Two Essays on Courage

 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Two Essays on Courage, TrashLight Press (forthcoming January 20, 2026), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=6069206>, <https://trashlightpress.com/>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Two Essays on Courage: What the Old Westerns Could Teach Us About Cowardice and Courage, TrashLight Press (forthcoming January 20, 2026), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=6069206>, <https://trashlightpress.com/>; 

and,

Seth Barrett Tillman, Two Essays on Courage: When a Police Officer Attacks a College or Pro-Athlete During a Game, TrashLight Press (forthcoming January 20, 2026), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=6069206>, <https://trashlightpress.com/>.

TrashLight Press

Forthcoming: January 20, 2026

TWO ESSAYS ON COURAGE

PART I

What the Old Westerns Could Teach Us About Cowardice and Courage

            I have now well-passed that milestone which marks the half-way point on life’s journey. At such a time, a man should take stock and reflect on his experiences, what he has learned, and what he can share. I do so now knowing full well that in the process I may make many unfriends.

. . .

There was a common motif in the old Western movies. Dangerous gunslingers come into town—they put fear into the heart of the long-serving town sheriff. Perhaps he is too new at the job; perhaps, he is just passed his prime. He hands in his badge to the mayor, and town council, and then, he flees. His conduct is low, vile, and, most of all, cowardly.

          That said: at least, the sheriff’s conduct reminds us of the aphorism that hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. And, as low, vile, and cowardly as the sheriff’s conduct is, he does something right: he has the heart to leave and to suffer the umbrage of the townspeople. Consider what the sheriff does not do. He does not take sick leave or vacation time—in the forlorn hope of a change of circumstances. He does not try to convince the mayor and council that there is no danger. He does not hang around and slow down the process for the municipal government and decent folk to find a better man. And most importantly, he does not continue to draw salary while refusing to endure the substantial risks his position entails. He is man enough, at least, to realize he is a coward.

          Today, if you have not personally observed it in our dangerous streets, you can find hundreds of videos on the internet where a crowd of police officers all witness a crime, and they do—nothing. They effectuate no arrest. And their reports will not infrequently deny what they have seen. And they are rewarded for doing so. They are rewarded for doing so in cases where the crime is committed by a brother officer.

          Now why do not they arrest their brother officer? There are lots of reasons: the thin blue line; loyalties to those who they share dangers with; the power—lawful and unlawful—enjoyed by a criminal police officer and his supporters in the police department’s hierarchy; the fear of acting alone or first when enforcing the law. And then there is also qualified immunity, and states attorneys who run for election and who are afraid of push back by public police unions. All these reasons exist. But they are not the core reason.

          The core reason is that their brother officer is armed, and their attempting to effectuate an arrest carries genuine risk to life and limb. Risk to their lives and to their limbs. They are lower than the fleeing town sheriff. They will not enforce the law. They will not quit. And they will leave dangerous armed thuggish police officers in the community with guns to commit further crimes in their current position or after such officers resign and find a new position in another police department. All the while, the police officers who refuse to arrest their brother officers continue to draw salary and bar better men than themselves from doing what the law and justice demand. The police officers who fail to act when they witness crimes are, to put it most simply, cowards.

          Recently, in a town in the United States, a male police sergeant was screaming at and, apparently, assaulting a handcuffed arrestee who had already been placed in the back of a police cruiser. A female police officer attempted to defuse the situation by tugging the sergeant away from the arrestee. At that juncture, the sergeant put his hands around the female officer’s neck and then threatened her. Not then, but days later, the sergeant was put on administrative leave, and subsequently, fired, arrested, and charged with state crimes. But here’s the problem: in addition to the sergeant and the officer who intervened, at least four other officers were on-hand and observed these events. And they did—nothing. At best, they afterwards filed reports admitting to what they had seen. But at the very time the sergeant was committing a crime against a fellow officer, and while they were personally on-hand, they did nothing. They left a thug who had committed a crime against a member of the public and against a fellow officer, and right in front of them in broad daylight, armed and in possession of his badge.

          My objection to the police officers’ behavior here extends not just to the other police officers who stood by witnessing these events. My objection also extends to the female police officer, who was herself a victim. As soon as the sergeant had removed his hands from her neck, her job was to effectuate the sergeant’s arrest. Then and there. She did not do that. And that makes her behavior cowardly too. Yes, I know that sounds harsh. But it only sounds harsh because our standards and expectations of what to expect from the police and from our other public officials have fallen so low. Her job before, during, and after being assaulted was to protect the public and not to leave armed criminals free to commit further crimes against our neighbors, against our families, and against us.

