A Short Defense of the Tillman Comma

 

 

In a list of nouns or adjectives following a colon, the rule is to separate the elements of the list with commas.

However, where a series of parallel phrases follows a colon, the rule is to separate the elements of the list with semi-colons. The semicolon is a particularly good choice if one or more elements of the list already have internal commas.

The problem with the latter rule, i.e., using semicolons to separate elements of the list, is that the last element of the list is preceded by an “and.” The “and” in the last element breaks the parallel structure across the list’s elements.

Therefore, my suggested practice is to use a semicolon prior to the “and” and to use a comma following the “and.”

Eg:

My car uses: high beam lights for seeing into the distance; low beam lights for driving at night; and, running lights for day-time driving.

Eg:

My car uses: [i] high beam headlights for seeing into the distance; [ii] low beam headlights for driving at night; and, [iii] running lights for daytime driving.

The [i], [ii], and [iii] also facilitate clarifying the sentence’s parallel structure.

 

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Short Defense of the Tillman Comma,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 27, 2023, 4:20 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-brief-defense-of-tillman-comma.html>;

Professor Vikram David Amar and the New Civility

 

Professor Vikram David Amar, Part One, ‘Bad Arguments Against the Application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment Against President Trump,’ Verdict (Dec. 26, 2023), <http://tinyurl.com/ycxpav4x>:

Now there are those who challenge whether the President is an officer under the United States (although there are very few prominent academics from highly regarded institutions who take that position).

 

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Professor Vikram David Amar and the New Civility,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 26, 2023, 4:39 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/professor-vikram-david-amar-and-new.html>;

Are Provisions of the Constitution Self-Enforcing?

Michael McConnell et al., ‘2023 National Lawyers Convention: Insurrection & the 14th Amendment,’ The Federalist Society, at 55:45–57:50 (Nov. 10, 2023, 2:00 PM) (posted online Dec. 20, 2023), <https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/2023-national-lawyers-convention-insurrection-the-14th-amendment>, <available on PROQUEST> 

Professor Michael McConnell: “I think the general rule, at least until very modern times, was that things in the Constitution could be invoked as a defense, but that they did not constitute a cause of action in which you can go to court and sue. . . . Don’t forget that the 14th Amendment is, in fact, enforced, for the most part, against States [and] state officers under Section 1983. So you don’t just go into court and say—Obergefell [v. Hodges], for example, was a [Section] 1983 case—so it was not one brought without any congressional authority.” (emphases added).

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Are Provisions of the Constitution Self-Enforcing?,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 25, 2023, 7:58 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/are-provisions-of-constitution-self.html>; 

Seeking a Correction from a Journalist

 

Dear Journalist, 

See our [prior] correspondence below. 

You wrote me the following question: “I’m just curious about your reaction to last night’s [Colorado Supreme Court] ruling—specifically over the ‘officer’ argument—one you know very well.” 

I responded with: “I think it an argument about which reasonable persons can disagree. That argument and others will likely be addressed in a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.” My comment was measured, vanilla, and even handed. 

In your publication, you wrote: Tillman “thought the ‘officer’ issue would be one of paramount importance at the Supreme Court’s level.” Paramount?!?  I never said anything remotely close to “paramount importance.” And, in fact, I do not think the “officer”-issue is of “paramount” importance. It is just one issue, among several issues, that is “likely” to be addressed on appeal. 

I know today is the 24th; still, you should correct this error, as soon as it is reasonable for you to do so.  

Sincerely, 

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Seeking a Correction from a Journalist,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 24, 2023, 7:26 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/seeking-correction-from-journalist.html>; 

Is It Soup Yet?

Professor Paul Horwitz’s Prawfsblawg post is a basically fair appraisal of the sociology and pathologies of law. It is not much in the way of praise. But I do not expect praise—at least not as a matter of course. 

 

He gets two things, in my view, wrong. First, the media elites did not push Judge Wallace, in the Colorado trial court, to rule as she did. That was all on Judge Wallace. Also Blackman and I did not push Judge Wallace—as we had no amicus brief at that stage. Indeed, to date, during the Section 3 cases, Blackman and I have pushed the non-self-executing argument much more heavily than the “officer of the U.S.” argument. Moreover, Judge Wallace, is (I have read) a Democratic donor in a Democratic state, and I believe she was (initially) appointed by a Democratic governor to her judicial position. Was she really moved by Fox News and other media reports? It is true that the Blackman/Tillman “officer of the U.S.”-position on did not fare well before the Colorado Supreme Court. But it was adopted by the trial court. That’s enough to put it on or near the “wall.”

 

Second, I am not “monkish”—even if it is used as a “compliment.” Just, maybe, I am boringly repetitive. In my defense, I would point out that I am on U.S., Irish, and other foreign media fairly regularly. And I write in many fora—not just academic journals with small and specialized readerships. My email address is public information. People of all sorts and all perspectives reach out to me all the time. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Is It Soup Yet,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 22, 2023, 2:49 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/is-it-soup-yet.html>;

Academia: Same As It Ever Was

 

Kusuma Mahendra Wijaya, ‘Kewenangan Presiden Dalam Pembentukan Undangundang (Studi Komparasi Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat)’ / ‘Presidential Authority in Law Formation (Comparative Study of Indonesia and the United States)’ 18 (University of Mataram, Indonesia, Faculty of Law, Master’s dissertation, [circa Oct.] 2023) (advisor Prof. Dr. H.M. Galang Asmara) (citing Tillman’s Textualist Defense in Texas Law Review (2005))), <http://eprints.unram.ac.id/41231/>.

and later ...

Wijaya Kusuma, Galang Asmara, and Chrisdianto Eko Purnomo, Kewenangan Presiden Dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang (Studi Komparasi Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat) / Presidential Authority in Legislation Formation (A Comparative Study of Indonesia and the United States), 2(2) Jurnal Diskresi / Discretion Journal 210, 217 (December 2023) (peer review) (citing Tillman’s Textualist Defense in Texas Law Review (2005)) (Indonesia), <http://tinyurl.com/yhnwezte>. 

Think about it.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Academia: Same As It Ever Was,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 15, 2023, 3:09 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/same-as-it-ever-was.html>; 

Academic Norms

 

 

On November 17, 2023, Judge Sarah Wallace, a Colorado trial court judge, ruled, in effect, for Trump in Anderson v. Griswold, Colo. Secretary of State andIntervenors Republican State Central Cmt., Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Nov. 17, 2023). Wallace held that the presidency was NOT an “officer of the United States” for the purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., slip. op. at 95–102. Thus, Trump cannot be disqualified under Section 3. (Judge Wallace’s decision is now on appeal before the Supreme Court of Colorado.)

