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>;