          Unlike the police, we do not receive costly training to subdue criminals.

          Unlike the police, we do not carry badges.

          Unlike the police, most of us do not carry guns.

          And, unlike the police, we do not draw salary as compensation for protecting the public.

By contrast, the female police officer that day:

          She had received such training.

          She carried a badge.

          She had a gun.

          And that day, and for all I know every day since, she received a salary—ostensibly—to protect and serve the public.

          If she and the other police officers who were on-hand cannot do their job, or if she and they are unwilling to do their job (which is more likely), then each should resign—like the “virtuous” town sheriff who ran away in the old Western movies. He, at least, had the courage to reveal himself for the coward he was.

          Perhaps, one day we can get back to that low, vile, and, most of all, cowardly standard.

PART II

When THE POLICE CONFRONT ATHLETES

            Athletes are not above the law. It follows that in a physical confrontation between, on the one hand a college or pro-athlete, and, on the other hand, a police officer, the police officer may be in the right. Alternatively, police officers are not above the law either. When the police officer is in the wrong, the popular imagination turns to three possibilities: [i] the cop had a bad day—and should be disciplined and receive remedial training; [ii] the cop regularly has bad days—and should be fired for using excessive force; or, [iii] the cop is a bigot who is using force for improper motives and improper purposes—and never should have been entrusted with public authority.

          But that is wrong. There is another possibility—all too real—that the public overlooks and that the authorities have little incentive to investigate. The other possibility is that the cop is in financial distress, and she has money on the game. Such a cop looks to take a player “out” in order to win a bet—a bet which has been placed under someone else’s name. Or, even worse, the cop is taking a player out to facilitate cheating by organized crime.

          A criminal police officer would much rather be known as a bigot and so keep her job or find another police-officer job after having been disciplined and having received remedial training, than being prosecuted for having taken payoffs from organized crime. A police officer involved in the latter might cheerfully admit to being “merely” a bigot. And, it is so much easier and safer for the commanding officers and the local prosecutor to allow the “bigot” to resign, rather than to investigate criminal wrongdoing. After all, the mob might respond in a way somewhat unlike what you or I might do if we were investigated.

          When a police officer, without cause, has an unexplained physical confrontation with a college or pro-athlete: the officer’s home should be searched; she should be made to explain the source of any funds in her bank account; and, her telephones tapped. It is that simple. If that is not the first response by more senior police officers and her agency’s internal investigations body when put on notice of such wrongdoing, then just maybe they are part of the problem too.

          Similarly, when the police “inadvertently” bust down the door to the wrong address in pursuing drug crime, one has to wonder, was it actually inadvertent? Or, were the police facilitating the drug dealers’ getting away?

          It is all too easy to look the other way. Courage requires that we address these problems. And law and order starts with our policing the police . . . because . . . no one is above the law.  

[END]

------------

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Two Essays on Courage,’ New Reform Club (Jan. 13, 2026, 14:49 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/two-essays-on-courage.html>; 

Trump and Greenland (II)

 

Trump does not intend to “buy” GREENLAND as “buy” is used in common usage. What the administration hopes to purchase is DENMARK’s claim over GREENLAND as a matter of public international law.

Such a purchase of a public international law claim would be akin to the U.S. purchase of the LOUISIANA TERRITORY from FRANCE—as negotiated by President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison, and ALASKA TERRITORY from RUSSIA—as negotiated by President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward. In each case, the U.S. did not purchase the actual land at issue from a foreign power. Rather, in each case, the U.S. payment was consideration for FRANCE’s and RUSSIA’s divesting themselves of their public international law claim over the relevant territory.

In the event of a U.S. purchase of DENMARK’s public international law claim to GREENLAND, private property in GREENLAND would continue to be owned by its current owners and undisturbed. The citizenship or dual citizenship of the inhabitants is (as with LOUISIANA and ALASKA) a matter for negotiation. The status of public property and otherwise unowned interests is also a matter for negotiation.

I do not expect current negotiations to conclude with a “sale,” but stranger things have happened. And if a “sale” were negotiated would it be called Trump’s Folly or Rubio’s Folly?

To be sure, Denmark’s divesting itself of its claim to Greenland (or, even, Denmark’s transferring its claim to to the U.S.) as a matter of public international law does not make Greenland U.S. territory. The foundation of such a U.S. claim over Greenland requires some sort of consent of the governed via a functioning local legislature, referendum, or even a petition ensuring majority consent by the voting public. Furthermore, the integration of such territory into the U.S. (eg, for 14th Amendment purposes) would (I believe) require either a treaty or a statute, preferably the latter. 

