Over at the New York Times opinion page, I participated in a fun roundtable conversation with Professors Kate Shaw and Stephen Vladeck about the recent Supreme Court term. We discussed the Trump immunity case, my recent op-ed, the state of the Supreme Court's shadow docket, and more.
Here's one exchange:
Shaw: Will, I want to ask a couple of questions about your recent Times piece reflecting on the term. As I read you, you think the court went (badly?) astray in its two cases directly involving Trump, on immunity and on Colorado's efforts to disqualify Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Your paper with Michael Stokes Paulsen played a critical role in the Section 3 debates.
Yet you also write that elsewhere this term, the court was faithful to originalism, a method of interpretation you favor. But is this any kind of originalist court if it's willing to jettison the method in the term's two biggest constitutional cases? One way to view the court after this term is originalist for Republican results, pragmatic for anything else.