In a recent podcast, after the state trial court judge announced her decision, Professor Akhil Amar stated:

Maybe judges in Colorado, state judges, trial judges, may not understand all this . . . .

Akhil Amar, Podcast, ‘Sense and Nonsensibility on Section 3—Special Guests Mark Graber and Gerard . . . .,’ Amarica’s Constitution (Nov. 29, 2023) (season 3, episode 49, show 153), <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sense-and-nonsensibility-on-section-3-special-guests/id1549624070?i=1000636866948>, <https://akhilamar.com/podcast-2/> (at 38:40ff).

Even if Judge Wallace’s decision erred—and I do not think it erred—why criticize anyone other than Wallace? Why criticize a broader group? Is Colorado somehow unique? Are state court judges unable to grasp the concepts discussed? Are trial court judges lesser judges than appellate judges? Is any of this how a legal academic should set an example for students—i.e., future lawyers looking for work?

Norms anyone?

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Academic Norms,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 12, 2023, 7:35 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/academic-norms.html>;

 

 

 

 

 

Publications by Professor Saikrishna Prakash

 

Aditya Bamzaia & Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The Executive Power of Removal, 136 Harv. L. Rev. 1756, 1776 n.141 (2023) (citing Senator Charles Pinckney, approvingly, for the statement: “every officer of the United States is nominated by the President, and (except Judges) removable at his pleasure” (emphasis added));

Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The Appointment and Removal of William J. Marbury and When an Office Vests, 86 Notre Dame L. Rev. 199, 216–17 (2013) (“[T]he Appointments Clause provides that the President ‘shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, . . . appoint’ all officers of the United States. . . . [T]he President must commission all officers of the United States.” (emphases added) (footnotes omitted));

Saikrishna Prakash, How the Constitution Makes Subtraction Easy, 92 Va. L. Rev. 1871, 1871 (2006) (affirming that “Congress may remove, via statute, all officers of the United States, save for federal judges with good behavior tenure” (emphasis added));

Saikrishna Prakash, The Chief Prosecutor, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 521, 583 n.360 (2005) (“The Appointments Clause grants the president the power to appoint all officers of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate.” (emphasis added));

Saikrishna B. Prakash, Branches Behaving Badly: The Predictable and Often Desirable Consequences of the Separation of Powers, 12 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 543, 546 (2003) (noting that “the Constitution grants to the Senate the responsibility of confirming all non-inferior officers of the United States” (emphasis added));

Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, Deviant Executive Lawmaking, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1, 41 n.244 (1998) (noting that the Appointments Clause “establish[es] the requirement of senate confirmation for all officers, but permitting Congress, by law, to vest the appointment of inferior officers with the President, heads of departments, and courts” (emphasis added)); 

Saikrishna Prakash, Regulating Presidential Powers, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 215, 244 n.154 (2005) (reviewing Harold J. Krent, Presidential Powers (2005)) (“I have argued elsewhere that the [Inferior Office Appointments Clause] was necessary as a means of circumventing the burdensome requirement that all officers of the United States be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” (emphasis added)); 

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Publications by Professor Saikrishna Prakash,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 10, 2023, 7:35 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/publications-by-professor-saikrishna.html>; 

Topic for a Student Note

 

Are you a law student looking for a breaking and newsworthy topic for your student-note or for some course paper? Perhaps for a master’s thesis—or, a chapter of a PhD dissertation? 

Consider: “The Scope of ‘Officer of the United States’ in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,” or, “The Scope of Section 3’s ‘Office’ and ‘Officer’ Language.”

I would be happy to point you to sources—both historical, as well as current briefs and decisions in the state and federal courts.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Topic for a Student Note,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 9, 2023, 2:46 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/topic-for-student-note.html>; 

See also Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Briefs and Other Filings in Section 3 Cases,’ New Reform Club (Nov. 16, 2023, 4:11 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/11/briefs-and-other-filings-in-section-3.html>;

Practice Tip: Citing Older U.S. Cases—state and federal

 

 

Do not cite to text near the start of a reported case without examining the text. The introductory material is often an editor’s headnote—such material is not part of the judge’s or panel’s or court’s decision.

Like judges, editors sometimes make mistakes. But if a judge makes a mistake, his mistake is still part of the case law until the decision is set aside on reconsideration or appeal, or overruled by later case law, or, in effect, overturned by subsequent legislation. If the editor’s headnote is wrong and you rely on it, that’s on you—unless you clearly indicate that you are citing to a headnote.

Also, early cases often reported the lawyers’ arguments as part of the introductory material. You can cite such arguments if you clearly indicate that you are citing to a lawyer’s argument, and not the judicial decision itself. If you do not indicate that you are relying on a lawyer’s argument (as opposed to the judicial decision), your error might be inadvertent, but a suspicious judge might think you are actively trying to mislead him/her.

And it pains me to point this out, but some retired judges go back into practice. So a retired judge might act as a lawyer in a case. The editor reporting the case then proceeds to report the argument, and, as a courtesy, the editor reports the argument of “Judge so-and-so.” What a judge-acting-as-a-lawyer argues is just a lawyer’s argument, and it is not part of the judicial decision. So you should avoid inadvertently citing a lawyer as if he or she were the judge on the case.

That’s why you should read the cases you cite, and not rely on how others characterize such cases. Errors along these lines are passed down from generation to generation, and sometimes, the mistake displaces the actual reality. Cf. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962).

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Practice Tip: Citing Older U.S. Cases—state and federal,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 7, 2023, 7:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/practice-tip-citing-older-us-casesstate.html>; 

Three Kingdoms and Humanity

 

          [Guo Jia:] “Your rival [Yuan Shao] has ten weak points whereas you have ten strong ones, and, though his army is large, it is not terrible.”