 

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Trump and Greenland (II),’ New Reform Club (Jan. 8, 2026, 6:27 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/trump-and-greenland-ii.html>;

See also: Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Theory About Trump and Greenland,’ New Reform Club (Jan. 6, 2026, 5:08 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/a-theory-about-trump-and-greenland.html>;

Mehdi Hasan’s Demand for Prosecutions

 

Here is Mehdi Hasan. He starts with: “I am only half joking when … say[ing] this,” and then he goes on to advocate that “the next Democratic President should run on a plan to prosecute Elon Musk.” <https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2008796401342566523> (at 00:45ff). But he does not identify even any one crime. What does it mean to advocate a prosecution when you fail to identify any crime? What does he mean by a “plan”? Does it mean that the President should direct the AG and DOJ in regard to a particular prosecution against a named individual? That is what some call the unitary executive—something usually opposed by liberals in U.S. academia. 

I should point out that Hasan’s aspiration regarding a future Musk prosecution is hardly a new thing. It is also the ambition of Ireland’s Fintan O’Toole and other elite editorialists in Europe. See, e.g., Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Elon Musk and Free Speech,’ Irish Times, Aug. 15, 2024, 11, 2024 WLNR 13791233, <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/08/tillman-on-todays-speech-monitors.html>, <https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2024/08/15/elon-musk-and-free-speech/>, <ProQuest>. Like Hasan, they too propose future Musk prosecutions, and like Hasan, they do not bother to identify any actual crimes. It is not even “good” lawfare—it is just free-flowing hatred and jealousy.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Mehdi Hasan’s Demand for Prosecutions,’ New Reform Club (Jan. 7, 2026, 3:51 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/mehdi-hasans-demand-for-prosecutions.html>; 

A Theory about Trump and Greenland

 

 

Trump wants Europe’s NATO members to pay for their own defense. Trump does not think Europe’s NATO members are meeting their political commitments for military defense spending. But Trump can neither unilaterally disband NATO nor terminate U.S. participation in NATO without incurring domestic political blowback—including from his own party. So he gives speeches about GREENLAND . . . in the hope that: 

Europe’s NATO members ditch NATO . . . and then, there will be little (or, perhaps, no) domestic political blowback . . . 

AND/OR, Europe’s NATO members increase their military spending to what Trump believes to be (closer) to their political commitments to NATO (and, implicitly, to the United States); 

AND/OR Denmark, de jure or de facto, makes GREENLAND independent (etc); 

AND/OR, all US products (and services) enter NATO member states absent tariffs (including EU tariffs). 

Trump may believe, and, perhaps correctly, that any one or any combination of these results are winners.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Theory About Trump and Greenland,’ New Reform Club (Jan. 6, 2026, 5:08 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/a-theory-about-trump-and-greenland.html>;

See also: Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Trump and Greenland (II),’ New Reform Club (Jan. 8, 2026, 6:27 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/trump-and-greenland-ii.html>;

Fair-Play is the More Difficult Part

 

Dear Ms Elsea,

In my recent co-authored post, my co-author and I (we) asked the question:

“Relatedly, are Article III judges subject to the Posse Comitatus Act?”

We did not answer that question. Instead, we did write: “Any effort to criminally prosecute an Article III judge for his error (assuming this course of action to be an error) would be blocked by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity.” On BLUESKY, you responded by writing: “Apparently the PCA doesn’t apply to judges, either,” and, again on BLUESKY, you also responded with: “Apparently judges can also call out the troops to enforce their orders if the marshal can’t help, and the Posse Comitatus Act would not apply. Do judges know about this?” (emphasis added) I would urge you to reconsider. I do not believe what you wrote reflects my co-author’s and my views.

