This is problematic given increasing calls for reparation from historically disadvantaged groups. Rather than assessing the validity of these claims, this Article addresses a fundamentally
antecedent issue: what’s the point of reparation? Rejecting arguments that claim reparation is about compensation, supplementing distributive justice, and reconciliation, I argue
that the point of reparation is to repair unjust social relations created by past wrongdoing.
The relational theory of reparation that I sketch here will help provide clarity on other
complicated issues, such as what reparation ought to look like and whether demands for
reparation are morally valid. Knowing the point of reparation would also have important
implications for the design of reparation programs being requested. This Article attempts
to reshape how we think about reparation in scholarly and public discourse. My hope is
to start a new scholarly discussion about reparation that avoid common misunderstandings. Providing a due diligence investigation into the point of reparation serves as a start
to answering more general questions about the proper place of reparative justice in our
theories of what we owe each other.

@dahenneman.bsky.social Sep 26, 2026, 10:01 PM

books2read.com/House-Of-Blo...

#RosesAreDead #HouseOfBloom #CozymysteryReads #DAHenneman #EveningRead

@umichlaw.bsky.social Sep 24, 2026, 11:08 PM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

Can Laws Be Flexible? Rethinking Legislation for Innovation

By Professor @nicholson.bsky.social et al.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

@umichlaw.bsky.social Sep 24, 2026, 12:19 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

"The Crisis of Appropriations Law"

By Professor @sbagen.bsky.social

washulawreview.org/the-crisis-o...

@umichlaw.bsky.social Sep 23, 2026, 1:37 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead

"Factors for Patient Trust and Acceptance of Medical Artificial Intelligence"

By Professor @nicholson.bsky.social et al.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

@umichlaw.bsky.social Sep 21, 2026, 1:26 AM

Michigan Law #EveningRead:

"Who regulates the physical and informational risks of scientific research?"

Read Professor @nicholson.bsky.social's piece in @jotwell.bsky.social:

Strings Attached: Science Regulation by Science Funders

bit.ly/4iz4o8a

Who regulates the physical and informational risks of scientific research? Who makes sure that researchers keep intensely personal data secret, or lock their dangerous chemicals away safely, or don’t haphazardly create superviruses that could kill us all? You could be forgiven for assuming it was, well, a regulator—OSHA or the CDC or some similar entity that can promulgate binding rules and enforce them. But as Doni Bloomfield shows in the fascinating How Science Grantmakers Govern, you’d be (mostly) wrong. Instead, a key substantive and procedural regulator of the risky business of scientific research is, in fact, the funder of that research. Bloomfield’s case study considers the leviathan of basic research funding, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In the first part of this article, Bloomfield pulls apart how NIH acts as a regulator. The second part of this piece draws out implications in a clearly written and fascinating read.

@stridingtech.bsky.social Sep 12, 2026, 2:02 AM

Evening digest: Get up to speed with today's newly refreshed top stories and technical reporting. Covering Science & Research, Cybersecurity, Green Tech. https://stridingtech.com #TechNews #EveningRead