     Then Guo Jia continued, “Yuan Shao is overmuch devoted to ceremony and deportment; while you [Cao Cao] are sympathetic and natural; this is an excellence in conduct. He [Yuan Shao] is antagonistic and drives; you are conciliatory and lead; so you have the advantage of popular approval. For many years the government has been lax, and he makes it more so; you strive vigorously after efficiency; this is the excellence of able administration. He is outwardly liberal but grudging at heart, and too given to nepotism; you appear exacting, but you understand and use people after their ability; this is the advantage of correct appreciation. He is a visionary but lacking in decision; you are a man of prompt decision and direct action; this is an advantage in policy. He loves to gather about him people of renown; you treat people as you find them regardless of their reputation; this is where you excel in moral virtue. He is compassionate to those at hand, but careless about those out of sight; your care is all-embracing; this is where you excel in humanity. He lends a ready ear to calumny and is misled; you may be flooded with evil counsel, but you preserve independence; this is where you excel in perspicacity. His sense of right and wrong is confused; your appreciation is accurate and clear; this is where you excel in administrative capacity. He loves the make-believe force, but is ignorant of military essentials; you would overcome with far inferior numbers as you possess military genius; this is where you excel in war. With your ten superiorities, you will have no difficulty in overcoming Yuan Shao.” (emphasis added)

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Three Kingdoms and Humanity,’ New Reform Club (Nov. 26, 2023, 11:39 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/11/three-kingdoms-and-humanity.html>;

Tillman’s Response to a Media Inquiry on Anderson v. Griswold

 

Generically speaking, my view has been and remains that the primary legal issue before the Colorado courts and any other state court assessing a Section 3 ballot challenge is ... Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (United States Circuit Court for the District of Virginia 1869) (No. 5815) (Chase, Chief Justice of the United States)—that is, whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing in the sense that it can be asserted as a sword, as opposed to a shield, by private parties seeking affirmative relief. See, e.g., Cale v. City of Covington, 586 F.2d 311 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing Griffin’s Case for the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions cannot be asserted as a sword absent federal statutory authority). Here, petitioners/plaintiffs are seeking affirmative relief: an order against the Colorado Secretary of State to remove Trump from the ballot.

Of course, if the Colorado Supreme Court affirms the trial court, it could do so on any number of grounds—including, e.g., the scope of Section 3’s “officer of the U.S.” language (or, the scope of Section 3’s “office under the U.S.” language). And it might affirm with a summary order absent much (or, perhaps, any) developed discussion. That sometimes happens in election law cases—no full-length opinion is issued. And, the state Supreme Court might reverse (or, perhaps, remand to the trial court). And the majority may be fractured—an agreed order, but with different rationales in support of its final order from different Colorado Supreme Court Justices.

The first question is when will the petitioners/plaintiffs file their notice of appeal, and will they file their merits brief with their notice. (I have heard that petitioners/plaintiffs might file today: Monday, Nov. 20, 2023.) Or, will petitioners/plaintiffs file a notice of appeal and ask for a briefing schedule—thereby dragging the process out? My guess is that the Colorado Supreme Court will want to clear this up promptly—perhaps, adjudicated merely on the papers and absent any oral argument or hearing. If so, a final decision might be rendered in less than a month. Perhaps much less. If Trump should prevail in the Colorado Supreme Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs will seek U.S. Supreme Court review, but I think they have less than a 50-50 shot of getting it—perhaps, considerably less than 50-50.

Judge Wallace had no substantial discussion of Griffin’s Case in her two decisions to date. And the issue was fairly raised in the briefing. I do not believe this was an oversight. She punted on this issue and left it for the Colorado Supreme Court (and the U.S. Supreme Court) to clear up. I do not say that Wallace’s opinion, as a whole, was less than professional for punting on this issue, but her silence on this issue is a reason to criticize her work product on this occasion. It is a judge’s job to do hard work and not to leave the most difficult questions to colleagues and appellate review.

Some might argue that Judge Wallace erred in writing a lengthy opinion with much dicta deciding issues she need not have resolved. Having determined that Section 3 did not apply to Trump because of the “office” and “officer” issue, it might be argued that she should not have resolved the other issues, as they were not necessary to reach her decision and because a judge should avoid reaching constitutional (and similar difficult) issues which are not necessary to resolve the case before the court. In my view, that criticism, on this occasion, would be wrong. The issues she reached were squarely before the court and should the Colorado Supreme Court reverse on the “office” and “officer” issue, a remand to adjudicate the outstanding issues would not be timely given the compressed election process.

As for the factual findings and findings of mixed fact-&-law, if Trump prevails on appeal, these findings have no legal value. As to the popular mind, my own view is that what people think about Trump and January 6, 2021 is already largely set in stone—and Judge Wallace’s finding will not move support into or out of the Trump column. Thus, I see no historic value at all. If Trump does not prevail on appeal, then those factual findings may very well supply a predicate (which met due process standards) for removing him from the ballot. And that would be consistent with the rule of law precisely because he will have had his day in court, with notice, and opportunity to be heard before a neutral adjudicator, and full appellate review.

Let me know if you need anything further.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Tillman’s Response to a Media Inquiry on Anderson v. Griswold,’ New Reform Club (Nov. 20, 2023, 3:09 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/11/tillmans-response-to-media-inquiry-on.html>. 

But see Derek Muller, ‘State power and the [U.S.] Term Limits v. Thornton problem in Anderson v. Griswold,’ Election Law Blog (Nov. 19, 2023, 7:17 PM), <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=139753>.

Briefs and Other Filings in Section 3 Cases

Useful resource: <https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker>; 

Anderson v. Griswold, Colo. Sec. of State and Intervenors Republican State Central Cmt., Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Nov. 17, 2023) (Wallace, J.), slip. op. at 95–102 (holding that a president is not an “officer of the United States” for the purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment), rev’d Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump, Case No. 23SA300, 2023 CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, 543 P.3d 283 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (per curiam), rev’d Trump v. Anderson, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 899207, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1190, 144 S. Ct. 662, 601 U.S. 100 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2024) (per curiam), <https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23>, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>, <601us1r06_m6hn.pdf (supremecourt.gov)>; 

 

Because the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, the opinion and order of the state trial court judge remains good, persuasive law. The Colorado state trial court held that the President of the United States is NOT an “officer of the United States.”

FINAL JUDGMENTS: California, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. 

California: Schaefer v. USA and Trump, Civ. A. No. 23-CV-1451-JLS-BLM, 2023 WL 6798507 (S.D. Ca. Oct. 13, 2023); 

California: Clark v. Weber, Civ. A. No. 2:23-CV-07489-DOC-DFMx, 2023 WL 6964727 (C.D. Ca. Oct. 20, 2023); 

Colorado: Anderson v. Griswold, Colo. Sec. of State and Intervenors Republican State Central Cmt., Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 Colo. Dist. LEXIS 375, *24-*25, 2023 WL 7017745  (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Oct. 25, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (citing Blackman and Tillman by name, and indirectly referencing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex Rev L & Pol (forth.)); 

Colorado: Anderson v. Griswold, Colo. Sec. of State and Intervenors Republican State Central Cmt., Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Nov. 17, 2023) (Wallace, J.), slip. op. at 95–102 (holding that a president is not an “officer of the United States” for the purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment), <https://tinyurl.com/2ucr64nu>, <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>; 

Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. Case No. 23SA300, 2023 CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, 543 P.3d 283 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (per curiam), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf>;  

Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. Case No. 23SA300, 2023 CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, 543 P.3d 283, 348, 351 & n.7, 356 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (Samour, J., dissenting) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf>; 

Trump v. Anderson, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 899207, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1190, 144 S. Ct. 662, 601 U.S. 100 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2024) (per curiam), <https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23>, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>.