There is a difference between, on the one hand, a generally worded federal statute’s being inapplicable to federal judges, and, on the other hand, federal judges’ being immunized against criminal prosecutions for overstepping their lawful authority when the judges issue orders in a case within their courts’ subject matter jurisdiction. The distinction we put forward here, between a statute’s inapplicability and a defendant’s (that is a judge’s) being immunized against criminal prosecution even where the statute is otherwise applicable, is similar to what Judge Perry stated in Illinois v. Trump, Civil A. No. 25-cv-12174, 2025 WL 2886645, at *19 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025) (April M. Perry, J.):

 

The Posse Comitatus Act makes it a criminal offence to use the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to ‘execute the laws’ unless expressly authorized by Congress. 18 U.S.C. § 1385. And as Justice Jackson in his well-known Youngstown concurrence has recognized, while this prohibition likely does not apply to hold the President criminally liable, the Act nonetheless operates to ‘forbid[]’ the President ‘to use the army for the purpose of executing general laws except when expressly authorized by the Constitution or by Act of Congress.’ Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 343 U.S. at 644–45 (Jackson, J., concurring in the judgment). [second set of italics (also in bold) added]

And Judge Perry, of course, ruled against the administration, that is, against the Department of Justice, against Trump. Perhaps, you really did believe what you wrote on BLUESKY fairly represented my (co-authored) writings. Do you still believe that? One wonders.

On BLUESKY, you wrote: “I have much to learn, apparently.” I think we all have something, and perhaps, much, to learn. As a general matter, the law is the easy part. Fair-play given and granted to those whom with we disagree is frequently the more difficult part.

Enjoy the New Year,

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Fair-Play is the More Difficult Part,’ New Reform Club (Jan. 1, 2026, 5:15 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2026/01/fair-play-is-more-difficult-part.html>; 

Displace as well as to Appoint

 

Lev Menand, ‘Fact Checking Oral Argument in [Trump v.] Slaughter,’ Notice & Comment (Dec. 10, 2025), <https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/fact-checking-oral-argument-in-slaughter-by-lev-menand/> (“The English default rule—against which the Constitution was written—was a symmetry rule: offices without tenure cease when the appointing power makes a new appointment and therefore the power to appoint entails the power to remove. This is what Alexander Hamilton understood in the Federalist No. 77 ….” (first emphasis in the original, second emphasis added)).

The author's use of “entails” is interesting—almost as if it is non-controversial—almost as if no citation to authority is necessary. For Professor Menand, it is the only reading!

I think the OVERTON window on Federalist No. 77 is shifting.

I am encouraged.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Displace as well as to Appoint,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 17, 2025, 15:54 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/displace-as-well-as-to-appoint.html>;

A Legal Ethics Question: LAW OF THE CASE

Seth Barrett Tillman

DC Bar member

 

December 10, 2025

 

Ethics Query

ethics@dcbar.org

 

Dear Ethics Counsellor,

My understanding is then when a trial court decision has been reversed by a higher court, such as an intermediate court of appeals, a practitioner may only cite the trial (or lower) court decision in a brief or pleading (or other judicial submission) if the practitioner also reports that the trial court decision has been reversed. My question is whether this rule applies if the intermediate court of appeals has been itself reversed by a higher court, such as by a state supreme court or by the US Supreme Court?

For example, consider:

Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo. Nov. 17, 2023) (Wallace, J.). This trial court decision was reversed by: Anderson v. Griswold, 543 P.3d 283 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (per curiam). And the Colorado Supreme Court decision was itself reversed by the US Supreme Court in: Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 101 (Mar. 4, 2024) (per curiam).

As a result of the US Supreme Court’s reversing the Colorado state supreme court, the state trial court decision was (or became again) the operative order in the case, and the state trial court opinion remains good, persuasive case law. Given that the trial court decision is still good law, when a practitioner cites this trial court decision is the practitioner required to indicate the subsequent reversal by either or both the Colorado Supreme Court or by the US Supreme Court?

I trust if you answer my query, I can show your answer to third parties.

Sincerely,

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DC Bar 

Good Afternoon, Seth,

As ethics counsel, I am authorized to provide informal guidance on questions that arise under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (D.C. Rules) only, and I cannot give legal advice. You must exercise your independent professional judgment and you are responsible for your future conduct. Guidance does not constitute a safe harbor, and guidance from this office does not bind the Office of Disciplinary Counsel or any court.

The D.C. Rules do not directly address legal citation form.

D.C. Rules 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), and 8.4(c) (Misconduct) provide guidance on candor to the court and misrepresentations of law. Rule 3.3(a) prohibits a lawyer from making legal arguments based on a knowingly false representation of law, and Rules 4.1(a) and 8.4(c) prohibit a lawyer from making misrepresentations, which includes providing partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. Additionally, a lawyer must comply with court rules (Rule 3.4(a) and Rule 8.4(d)). Thus, to the extent citation form is dictated by court rules, a lawyer must comply, and failure to do so would violate the D.C. Rules.

