Pleased to post my draft article, “Discovering the Historical Anglo-American Constitution.”
I study the history of birthright citizenship from the 1100s to the 1700s. The English common-law rule of natural-born subjects was always tied to territory and jurisdiction. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Supreme Court opinions are coming!
And Georgia State’s experts are at the ready to help provide analysis for some of the most awaited decisions, including @andrewwillinger.bsky.social, @jvagle.me, and @espinsegall.bsky.social, in addition to me.
news.gsu.edu/2026/05/20/g...
There’s language suggesting case-by-case dangerousness determinations might be needed across 922g – some courts have started to develop a test for determining if underlying felony convictions indicate dangerousness & I read Hemani as a sign that’s where SCOTUS majority may be headed in future cases
Also it's a rarely charged provision, especially compared to the fed felon gun ban, and the Court says it isn't opining on that law or any other status-based gun bans. Many states have similar laws, but the historical test might be more permissive of state regulation given post-Founding developments
Gorsuch, writing for 7 justices, says historical laws targeting habitual drunkards didn’t function like this drug ban & were motivated by different concerns – a lot about Founding-Era drinking habits, not much about where these facts come from or how lower courts should find them in future cases
It’s a narrow ruling that doesn’t settle all/most applications of this specific provision: someone under the influence of drugs when they have a gun or using drugs so frequently it affects their daily life could still be prosecuted & fed law enforcement may focus more on obtaining this evidence
A quick thread on today’s ruling in US v. Hemani, where SCOTUS held the fed ban on possessing guns as an unlawful drug user unconstitutional as applied to a regular marijuana user, 9-0 in favor of the defendant affirming CA5
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
Jackson/Sotomayor again object to the Bruen test itself, observing that what the Court does looks a lot like means-end scrutiny… I suspect we’ll see more debate about the validity and mechanics of Bruen in the yet-to-be-decided Wolford case, as agreement on the outcome muted some of that here
Alito/Kagan are focused on marijuana, saying it's an easy case bc many Americans use marijuana occasionally with implicit permission from the fed gov’t – certainly true, but difficult to see how Bruen sanctions this evolution (was a marijuana & guns ban const'l in 1968 and later became unconst'l?)
Georgia State University College of Law legal experts are available to comment on U.S. Supreme Court decisions including birthright citizenship, gun rights, voting rights and geofence warrants.
news.gsu.edu
Last week, the Center co-hosted its 7th (!) annual Work-in-Progress conference with scholars across the country, including @jacobdcharles.bsky.social, @gowder.io, @coreyryung.bsky.social, @meganwalshgvp.bsky.social and many others! Thanks to our attendees for their illuminating discussions.