Michigan: LaBrant v. Benson, Case No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL 8786168 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Nov. 14, 2023) (Redford, J.); 

LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State and Donald J. Trump, No. 368615, No. 368628, 2023 WL 8656163, --- N.W.2d ---- (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2023) (briefing closed Dec. 8, 2023), <>. 

Order, LaBrant v. Secretary of State, Sup Ct No 166470 (Mich. Dec. 27, 2023) (denying appeal); id. (Welch, J., dissenting).

Minnesota: Growe v. Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 7392541, --- N.W.2d ---- (Minn. Nov. 8, 2023); 

New Hampshire: Castro v. New Hampshire Sec. of State, David M. Scanlan, Civ. A. No. 23-cv-416-JL, 2023 WL 7110390 (D.N.H. Oct. 27, 2023);

     

                                  COLORADO LITIGATION: STATE TRIAL COURT

[001]  Colorado Republican State Central Committee’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) at 11, Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump, and Intervenor Colorado Republican State Central Committee, Civ. A. No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 6446966 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Sept. 22, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (filed by Michael Melito, Esq. of Melito Law LLC, and Robert Kitsmiller, Esq. of Podoll & Podoll, P.C.) (citing: Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Is the President and “Officer of the US”’ in NYU JL & Liberty), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>;

[002] Respondent Donald J. Trump’s Motion to Dismiss at 8–10, 9 n.16, 14 n.29, Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 6446965 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Sept. 29, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (filed by Scott E. Gessler, Esq. et al., of Gessler Blue LLC) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude/Paulsen’ (forth. Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.); and, [ii] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Is the President and “Officer of the US”’ in NYU JL & Liberty), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>;

[003] Petitioners’ Opposition to Intervenor Trump’s Third Motion to Dismiss at 10, 28 n.19 & n.20, Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State, and Intervenors, Colo. Republican State Central Committee and Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 7183893 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Oct. 6, 2023) (redacted version filed Oct. 12, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (filed by Mario Nicolais, Esq. of KBN Law, LLC; Martha M. Tierney, Esq. of Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC; Eric Olson, Esq. of Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC; and, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude/Paulsen’ (forth. Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.); [ii] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Is the President and “Officer of the US”’ in NYU JL & Liberty; and, [iii] Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman, The Emoluments Clauses litigation, Part 1: The Constitution’s taxonomy of officers and office, The Volokh Conspiracy, Sept. 25, 2017), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>; [WL citation available, but NOT showing on court’s website] 

[004] Respondent Donald J. Trump’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 24 n.80, 30 n.98, 38–39, 47 n.163, Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State, and Intervenor Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL ______ (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Oct. 16, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (filed by Gessler Blue LLC) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude/Paulsen’ (forth. Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.); [ii] Blackman/Tillman’s Part III, ‘Office and Officers of the Constitution’ in S Tex L Rev), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>; [NO WL citation; and NOT showing on court’s website]

 NON-FINAL ORDER: Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 7017745, 2023 Colo. Dist. LEXIS 375 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo. Oct. 25, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (denying motion to dismiss, and citing Blackman and Tillman by name, and referring to Blackman & Tillman ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’);

[005] Expert Report of Robert J. Delahunty at 12 n.13, 30, 42 n.96, 83–85, Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL _______ (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Oct. 27, 2023) (Wallace, J.) (filed by: Gessler Blue LLC) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Is the President and “Officer of the US”’ in NYU JL & Liberty; [ii] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude/Paulsen’ (forth. Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.)), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>; [NO WL citation; and NOT showing on court’s website]

FINAL ORDER: Anderson v. Griswold, Colo. Sec. of State and Intervenors Republican State Central Cmt., Case No. 2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Nov. 17, 2023) (Wallace, J.), slip. op. at 95–102 (holding that a president is not an “officer of the United States” for the purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment), <https://tinyurl.com/2ucr64nu>, <https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240>; [NOT CITING TILLMAN]

                        COLORADO LITIGATION: STATE SUPREME COURT

[001] Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Law Professor Mark Graber in Support of Petitioners-Appellants Norma Anderson at 16 n.41, Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA300, 2023 WL 8190200 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Nov. 20, 2023, 9:39 PM) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’), Filing Id. 780AE5A95093E;

 

[002] Colorado Republican State Central Cmt’s Answer Brief to the Appellant Electors’ Opening Brief at 9, Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA300, 2023 WL 8190197 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023, 3:51 PM) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Is the President an “Officer of the US”’ in NYU JL & Liberty), Filing Id. 91C60F62E990B;

 

[003] Brief of Amici Curiae Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee in Support of Intervenor-Appellant/Cross-Appellee at 11, 14, 17, Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA300, 2023 WL 8259221 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Nov. 28, 2023, 1:23 PM) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude/Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Tillman & Blackman’s ‘Offices and Officers of the Constitution Part III: The Appointments, Impeachment, Commissions, and Oath or Affirmation Clauses,’ 62 S. Tex. L. Rev. 349 (2023)), Filing Id. F6908DE959D9F;

 

[]        Brief Submitted by Professor Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae in Support of Intervenor-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Donald J. Trump, Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA300 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023, 1:13 PM) (filed by Reisch Law Firm, LLC and Josh Blackman et al.), Filing ID: 5DE684C1AED0C, 2023 WL 8188397, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4644676>.