As you note, if you are citing to or relying on a decision from a trial (or lower) court that was subsequently reversed by a higher court (at any level), failing to advise the court of the reversal is a misstatement/misrepresentation of law and therefore likely a violation of several of the D.C. Rules mentioned above. However, if a lower court decision was reversed on appeal, and then subsequently a higher court reversed the appellate court and agreed with the lower court, it would be ethical to argue the lower court’s holding which is, at that point, the law.

How to properly cite the lower court case conveying such a history is outside the scope of the D.C. Rules, and better left to the formatting rules of the tribunal (again to which the lawyer must comply), and/or blue book or equivalent.

Thank you,

[name]

Legal Ethics Counsel, Regulation Counsel

District of Columbia Bar

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Legal Ethics Question: LAW OF THE CASE,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 15, 2025, 9:37 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-legal-ethics-question-law-of-case.html> (bold follows the original);

My Primary Publications Unrelated to U.S. Law

 

SOME non-US, LAW-RELATED PUBLICATIONS:

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Emergence of Peace Between Japan and the United States: A Dialogue, 70(2) Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Studia Europaea (forth. circa Jan. 2026) (peer review) (Romania-based journal) (manuscript 1–15) (not yet public);

Seth Barrett Tillman, Submission to the Irish Judicial Appointments Commission Regarding Judicial Candidates’ Requisite Knowledge, Skills and Attributes (Oct. 21, 2025), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5635650> (also under review at a peer-review venue);

Appellant’s submission in Seth Barrett Tillman v Paddy Power, Dispute Number 0088373 (Independent Betting Adjudication Service [IBAS], filed 16 May 2023), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4451905>;

Seth Barrett Tillman & Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, The Irish Election 2024—Lessons Learned, 42(17) Irish Law Times 203–04 (Andrew McKeown ed., Nov. 2024) (actual publication date: Feb. 5, 2025), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5077892>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Viewpoint, All at sea: Why were former Chief Justice Frank Clarke and former High Court President Peter Kelly cajoled into resigning their judicial positions in the United Arab Emirates, when the ultimate beneficiaries would have been UAE litigants, 116(8) Gazette of the Law Society Ireland 22–23 (Oct. 7, 2022), <https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2022/october-2022-gazette.pdf>, <https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/in-depth/judicial-positions-and-uae>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4193901>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Viewpoint, Access to Court Records and Oral Arguments, 115(1) Gazette of the Law Society Ireland 14–17 (Feb. 5, 2021), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3740512>, <https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2021/jan-feb-2021-gazette.pdf>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, COVID-19: Can the Oireachtas Legislate During the Pandemic?, 38(7) Irish Law Times 94 (2020) (Terri McDonnell, ed.), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561117>, <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2020/04/can-oireachtas-legislate-during-pandemic.html>, <https://tinyurl.com/y7u54woq>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Court of Appeal Backlog, 35(15) Irish Law Times 206–08 (2017), <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2996405>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Has the [Irish] Court of Appeal Solved the Judicial Backlog? Can it?, 34(14) Irish Law Times 210–12 (2016), <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2816458>;

SOME non-law LITERARY PUBLICATIONS:

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Two Essays on Courage,’ TrashLight Press (forth. circa Jan. 20, 2026), <https://trashlightpress.com/> (not yet public);

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Review of Liu Lianzi’s “Ruyi’s Royal Love in the Palace”,’ New English Review (Dec. 2025), <https://tinyurl.com/ycxmbyeu>, <https://tinyurl.com/56j4nrjs>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘The Real Meaning of “F Troop”,’ New English Review (Dec. 2025), <https://tinyurl.com/ycxmbyeu>, <https://tinyurl.com/56j4nrjs>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Fiction, ‘Purim & My Bangladeshi Friend,’ The Galway Review (Sept. 30, 2025) (online) (Ireland), <https://thegalwayreview.com/2025/09/30/seth-barrett-tillman-purim-my-bangladeshi-friend/>, 14 The Galway Review 9, forth. Apr. 2026 (in print), reprinting Gadfly Online: Culture that Matters (Feb. 11, 2013) (online) (United States), <http://www.gadflyonline.com/home/index.php/purim-my-bangladeshi-friend/>, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2127592>; [Reviews: here and here];

