Constitutional litigator @IJ. Tweets are my own.

Arlington, VA
Joined June 2014
OTDH in 1776 the Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted. It was a profoundly important historical achievement. But do those rights still protect Virginian today? Unfortunately, as I write in the Richmond Times-Dispatch (link follows), the answer often is “no.”
1
1
42
The upshot: When Virginians ask a Virginia court to tell Virginia officials to stop violating rights from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, courts often say they have no power to enforce our fundamental rights.
1
1
20
Courts created this mess, but the General Assembly bears blame for sitting on the sidelines. It could fix the situation with legislation reaffirming that Virginia courts have a duty to enforce our constitutional rights. What better time than the Declaration's 250th anniversary.
1
15
Joseph Gay retweeted
We're headed to the Supreme Court in Dept of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards! “Small businesses targeted for fines have the right to defend themselves in a real court, with a real judge and jury, rather than an agency court where the only judge is an agency bureaucrat,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Johnson (@FreeRangeLawyer). “It’s fundamentally unfair to try a business in a court where everybody involved is employed by the same administrative agency.”
14
58
6
246
18,934
At a time when Arlington County is raising taxes and cutting services, maybe we shouldn't be spending limited funds on a board that is openly antagonistic to our rights (and that is being used as a thinly veiled effort to block affordable housing) 1/5
1
1
60
Instead of cutting services that serve the public, we might start with trimming bureaucracies that are threatening our rights. /end
23
Great news! The Montana Supreme Court unanimously upholds statewide zoning reforms! That some reforms apply only to larger cities, or potentially impact people w/ covenants less, does not violate equal protection. And frontloading public participation is not facially invalid.
BREAKING: MTSC rules unanimously in the MAID v Montana case to uphold the 2023 Montana Miracle housing reforms. COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY! Will read the full order now. Stay tuned.. Shout out to intervenors @MontanaLeague @PacificLegal @Shelter_WF for their strong defense.
2
1
6
226
The docket where you can access the Montana Supreme Court decision is here: supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/ca…
22
. @AriBFla & I filed an @IJ amicus brief supporting the reforms. We explain how modern zoning law completely upended the historical right to use your property for housing, that it did so largely to exclude people, and that the result has been a disaster for ordinary Americans.
3
33
Joseph Gay retweeted
The Supreme Court will decide this term, in Chatrie v. U.S., whether executing a multi-step geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The en banc Fourth Circuit deadlocked 7-7 on what they took to be the relevant question: whether the gov't conducted a "search." For years, courts have been confused about how to determine which government acts count as a "search" under the Amendment. More recently, the search tests that produce the confusion have been defended as historically rooted. They're not, and the historical evidence is overwhelming. A draft of my new article is up on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.… Comments welcome at [email protected].
1
14
4
40
16,009
The Washington Post reports that smaller, more affordable starter homes are increasingly rare. Causes include government regs (eg, requiring large lots), market dynamics, etc. I'll add one more: Many localities directly *ban* smaller starter homes. wapo.st/4prLnEm
1
44
These bans aren't just wrong & counterproductive, they're unconstitutional. The flimsy pretexts behind many zoning restrictions (eg, traffic) don't apply to smaller homes. It's just a bare desire to exclude people who can't afford larger homes. That's not a legit govt interest.
1
37
So an easy first step toward increasing the supply of modestly sized, affordable starter homes would be for local governments to just stop unconstitutionally banning modestly sized, affordable starter homes.
32