 

[004] Petitioners’ Answer-Reply Brief at 28 n.3, Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA300 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Dec. 1, 2023) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s Colorado Supreme Court amicus brief), 2023 WL _______;

 

[005] President Trump’s Reply in Support of his Opening Brief, Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA00300 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2023, 3:53 PM) (filed by Gessler Blue LLC) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), Filing ID: 409A61A213D4, 2023 WL 9602648;

 

[006] Oral Argument in Anderson v. Griswold, Case No. 2023SA300 (Colo. Sup. Ct. Dec. 6, 2023, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM), <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w63HiVgvVvo>, <https://cojudicial.ompnetwork.org/embed/sessions/280914/23sa300> (Scott Gessler, Esq., for Trump and Republican Party, citing Blackman/Tillman Colorado Supreme Court amicus brief) (at xx:xxff);

 

[]        Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. Case No. 23SA300, 2023 CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, 543 P.3d 283 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (per curiam), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf>;

 

[007]  Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. Case No. 23SA300, 2023 CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, 543 P.3d 283, 348, 351 & n.7, 356 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (Samour, J., dissenting) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf>;

                  COLORADO LITIGATION: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Brief Submitted for Professor Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner [Donald J. Trump], Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2024) (filed by Professor Josh Blackman et al.), 2024 WL 184282, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4687495>;  

[001] On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado, Brief for Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 15, 18, 21, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Blackman & Tillman’s Part III, Offices and Officers of the Constitution in S. Tex. L. Rev.) (filed by Patrick N. Strawbridge, Esq. of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and others), 2024 WL 113931, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[002]  Brief of Amicus Curiae Vivek Ramaswamy in Support of Petitioner at 17, 19, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Blackman & Tillman’s 2021 NYUJLL article) (filed by Josefiak PLLC), 2024 WL 184286, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[003]  Brief of Amicus Curiae Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner at 14, 15, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Blackman & Tillman’s amicus brief in the Colorado Supreme Court) (filed by Michael J. O’Neil, Esq.), 2024 WL 184284, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[004]  Brief of the Public Interest Legal Foundation and Hans A. von Spakovsky as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 7–8, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 286386 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2024) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s article NYUJLL (2021)) (filed by J. Christian Adams, Esq.), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[005]  Brief of Respondent Colorado Republican State Central Committee in Support of Reversal at 7 n.1, 9, 17, 20 n.7, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s article NYUJLL (2021); [ii] Black/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [iii] Tillman amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson) (filed American Center for Law & Justice), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[006]  Brief of Amici Curiae Devin Watkins and Charles Watkins in Support of Petitioner at 15, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 286428 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Part III, “Office” and “Officers of the Constitution’ in S. Tex. L. Rev.; and, [ii] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Part IV, “Office” and “Officers of the Constitution’ in S. Tex. L. Rev.), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[007]  Brief of Amicus Curiae Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Petitioner at 4, 8, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 286463 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2024) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s publication in NYUJLL (2021)) (filed by Professor John Yoo), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

 

[]        Brief of Amici Curiae the League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense in Support of Petitioner, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2024) (filed by Earl N. “Trey” Mayfield, III) (relying on scholarship by Richard E. Gardiner, a Virginia state court judge), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>; [NOT CITING BLACKMAN/TILLMAN] 

[008]   Brief of Amicus Curiae the Honorable Peter Meijer in Support of Petitioner at 15, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 268197 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2024) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

[009] Brief of Amicus Curiae James Madison Center for Free Speech In Support of Petitioner at 5 n.5, 7, 10, 11 n.8, 12–13, 15, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 268185 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2024) (filed by The Bopp Law Firm, PC) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>;

[010]  Brief of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and 177 Other Members of Congress as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner Donald J. Trump at 6, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 263220 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2024) (filed by Boyden Gray PLLC) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>; 

[011] Brief for Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 8, 18, 24, 27, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 291773 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Part III, Offices and Officers of the Constitution’ in S. Tex. L. Rev.) (filed by Patrick N. Strawbridge, of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC), <http://tinyurl.com/2zrujc89>; 

[012]  Brief for the Petitioner at 32 n.42, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 305382 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2024) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s NYUJLL article), <http://tinyurl.com/2zrujc89>;

[013]  Brief for Chuck Gray, Secretary of State of Wyoming, as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 5, 25, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 291791 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2024) (citing: [i] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Part III, Offices and Officers of the Constitution’ in S. Tex. L. Rev.), <http://tinyurl.com/2zrujc89>; 

[014]  Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor Kermit Roosevelt in Support of Respondents at 3, Trump v. Anderson, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 399941 (U.S. Jan. 30, 2024) (citing Blackman/Tillman amicus brief), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-719.html>;

[]       Brief of Amicus Curiae Michael T. Worley Supporting Respondents at 12–13, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 460311 (U.S. Jan. 31, 2024), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-719.html> (citing Scalia-Tillman letter);

[015] Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents at 3, 15, 17 n.3, 19, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL _______ (U.S. Jan. 31, 2024), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-719.html> (citing Blackman/Tillman amicus brief); 

[016] Anderson Respondents’ Opposition to Motion of Professor Tillman for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument as Amicus Curiae and for Divided Argument at 2, 19, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL _______ (U.S. Jan. 31, 2024), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-719.html> (citing Blackman/Tillman amicus brief);

 

[017] Brief for Retired State Supreme Court Justices as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 12 n.7, 19, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 457109 (U.S. Jan. 31, 2024), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-719.html> (citing Blackman/Tillman amicus brief);

 

[018] Brief of Amicus Curiae Jordan L. Michelson in Support of Respondents at 23, 19, Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 457103 (U.S. Jan. 31, 2024), <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/23-719.html> (citing: [i] Blackman/Tillman in NYUJLL; and, [ii] Blackman/Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.); 

        Trump v. Anderson, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, 2024 WL 899207, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1190, 144 S. Ct. 662, 601 U.S. 100 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2024) (per curiam), <https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23>, <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html>. 

CONNECTICUT LITIGATION 

[001] Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Donald J. Trump at 19–20 & n.9, 23–24 & n.18, Castro v. Stephanie Thomas, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 3:23-cv-01238-VAB, 2023 WL 7486769 (D. Conn. Oct. 12, 2023) (filed by Peter C. Bowman, Esq., BBB Attorneys, LLC) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 24;

[002] Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Preliminary Injunction Hearing Consolidated with a Preliminary Bench Trial on the Merits at 10, Castro v. Stephanie Thomas, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 3:23-cv-01238-VAB, 2023 WL 7486771 (D. Conn. Oct. 12, 2023) (filed by Peter C. Bowman, Esq., BBB Attorneys, LLC) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 22;

MICHIGAN LITIGATION: TRIAL COURT

[001][Donald J. Trump] Proposed-Intervenor’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition at 13 n.5, 20, LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL 7343057, 2023 WL 8789590 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 16, 2023, 4:48:19 PM) (Redford, J.) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021));

[002] Amicus Curiae Brief by Gerard N. Magliocca at 13 n.7, LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL 7343056 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 23, 2023) (Redford, J.) (citing: Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021));