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘The Wartime Statesmanship of Éamon de Valera’ / ‘Advice for the Americans After Doolittle’s Raid—1942,’ 69(10) Quadrant 104, Oct. 2025 (in print) (Australia), Quadrant (Oct. 11, 2025) (online), <https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/story/the-wartime-statesmanship-of-eamon-de-valera/>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5527098>, <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/09/the-wartime-statesmanship-of-eamon-de.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘The Irish Flag War,’ The Galway Review (Sept. 7, 2025) (online) (Ireland), 14 The Galway Review 7, forth. Apr. 2026 (in print), <https://thegalwayreview.com/2025/09/07/seth-barrett-tillman-the-irish-flag-war/>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5513139>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘What has Happened to Canada’s Greatest Poem?,’ The Dorchester Review (Aug. 20, 2025) (online) (Canada), 16(1) The Dorchester Review, forth. Apr. 2026 (in print), <https://tinyurl.com/4tsbe44s>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5390767>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Dialogue on Migration,’ Eriugena Review (June 18, 2023) (online) (Ireland), <https://eriugenareview.com/home/f/a-dialogue-on-migration>, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=4474149>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Advice to the Allies—1945,’ 15(2) Claremont Review of Books 13, Spring 2015 (online and in print) (United States), <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2478600>, <https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/correspondence2/> (bottom of the page), <https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/author/seth-b-tillman/> (2015 article republished in Quadrant, along with a 2025 prequel);

SOME MAGAZINE ARTICLES, OPINION EDITORIALS, LETTERS, PODCASTS, ETC:

Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘An Insiders’ Club: The Path to the Irish Presidency,’ The Times of Israel (Dec. 11, 2025, 10:58 PM), <https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/an-insiders-club-the-path-to-the-irish-presidency/>, <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5907724>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A U.K. Dialogue on Migration,’ News Letter (Oct. 6, 2025, 11:28 BST) (Belfast, N.I., U.K.), <https://www.newsletter.co.uk/your-world/a-uk-dialogue-on-migration-parody-2025-5347389>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5569822>;

Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘It is Long Past Time to Let British Drivers Turn Left on Red,’ News Letter (Oct. 1, 2025, 12:52 BST) (Belfast, N.I., U.K.), <https://www.newsletter.co.uk/your-world/it-is-long-past-time-to-let-british-drivers-turn-left-on-red-5341619>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5553038>, <https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/it-is-long-past-time-to-let-british-drivers-turn-left-on-red/ar-AA1NFfhU>;

Seth Barrett Tillman & Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, ‘Giving NI voters a say in Irish President will impact on UK,’ News Letter, Sept. 23, 2025 (Belfast, N.I., U.K.) 15 (hard copy); ‘Shall Irish Citizens Residing in Northern Ireland Vote for the President of the Republic of Ireland?,’ News Letter (Sept. 17, 2025, 00:14 BST) (Belfast, N.I. U.K.) (online), <https://www.newsletter.co.uk/community/shall-irish-citizens-residing-in-northern-ireland-vote-for-the-president-of-the-republic-of-ireland-5325068>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5513300>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘We should recapture the flag for honourable use,’ Irish Mail on Sunday (Sept. 7, 2025), <https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-irish-mail-on-sunday/20250907/textview>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5513218>, 2025 WLNR 22786086;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘State-sponsored flags for all,’ Irish Examiner (Sept. 5, 2025, 1:00 AM) 8, <https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/yourview/arid-41699765.html>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5513238>;

Seth Barrett Tillman & Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, ‘A Path Forward from the Dáil Speaking-Rights Controversy,’ Gript Media (Apr. 13, 2025) (Ireland), <https://gript.ie/a-path-forward-from-the-dail-speaking-rights-controversy/>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=5219700>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Elon Musk and Free Speech,’ Irish Times, Aug. 15, 2024, 11, 2024 WLNR 13791233, <https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2024/08/15/elon-musk-and-free-speech/>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Restricting flights closes the world,’ Irish Examiner (June 27, 2023, 2:00 AM), <https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/yourview/arid-41170720.html>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4486380> (responding to John Gibbons’ ‘Why we should ration the distance each person can fly every year’);

Seth Barrett Tillman and Andrew Hirsch, Guest Opinion, ‘More War or EU Expansion?,’ Copenhagen Post, Dec. 9, 2022 / Jan. 12, 2023, at 16 (print), Copenhagen Post Online (Dec. 20, 2022, 5:55 AM), <https://cphpost.dk/?p=141548>, <https://tinyurl.com/3n4ey3ek>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4296945> (English language newspaper in Denmark);

