Evan Zoldan

It has been a great day here in Memphis and thanks to the wonderful law review students. //

I conclude that we should use these justifications as something of a checklist to assess whether the procedures used by the government are appropriate in a given case. /

I present five basic justifications and apply them to high profile deprivations of rights without a hearing that the government has effected in this past year, focusing on deportations and the law firm executive orders. /

But, the reason for this distinction is a bit murkier. There are a few competing, overlapping justifications for this distinction. /

The law is fairly settled: a hearing is required when the government purports to take adjudication-like action against a small number of identifiable individuals; a hearing is not required when the government's action is rule-like and affects a large number of unidentified individuals. /

Whether hearing rights are required before the government takes action depends on the distinction between two progressive-era cases, Londoner and Bi-Metallic. /

Thanks to the Memphis Law Review for including me in their symposium on Due Process today.

The day is split between substantive due process and procedural due process and I am speaking about the procedural due process right to notice and an opportunity for a hearing. /

Wonderful news, congratulations.

Shout Out to Larry Solum and the Legal Theory Blog • TaxProf Blog On the cusp of the new year and its new beginnings, I pause to celebrate the astonishing continuity of the Legal Theory Blog, published since 2002 (at least) by Lawrence (Larry) Solum, now at the…

Thank you, Paul Caron: Shout Out to Larry Solum and the Legal Theory Blog • TaxProf Blog taxprofblog.aals.org/2025/12/30/s...

Table of Contents for Publius: The Journal of Federalism 56 (1, 2026): The Future of Federalism in the United States Articles Introduction: The Future of Federalism in the United States Paul Nolette and Philip Rocco Can Federalism Protect Subnational Liberal Democracy from Central Authoritarianism? James A. Gardner Tools of Subnational Democratic Subversion: A Taxonomy and Research Agenda Andrea Louise Campbell and Andrew Karch Money Is Not Enough: The Temporary Impact of Pandemic-Era Aid on American Fiscal Federalism Amanda Kass Federalism and the Future of US Minimum Wage Policy Shanna Rose Climate Federalism at a Crossroads: From Compensatory to Coercive and Mitigation to Adaptation Scott Moore Who Benefits From Federalism Claims in Federal Court? Lisa L. Miller US Federalism and the Political Economy of Territorial Status: Evidence from Puerto Rico Mariely Lopez-Santana Federalism and Polarization: How Can Research Be More Relevant? Carol S. Weissert Is the Picket Fence Still Standing? Tracing Administrative Federalism in the States Matthew J. Uttermark From Variables to Mechanisms in Federalism Research Scott L. Greer

It has been a bracing moment for American federalism, with both unprecedented efforts to extend executive control over state and local govts, novel forms of subnational resistance. Where is federalism going? Paul Nolette and I have edited a new issue of Publius on that question. Short thread:

Because it has different strengths than the standard methods of measuring judicial ideology, it can be used alongside them to provide a more robust picture of judicial ideology, with a focus on state courts. //

Figure showing correlation between CITE score and Campaign Finance score.

And here is a figure showing how my results correlate with campaign finance scores:

Figure showing state supreme courts arrayed by association with conservative legal movement, as measured by treatment of the major questions doctrine and legal corpus linguistics

Here is one of the figures from the paper showing State Supreme Court ideology as measured by references to the major questions doctrine and legal corpus linguistics

As proof of concept of the theory, I observe state supreme court citations to two tools of interpretation associated with the conservative legal movement: legal corpus linguistics and the major questions doctrine. /

3. because it does not depend on substantive state law, it can be used to measure ideology across state lines.

Because it measures ideology based on the observation of Canons and other Interpretive Tools as they Emerge, I call it the CITE Method. /

1. it measures ideology based on observations of judicial behavior directly rather than looking at attenuated proxies;

2. it measures ideology based on behavior that is voluntary (i.e. citing particular interpretive tools) rather than looking at case outcomes; and /

In this article, I propose a new method of measuring judicial ideology: observing how courts treat tools of statutory interpretation that are closely associated with partisan political ideologies.

Compared with the standard measures of judicial ideology, this method has some advantages: /

Up on SSRN now, a new draft about Measuring Judicial Ideology with a special focus on state courts, forthcoming in the Ind. L. J.

With all of the recent discussion about the power of state courts to protect rights, it's worth noting the robust study of state court judge ideology. /

By contrast, you don't get as much information from viewing citations to well established tools because they are more likely to be used in cross ideological ways. E.g. judges across the spectrum refer to text and textual canons.

For example, citation to emerging interpretive tools rather than well settled ones should catch judges on the leading edge of the national ideological conversation.

Thanks for the thoughts. Yes, I acknowledge in the paper that there might be false positives and negatives, as with any method. But, for reasons I describe in the paper, this measure is likely to be less noisy than commonly used methods. /

Now it's a whole literature.

For what it's worth, I had a 2 hour oral exam in college as a final degree requirement, and I remember it fondly. But it was not in a class with a curve, so the stakes were different than for law students.

That said, I am intrigued by the idea and would like to hear how other people try to do it.

Fair. My concern with that way of accounting is the "record." If I spend 15 minutes on a written exam, that includes taking notes for myself so that I can later assign grades and discuss it with students if necessary, double check myself, etc. It would be hard to do that all during a chat.

I've thought about this but the logistics would be challenging. E.g. even short (say 15 minutes) one on one discussions with 90 students would take over 20 hours.

I'd be happy to read it. Does the judge include those looking for AI to tell them the "ordinary meaning" of statutory language?

picture of the Michigan State University College of Law building

I'm very happy to share that I will be hosting the *Second* Annual Democracy and Public Law Works-in-Progress Conference at the Michigan State University College of Law on April 3–4, 2026! Law scholars (current and aspiring), I'd love to host you!

Application:
msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...

Have you asked @susiedent.com ?