Professor Steve Vladeck cited CAC’s amicus brief in Illinois v. Trump in his recent article on Martin v. Mott:

These days, there are always too many different things to write about. But I wanted to use today’s issue to highlight an important post from Tuesday by Professors Joshua Braver and John Dehn about Martin v. Mott—an 1827 decision by the Supreme Court that is often invoked by the Trump administration (and its supporters) for the proposition that the President’s determination that circumstances justify domestic use of the military is not subject to judicial review. Braver and Dehn (and a recent amicus brief by the Constitutional Accountability Center) explain, quite persuasively, why that issue was neither presented nor decided in Mott—and it’s worth reading their post (and CAC’s brief) in full. Indeed, I had already been planning to write about Martin—and was only too happy to be (largely) preempted.

Read the full article from Vladeck’s Substack, One First, here.