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘East Wall and the Plantations: Ireland and Its New Migrants,’ The American Spectator (Dec. 6, 2022, 10:48 PM), <https://spectator.org/ireland-new-migrants-east-wall/>, <https://spectator.org/author/seth-barrett-tillman/>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4296073>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘To End Putin’s War, Offer Both Ukraine and Russia EU Membership,’ Newsweek (Oct. 25, 2022, 4:32 PM EDT), <https://www.newsweek.com/end-putins-war-offer-both-ukraine-russia-eu-membership-opinion-1754644>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4258072>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Nuclear power and war: National independence at risk,’ Irish Times (Oct. 10, 2022, 2:45 AM), <https://irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2022/10/10/nuclear-power-and-war/>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4312091>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Ireland’s Voice in Europe,’ Irish Times, Sept. 22, 2021, page 11, <https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/ireland-s-voice-in-europe-1.4679986>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Opinion Editorial, Court of public opinion offers Séamus Woulfe no justice, Sunday Times (Irish edn & UK edn), Nov. 15, 2020, 12:01 AM GMT, News Section, page 14, <https://tinyurl.com/y69zfkso>, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=3729356>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Young FG “just shup up and listen”?’ Irish Times, Aug. 23, 2019, page 17, <https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/young-fg-just-shup-up-and-listen-1.3994212>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Britain hasn’t got much out of the special relationship for a long time,’ The Guardian, July 11, 2019, 18:22 GMT, <https://tinyurl.com/yyzkhhc4>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, Responding to: ‘White America’s cruelty playbook,’ Irish Times, May 15, 2019, at 13, <https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/white-america-s-cruelty-playbook-1.3892144>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Opinion Editorial, ‘Court of Appeal: The new court has failed to meet expectations,’ Journal.ie (July 26, 2018, 7:01 AM), <http://jrnl.ie/4144580>, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=3216200>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Opinion Editorial (Thunderer), ‘Court of Appeal failure should fuel reform of judiciary,’ The Times (Irish edn & UK edn), July 26, 2018, 12:01 AM, <https://tinyurl.com/yb2qb8dc>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3370810>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Court Backlog,’ Irish Times, July 23, 2018, 12:02 AM, at 13, <https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/court-backlog-1.3572788>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, ‘Eighth Debate,’ The Times (Irish edn), May 15, 2018, at 16, <https://tinyurl.com/y88l9ok9>, <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/05/letter-to-editor-response-ann-marie.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letters & Editorial Comment, ‘After Paris, questions for us all,’ Irish Independent, Nov. 26, 2015, 2:30 AM, at page 37, <http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/after-paris-questions-for-us-all-34235618.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Opinion Editorial, ‘Court of Appeal just a new version of Supreme Court—only more costly,’ Irish Times (July 28, 2014, 1:30 AM), Business & Innovation at 7, <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2465554>, <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/court-of-appeal-just-a-new-version-of-supreme-court-only-more-costly-1.1874746>, 2014 WLNR 20562005;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Opinion Editorial, ‘Time to Open Courts and Let Justice Be Seen,’ Irish Independent, August 22, 2012, 17:00 PM, at A14, <https://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/seth-barrett-tillman-time-to-open-up-courts-and-let-justice-be-seen/26889857.html> (available on Nexis), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2129771>;

Niall Boylan, ‘Counting Chaos: Is Ireland’s Voting System Broken? With Seth Barrett Tillman’, The Niall Boylan Podcast (Jan. 29, 2025), <https://irepod.com/podcast/the-niall-boylan-show-1/counting-chaos-is-ireland-s-voting-system-broken-w>, <https://niallboylan.com/podcast/counting-chaos-is-irelands-voting-system-broken-with-seth-barrett-tillman>, <https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/counting-chaos-is-irelands-voting-system-broken-with/id1545083123?i=1000686892958>, <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fC5lSLMB0mhxLkQOWY4nr> (interviewing Tillman on the Irish Constitution’s prioritizing population over voters in organizing constituencies to elect TDs);

Nigel Farage on Leading Britain’s Conversation (@LBC), Oct. 24, 2017, <http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/the-nigel-farage-show-watch-it-here-24-oct/> (at 25:28ff);

--------------

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘My Primary Publications Unrelated to U.S. Law,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 14, 2025, 5:01 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/my-primary-publications-unrelated-to-us.html>; 

I Get the Best Rejection Letters

Seth,

Thank you so much for sending us -----------------------------. This was a delight to read—sharp, cheeky, and wonderfully satirical. The humor lands cleanly, and the worldbuilding-through-bureaucracy is pitch-perfect. It’s a concept piece with real bite.

As much as we enjoyed it, ------------------ tends to lean more toward character-driven stories—pieces anchored in interiority, emotional pressure, or rupture. This piece works beautifully as satire, but it sits outside the range of what we typically publish.

