Q.: Why did I wait until 2023 to join Twitter? (More than one answer may be correct.) 1) Waiting for the Musk Era! 2) Procrastination. 3) Thought I might be too mild-mannered for Twitter. 4) Had to join in order to participate in a @LawAndGovernance program on Twitter Spaces.

(4/4) For those who are not (yet) ready to read a full-length law review article making this case, a short summary of it is available here:

Knowing that many would be upset about the demise of Chevron, Roberts would never have been tactless enough to rub it in by letting the case be known as “Relentless.”

Just published on CNN: My thoughts on Loper Bright. It “may not be an occasion for alarm, but it is an occasion for regret that administrative law has lost something valuable.”

In this sense, Loper Bright does signal an upcoming regime of reduced deference, but its significance may to a great extent be symbolic or emblematic rather than causal. (5/5)

@richardjpierce Here's a link to that brief:

The dissent continues: "It may yield important benefits over jury trials in federal court, such as greater efficiency and expertise, transparency and reasoned decisionmaking, as well as uniformity, predictability, and greater political accountability.” (2/2)

@PrimeNewYork @rickhasen In cases that are tried in federal court only because the parties come from different states, state substantive law applies. Gasperini held that the NY law was substantive because it was intended to limit damage awards – effectively, a tort reform statute.