[003] Defendant Secretary of State’s Memorandum of Law Pursuant to the Court’s October 9, 2023 at 9, 14 & n.6, Scheduling Order Ordering Defendant to Address Specific Questions, LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 16, 2023) (Redford, J.) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021)); [No WL citation]

[004]  Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Intervening Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition and in Response to Intervening Defendant’s Amicus Brief at 26, LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL 8789585 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 23, 2023) (Redford, J.) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s Part I of the “ ‘Offices’ and ‘Officers’ of the Constitution” in S Tex L Rev); [No WL citation]

[005] Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief of Donald J. Trump at 13–14 & n.5, 21, LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. Cl. signed: Oct. 23, 2023, received by the courts: Oct. 30, 2023, 3:44:18 PM) (Redford, J.) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021)), <https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r8OKUb2ac7zc/v0>; [No WL citation]

           LaBrant v. Benson, Case No. 23-000137-MZ, 2023 WL 8786168 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Nov. 14, 2023) (Redford, J.);  

[006]  Proposed Amici Curiae Brief of Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee in Support of Donald J. Trump at 10, 14, 16, Trump v. Benson, Civ. A. No. 23-000151-MZ, 2023 WL 8374545 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Nov. 7, 2023) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s Part III, Offices and Officers of the Constitution in S Tex L Rev) (filed by Patrick N. Strawbridge, Esq. of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and others); 

MICHIGAN LITIGATION: COURT OF APPEALS

Brief Submitted by Professor Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellee Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and in Support of Affirmance of the Court of Claims’ Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief, LaBrant v. Benson, Dkt Nos. 368615 & 368628, 2023 WL 9289767 (Mich. Court of Appeals Dec. 6, 2023, 3:02:44 PM) (filed by Todd Ludden, Esq., of Lipson Neilson, and Professor Josh Blackman), 2023 WL 9289767, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4655777>;

[007] Intervening Appellee Donald J. Trump’s Brief on Appeal at 22 n.95, 31 n.134, LaBrant v. Benson, Case No. 368628, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021));

 

[008] Brief of Amicus Curiae of Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Intervening Appellee at 10–13, LaBrant v. Benson, Case No. 368628, 2023 WL _____ (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023) (citing: [1] Blackman/Tillmans’s ‘Sweeping and Forcing’ in Tex R of L & Pol (forth); and [2] Tillman/Blackman amicus brief before Colo Sup Ct); 

[009]  Proposed Amici Curiae Brief of Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee in Opposition to Robert LaBrant, et al. at 10, 14, 16, LaBrant v. Benson, Case No. 368628, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2023) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s Part III, Offices and Officers of the Constitution in S Tex L Rev) (filed by Patrick N. Strawbridge, Esq. of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and others);

[010]  Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington at 3, 10, 11 n.8, LaBrant v. Benson, Case Nos. 368628 & 368615, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2023, 6:19:45 PM) (citing: Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.));

[]        Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants LaBrant et al., LaBrant v. Benson, Case Nos. 368628 & 368615, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2023, 11:46:58 AM) (discussing Professor Tillman generally);

[011]  Brief by Proposed Amicus Curiae [Professor] Gerard N. Magliocca at 13, LaBrant v. Benson, Case No. 368628, 2023 WL _______ (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2023, 5:27:13 PM) (citing: Blackman and Tillman’s NYUJLL article (2021)) (filed after Dec. 8, 2023, apparent due date for close of briefing, and so unclear if court will accept filing) (amicus’ late filing was rejected by Mich. Ct. App.), <>; 

LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State and Donald J. Trump, No. 368615, No. 368628, 2023 WL 8656163, --- N.W.2d ---- (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2023) (briefing closed Dec. 8, 2023), <>. 

                       MICHIGAN LITIGATION: MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT

[012]  Emergency Application for Leave to Appeal of Plaintiffs-Appellants LaBrant et al. at 45–46, LaBrant v. Benson, Sec. of State and Donald J. Trump, Intervening Defendant-Appellee, Mich. Sup. Ct. No. -------, 2023 WL ____ (Mich. Dec. 18, 2023, 4:11:03 PM) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘“Offices” and “Officers” of the Constitution, Part I, An Introduction’ in S Tex L Rev), <>;

[013] Intervening Appellee Donald J. Trump’s Answer to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Application for Leave to Appeal at 26 n.102, 34 n.132, LaBrant v. Benson, Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 166470, 2023 WL ------- (Mich. Dec. 22, 2023, 3:50:27 PM) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.; and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021));

Order, LaBrant v. Secretary of State, Sup Ct No 166470 (Mich. Dec. 27, 2023) (denying appeal); id. (Welch, J., dissenting).

MINNESOTA LITIGATION

[001]  Petitioners’ Brief at 44, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 6883472 (Minn. Oct. 4, 2023) (filed by Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Free Speech for People) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s Part I of ‘Offices and Officers of the Constitution’ in S Tex L Rev), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

[002]  Brief of Amicus Curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington at 3, 4, 13, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 6883478 (Minn. Oct. 6, 2023) (filed by Van Norman Law and CREW) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s Response to Baude and Paulsen in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

[003]  Brief of Gerard N. Magliocca as Amicus Curiae in support of Petitioners at 17 n.8, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 6883483 (Minn. Oct. 6, 2023) (filed by Gustafson Glueck PLLC and Law Office of Harry Williams) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’ in NYUJLL (2021)), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

[004] Donald J. Trump’s Brief Regarding Justiciability, Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Other Matters at 11 n.7, 21 n.16, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 7106747 (Minn. Oct. 18, 2023) (filed by CrossCastle PLLC and the Dhillon Law Group, Inc.) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

[005]  Respondent Republican Party of Minnesota’s Brief at 22 & n.5, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 7106418 (Minn. Oct. 18, 2023) (filed by Jacobson, Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C.) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

[006]  Brief of Amici Curiae Republican National Cmt, National Republican Senatorial Cmt, and National Republican Congressional Cmt in Support of Petitioners at 15, 18, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 7162535 (Minn. Oct. 20, 2023) (filed by Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s Part III of the ‘“Offices” and “Officers” of the Constitution’ in S Tex L Rev), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

           Petitioners’ Reply Brief at 28, 29 n.20, Growe v. Simon, Secretary of State, and Republican Party of Minnesota, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 7221204 (Minn. Oct. 23, 2023) (citing Blackman and Tillman generally), <https://mncourts.gov/A23-1354-Joan-Growe,-et-al-,-Petitioners,-vs-Steve-Simon,-Minnesota-Secretary-of-State,-Respondent.aspx>; [available on court’s website]