We genuinely wish you the best of luck placing it. It deserves a good home, and we hope it finds one soon.

Best,

-----------------------

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘I Get the Best Rejection Letters,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 10, 2025, 4:31 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/i-get-best-rejection-letters.html>;

Tom Van Dyke – Co-Blogger, Friend, and Mentor

Tom Van Dyke – Co-Blogger, Friend, and Mentor

I just found out from mutual friends that Tom Van Dyke passed away last November. We never met in person, and we only had occasion to talk by telephone a few times. Our friendship was such that we communicated over New Reform Club and by a good many e-mail contacts.

Tom was a patriot. He was also my friend, and a source of encouragement. He encouraged me to write and to blog, and in particular, to do so, at New Reform Club. I have done that, and I hope to continue to do so. In some ways, Tom was a mentor. I will miss him—I am sure others will too.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Tom Van Dyke – Co-Blogger, Friend, and Mentor,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 10, 2025, 6:39 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/tom-van-dyke-co-blogger-friend-and.html>;

Some 2025 and 2026 Productivity

 

 

2025 is not entirely over. Still: what follows is a list of 2025 and 2026 (that is, accepted papers, etc) productivity in-hand.

1 appellate amicus brief (New York state appellate court)

1 declaration as an expert in a trial court proceeding (Maine federal district court)

1 submission to a commission (Ireland)

1 traditional peer-reviewed article (Romania)

(accepted in 2025, to be published in 2026) (the current link is to the journal, not the article)*

1 article in a legal professional journal (published in February 2025) (Ireland)

2 articles in print journals (here and here—both US)

1 article in an online journal (US)

1 electronic article in an online news, law, and politics portal (Ireland)

9 treatise entries published (US)

2 treatise entries updated (US)

3 full-length interviews where I was profiled (here, here, and here—all US)

Many interviews where I was a source for television, radio, newspapers, podcasts, etc.

    invitation to appear on an Irish podcast during the remainder of 2025 or during 2026.*

2 reviews in a literary review (US)

3 articles in literary reviews (Australia (here), Canada (here), and Ireland (here))

1 article accepted at a literary review (here, US, forthcoming Jan. 20, 2026)*

4 newspaper publications: opinion editorials, etc. (here—Israel;* here, here, here—UK)

2 letters to the editor (here and here—both Ireland)

1 faculty colloquium presentation (Maynooth, Ireland). 

This presentation is also under review for 2026 conferences scheduled in Ireland and the UK.

1 audio recording (recorded during 2025, to be published in 2026) (US) 

1 submission under review at a peer-review venue (Ireland)

1 working paper under review (at magazines, newspapers, and similar venues)

2 applications for fellowships for 2026-2027 (both US)

Countries listed above include: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Romania, UK, and US.

More than a few of the publications above were co-authored. E.g., Josh Blackman (e.g., here), Daniel Adam O’Dowd (e.g., here), Robert Ray (amicus brief), and J. Andrew Salemme (amicus brief).

Citations: 

282 citations for 2025: 

including citations from: three federal appellate judges—Katsas/DC Circuit, Oldham/5th Circuit, and Stras/8th Circuit, and one Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor/Laster); 

including 10 foreign (that is, non-US) citations from: Canada (2), Indonesia, Ireland, Italy (2), Japan, Philippines, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates); 

and,

including 2 US Supreme Court letter briefs (both on this docket: Amicus brief (here) and Respondent’s brief (here)).

19 citations for 2026 (but accrued during 2025) (all US).

A 2025 Response to my publications—the response is now a working paper.* [In total, my publications have now generated some 35 responses (including one article using only about half its pages to respond to me) by over 35 authors.]

Changes of Mind Absent Formal Retractions:

2025: The Test for Determining “Officer” Status Under the Appointments Clause, 49 Opinion Office of Legal Counsel (Christopher C. Fonzone, Assistant Attorney General), slip opinion at 2 n.1 (Jan. 16, 2025) (“[W]e note that, although the Constitution makes several references to the term ‘office’ or ‘officer’ outside the Appointments Clause, this memorandum does not address whether or to what extent any such references should be read consistent with the term ‘Officer[] of the United States’ in the Appointments Clause.”), <https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/test-determining-officer-status-under-appointments-clause>. (Fonzone was a Biden appointee.)

----------------------------------------------------

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Some 2025 and 2026 Productivity,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 8, 2025, 4:32 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/some-2025-and-2026-productivity.html>;