         [ORDER] Growe v. Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Civ. A. No. A23-1354, 2023 WL 7392541, --- N.W.2d ---- (Minn. Nov. 8, 2023)

NEVADA LITIGATION

[001] Defendant Donald John Trump’s Opposition to Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Preliminary Injunction Hearing Consolidated with a Preliminary Bench Trial on the Merits at 13–14 & n.8, 16–17,  Castro v. Aguilar, Sec. of State v. Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-01387-RFB-BNW, 2023 WL 6804954 (D. Nev. Oct. 2, 2023) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’ in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s Response to Baude and Paulsen), ECF Nos. 9 & 11;

[002] Defendant Donald John Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b) at 9–10 & n.3, 17–18,  Castro v. Aguilar, Sec. of State v. Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-01387-RFB-BNW, 2023 WL 6804953 (D. Nev. Oct. 5, 2023) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’ in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s Response to Baude and Paulsen), ECF No. 1;

[003] Defendant Donald John Trump’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12(b) at 9–10, 10 n.4, 16–18, Castro v. Aguilar, Sec. of State v. Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-01387-RFB-BNW, 2023 WL 7002545 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2023) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’ in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s Response to Baude and Paulsen), ECF No. 21;  

NEW HAMPSHIRE LITIGATION

[001] [Trump’s] Response to Emergency Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Preliminary Injunction Hearing at 12–13, Castro v. Scanlan, Sec. of State and Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-00416-JL-TSM, 2023 WL 7040105 (D.N.H. Sept. 19, 2023) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.));

[002] Defendant’s [Trump’s] Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 11–12, Castro v. Scanlan, Sec. of State and Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-00416-JL-TSM, 2023 WL 7040107 (D.N.H. Sept. 29, 2023) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.));  

[003] Defendant Donald J. Trump’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 6 n.3, 7 n.5, Castro v. Scanlan, Sec. of State and Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-00416-JL-TSM, 2023 WL 7040108 (D.N.H. Oct. 3, 2023) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021));

         Castro v. New Hampshire Sec. of State, David M. Scanlan, Civ. A. No. 23-cv-416-JL, 2023 WL 7110390 (D.N.H. Oct. 27, 2023);

[004] Brief of Appellee Donald J. Trump at 48, Castro v. Scanlan, N.H. Sec. of State and Donald J. Trump, No. 23-1902, 2023 WL 8270804 (1st Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.));

WEST VIRGINIA LITIGATION

[001] State of West Virginia’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss at 14–15, Castro v. Secretary of State Andrew Warner and Donald John Trump v. West Virginia Republican Party and State of West Virginia, 2:23-cv-00598, 2023 WL 7001813 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 12, 2023) (Berger, J.) (filed by Patrick Morrisey, A.G. et al.) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); [ii] Tillman’s Duke JCLPP (2008); and, [iii] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Is the President and “Officer of the United States”’ in NYU JL & Liberty (2021)), ECF No. 44, <https://ago.wv.gov/Documents/Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf>;  

[002] West Virginia’s Republican Party’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6) and Memorandum of Law in Support at 11–12, Castro v. Andrew Warner, Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump, and West Virginia Republican Party, Intervenor, 2:2023-cv-00598, 2023 WL 7458679 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 10, 2023) (Berger, J.) (filed by McArdle Law Office and ACLJ) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Is the President and “Officer of the United States”’ in NYU JL & Liberty (2021)), ECF No. 42, <http://media.aclj.org/pdf/Filed-MTD-Castro-v.-Warner-(WV)-10.10.23_Redacted.pdf>; 

        Report and Recommendation, Castro v. Sec. of State Andrew Warner, 2:23-CV-00598, 2023 WL 7399122 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 28, 2023) (Aboulhosn, M.J.), converted to summary judgment motion 2023 WL 7171462 (Oct. 31, 2023) (Berger, J.).

[003]   Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Donald John Trump at text, nn. 8 & 11, Castro v. Andrew Warner, Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump, and West Virginia Republican Party, Intervenor, 2:23-cv-00598, 2023 WL 8646944 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 6, 2023) (Berger, J.) (filed by J. Mark Adkins, Esq. of Bowles Rice LLP) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Is the President an “Officer of the United States”’ in NYU JL & Liberty (2021); and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.));  

                                                  WYOMING LITIGATION

[001] Proposed Intervenor-Defendant Donald J. Trump’s Memorandum Supporting Proposed Motion to Dismiss at 16 n.8, Newcomb v. Gray, Sec. of State and Donald J. Trump, Proposed Intervenor-Defendant, Civ. A. No. 2023-CV-0036100, 2023 WL 9473021 (Dist. Ct., 2d Jud. Dist., Albany Cty., Wyo. Dec. 12, 2023, 4:47 PM) (filed by ) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude and Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth.); and, [ii] Blackman and Tillman’s NYU JLL article (2021)), Trans. Id. No. 71609127, <>; 

OREGON SUPREME COURT

[001]  Intervenors-Respondents’ Memorandum in Opp’n to Mandamus passim, State ex rel Mary Lee Nelson v. Lavonne Griffin-Valade, Oregon Sec. of State, and Donald J. Trump & Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc., Intervenors-Respondent[s], Or. Sup. Ct. No. S070658, 2023 WL 9508668 (Or., Dec. 29, 2023) (citing: [1] Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Sweeping and Forcing’ in Tex R L & Pol (forth.); [2] Blackman and Tillman’s NYUJLL article (2021); and, [3] Brief for Professor Seth Barrett Tillman as Amicus Curiae, Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111), <https://www.opb.org/pdf/Trump2_1704242102798.pdf>; 

[002]  Petition for Peremptory or Alternative Writ of Mandamus, State ex rel Mary Lee Nelson v. Lavonne Griffin-Valade, Oregon Sec. of State, Oregon Sup. Ct. No. S070658, 2023 WL 9508929 (Or., Dec. 6, 2023) (citing: Blackman & Tillman’s Part I in S. Tex. L. Rev.); 

MAINE: SECRETARY OF STATE

[1]   President Donald J. Trump’s Hearing Brief at 12 n.3, In re: Challenge to Primary Nomination Petition of Donald J. Trump, Republican Candidate for President of the United States (Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Dec. 14, 2023) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”);

[2]     President Donald J. Trump’s Closing Argument at 20, 22, In re: Challenge to Primary Nomination Petition of Donald J. Trump, Republican Candidate for President of the United States (Maine, Department of the Secretary of State, Dec. 19, 2023) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s Colorado Supreme Court Amicus Brief), <http://tinyurl.com/2xrcr4f3>; 

MAINE: SUPERIOR COURT

[1]  Opening Brief of Donald J. Trump at 50 n.115, Trump v. Bellows, Civil A. No. AP-24-01, 2024 WL 989427 (Superior Court, Kennebec County, Maine, Jan. 8, 2024) (citing Blackman/Tillman’s Colorado Supreme Court amicus brief) (available on Westlaw); 

ILLINOIS LITIGATION

[1]    Motion to Dismiss Objectors’ Petition at 15 n.9, Steven Daniel Anderson v. Donald J. Trump, 24 SOEB GP 517 (Ill. State Bd. Of Elections Jan. 19, 2024) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/Election_Board_Agenda_013024.pdf>;

[2]     Respondent/Candidate Donald J. Trump’s Response to Petitioners/Objectors’ Motion to Grant Petition for Judicial Review at 25 n.15, Steven Daniel Anderson v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 2024 COEL 13 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Feb. 13, 2024, 11:56 PM) (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘Response to Baude & Paulsen’ in Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.), <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/trump-campaign-response-to-appeal.pdf>;

OTHER SECTION 3 CASES

D. Ariz., C.D. Ca., E.D. Ca., D. Del., D. Mass., D. Mont., D.N.M., N.D.N.Y., D.S.C., and D.R.I.

[001] [Donald J. Trump’s] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint at 17 & n.8, 18, 21, Castro v. Secretary of State Adrien Fontes, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-01865-DLR, 2023 WL 7545189 (D. Ariz. Oct. 13, 2023) (filed by Timothy A. La Sota, Esq., Timothy A. La Sota, PLC) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 30;

[002] Donald J. Trump’s Response in Support of Order to Show Cause at 9–10 & n.5, Clark v. Shirley N. Weber, Calif. Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-07489-DOC-DFM, 2023 WL 7545186 (C.D. Ca. Oct. 16, 2023) (filed by Shawn E. Cowles, Esq., Dhillon Law Group Inc.) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 27;

        Clark v. Weber, Civ. A. No. 2:23-CV-07489-DOC-DFMx, 2023 WL 6964727 (C.D. Ca. Oct. 20, 2023);

[003] Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Donald John Trump at 5, 11; Castro v. Sec. of State Shirley Weber, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-02172-DAD-AC(PS), 2023 WL 7545196 (E.D. Ca. Oct. 26, 2023) (filed by Shawn E. Cowles, Esq., Dhillon Law Group, Inc.) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 12;

           Findings and Recommendation, Castro v. Weber, Civ. A. No. 2:23-cv-02172-DAD-AC(PS), 2023 WL 6931322 (E.D. Ca. Oct. 19, 2023) (Claire, M.J.)

[004] Brief in Support of Defendant Donald John Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint at 8 n.5, 14, Castro v. State Election Commissioner Anthony J. Albence, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-01068-RGA-UNA, 2023 WL 7545187 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2023) (filed by Scott D. Cousins, Esq., Cousins Law LLC) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 8;

[005] Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 14–15 & n.7, 18 & n.16, Castro v. Galvin, Secretary of State and Donald J. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-12121-MJJ, 2023 WL 7458682, 2023 WL 7545190 (D. Mass. Oct. 13, 2023) (filed by Nixon Peabody LLP) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s Response to Baude and Paulsen), ECF No. 20, <https://abovethelaw.com/uploads/2023/11/Trump-Nixon.pdf>;

[006] [Donald J. Trump’s] Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 17–18 & n.7, 20–21 & n.10, Castro v. Sec. of State Christi Jacobson, Civ. A. No. 6:23-cv-00062-SPW, 2023 WL 7545188 (D. Mont. Oct. 6, 2023) (filed by Quentin M. Rhoades, Esq., Rhoades & Erickson PLLC) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 10-1;

[007] Defendant Donald John Trump’s Opposition to Plaintiff John Anthony Castro’s Verified Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at 16 n.7, 17, Castro v. Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Sec. of State, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-00766-MLG-GJF, 2023 WL 7545185 (D.N.M. Nov. 10, 2023) (filed by Marc J. Caruso, Esq.) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 39;

[008] Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Donald John Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint at 8, 14, Castro v. New York State Board of Elections, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-01223-GTS-DJS, 2023 WL 7545200 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2023) (filed by Ronald D. Coleman, Esq., Dhillon Law Group Inc.) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 9-1;

[009] [Donald J. Trump’s] Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 12–13, Castro v. SC Elections Commission, Executive Director Howard M. Knapp, Civ. A. No. 3:23-cv-04501-MGL-SVH, 2023 WL 7545193 (D.S.C. Oct. 6, 2023) (filed by Nathan S. Williams, Esq., Law Offices of Nathan S. Williams) (citing Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 28; 

[010]  Defendant Donald John Trump’s Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss at 16 n.7, Castro v. SC Elections Commission, Executive Director Howard M. Knapp, Civ. A. No. 3:23-cv-04501-MGL-SVH, 2023 WL 7545193, 2023 WL 9319005 (D.S.C. Nov. 29, 2023) (filed by Nathan S. Williams, Esq., Law Offices of Nathan S. Williams) (citing: [i] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”; and, [ii] Blackman & Tillman’s NYUJLL article (2021)), ECF No. 69;

[011]  [Donald J. Trump’s] Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 11, 14, Perry-Bey v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-01165-LMB-IDD, 2023 WL 9374956 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2023) (filed by David A. Warrington of the Dhillon Law Group Inc.) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 26;

[]    Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, Perry-Bey v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-01165-LMB-IDD, 2023 WL 9503079 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2023) (citing to Blackman/Tillman generally), ECF No. 88;

[012] Defendant Donald John Trump’s Memorandum of Law in Support of his Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) at 7–8, 15–17, John Anthony Castro v. Sec. of State Gregg Amore and Donald John Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:23-cv-00405-JJM-PAS, 2023 WL 9325978 (D.R.I. Oct. 26, 2023) (filed by Gregory P. Piccirilli) (citing: [1] Blackman and Tillman’s “Is the President an ‘Officer of the US’” in NYUJLL (2021); and, [2] Blackman and Tillman’s “Response to Baude and Paulsen”), ECF No. 8-1; 

MISCELLANEOUS

     Schaefer v. USA and Trump, Civ. A. No. 23-CV-1451-JLS-BLM, 2023 WL 6798507 (S.D. Ca. Oct. 13, 2023); 

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Briefs and Other Filings in Section 3 Cases,’ New Reform Club (Nov. 16, 2023, 4:11 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/11/briefs-and-other-filings-in-section-3.html>;