Extract from a Recent Application

 

Publication Record. I have published widely and regularly throughout my academic career.

I have published nine articles in traditional peer-reviewed journals, and I have a tenth peer-reviewed article accepted, with a January 2026 publication date. (I have a further peer-reviewed article planned.) I have seven articles in professional (as opposed to academic) journals. I have 28 articles in student-edited print journals. (Even now, I am in the process of co-drafting another such article.) I have 24 articles in student-edited online journals. (Here too, I am in the process of co-drafting another such article.) Some of my articles have appeared in exclusive journals. E.g., American Journal of Legal History (2021 & 2010) (peer review), Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2017 & 2010), Northwestern University Law Review (2012), Texas Law Review (2005 & 2005—an opening article and a reply), and University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (2019).

I have submitted over 40 amicus briefs, motions, and declarations. My amicus filings have been filed in state and federal, trial and appellate, courts, including the United States Supreme Court, as well as an appellate brief before the [UK] Independent Betting Adjudication Service. Additionally, I have authored or co-authored eleven treatise entries. I have co-authored two book chapters.

I frequently write articles on news, politics, and law (for the layperson) for print journals and online magazines, and policy-makers’ venues. E.g., American Spectator (2024 & 2022, and a letter), The Atlantic, Copenhagen Post, Jurist (2024, 2020, 2012), Just Security, Lawfare (2023, 2022, 2020, 2019, 2019, 2018), and Newsweek. My opinion editorials have appeared in domestic newspapers, e.g., New York Times (2022 & 2017), Wall Street Journal, and foreign newspapers, e.g., Belfast News Letter (UK) (2025 & 2025), Irish Independent (and a letter), Irish Times (and six letters), The Times (and a letter) (Irish edn & UK edn), and Sunday Times (Irish edn & UK edn). Likewise, my many letters have appeared in domestic and foreign newspapers of record and other venues, and my letters are cited in other publications.[1] I also blog a good deal—on Balkinization, New Reform Club, Originalism Blog, and Volokh Conspiracy, and my blog posts are discussed and cited.[2] I have published fiction and nonfiction in literary reviews and magazines focused on wider cultural issues. E.g., Claremont Review of Books (and a letter), Dorchester Review (Canada), Eriugena Review (Ireland), Gadfly: Culture That Matters (US), Galway Review (Ireland), New English Review (US), and Quadrant (Australia). Currently, I have several other articles and opinion pieces under review at journals, literary venues, newspapers, etc.

In short, on average, I have published three academic and professional articles per year (that is, since my first academic publication), with additional output in the form of amicus briefs, treatise entries, book chapters, magazine articles, opinion editorials, letters, blogging, and contributions to literary reviews. I have managed to publish at this rate not withstanding that I regularly teach over 300 students, and on some occasions over 400 students, each and every academic semester—without the benefit of teaching assistants, graduate students, and other similar supports.

I speak at academic conferences, and I give guest lectures. I am frequently interviewed by and appear on Irish and US podcasts, radio, and television,[3] as well as in print and on line in Irish, UK, and US news magazines, newspapers,[4] and other similar venues, including undergraduate venues.[5] Usually, I speak to the news and legal news of the day, but sometimes, the interviews are more personal profiles, and I am asked to discuss my own background and publications. See, e.g., Yitzchok Frankfurter, Going Mainstream, 720 Ami Magazine 180–203 (May 28, 2025); Armin Rosen, The Outsider Legal Genius, Tablet Magazine (Mar. 22, 2024).  

---

[1] See, e.g., Dragoș Șamșudean, Conspiracy Theories and Faith in Romania: What the Orthodox Bloggers Say?, 68(2) Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Studia Europaea 175, 184 n.55 (2023) (Romania-based journal) (peer review) (citing Tillman’s 2014 letter to the editor in History Today); Kim Pieters, Attitudes ten opzichte van welzijnsaspecten bij slachten / Attitudes Towards Aspects of Well-Being at Slaughter 32, 84 (Bachelor’s thesis in biotechnology, Odisee University of Applied Sciences, Belgium, 2016) (Flemish-language thesis) (citing Tillman’s 2015 letter to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) on non-stun slaughter).

[2] Compare, e.g., Seth Barrett Tillman, The Two Discourses: How Non-Originalists Popularize Originalism and What that Means, New Reform Club (Mar. 28, 2016, 9:22 AM), with Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation 270, 304 n.59, 352 n.34 (Yale University Press 2024) (citing Tillman’s The Two Discourses), and Michael Ramsey, Seth Barrett Tillman on Originalism, Nonoriginalism and Senate Confirmation, Originalism Blog (Mar. 29, 2016, 6:16 AM) (“The whole [Tillman] post [on New Reform Club] is just brutally awesome . . . .”).

[3] See, e.g., Sharon Ní Bheoláin and Bryan Dobson, RTÉ News: Six One (Jan. 31, 2017, 6:00 PM) (Irish state-television interview) (at 25:15–30:55).

[4] See, e.g., Laura Roddy, Donald Trump has friend in court as Maynooth professor disputes case, Sunday Times (UK) (Mar. 24, 2024, 12:00 AM).

[5] See, e.g., Maclain Conlin, Due Process and New York v. Trump: A Conversation with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman, Clemson Law Review Interview (Oct. 29, 2025); Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to the Editor, “Occupy the Syllabus” fails to note complexity of adding diversity to syllabi, The Daily Californian, Feb. 10, 2015, at 5 (Berkeley student newspaper).

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

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Extract from a Recent Application,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 5, 2025, 5:56 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/extract-from-recent-application.html>; 

Harry Potter and the Constitution’s Text

 

 

Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113, 114–15 (1995) (“As a textual matter, each of these five formulations [in the Constitution] seemingly describes the same stations . . . the modifying terms ‘of,’ ‘under,’ and ‘under the Authority of’ [used in regard to the terms ‘offices’ and ‘officers’] are essentially synonymous.”); Steven G. Calabresi, Response, The Political Question of Presidential Succession, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 155, 160 (1995) (“The Constitution does not contemplate a weird [!] distinction between ‘Officers of the United States’ [as used in the Appointments Clause] and ‘Officers of the Government of the United States [as used in the Necessary and Proper Clause].’”); Michael B. Rappaport, The President’s Veto and the Constitution, 87 Nw. U. L. Rev. 735, 754 n.73 (1993) (“The term ‘votes’ [in the Orders, Resolutions, and Votes Clause] apparently did not even have a specific historical meaning . . . .”); cf., e.g., Richard D. Friedman, Some Modest Proposals on the Vice-Presidency, 86 Mich. L. Rev. 1703, 1720 n.72 (1988) (“Probably not much weight should be put on the term ‘appointment’ . . . .”). 

Compare Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 172 (“Madison buttressed this argument [against legislative officer succession] by stressing Article II’s slightly stilted syntax, which authorized Congress to declare ‘what officer,’ as opposed to ‘which officer’ . . . .” (quoting Letter from James Madison to Edmund Pendleton (Feb. 21, 1792), in 14 The Papers of James Madison 235, 236 (Robert A. Rutland et al. eds., 1983))), with Bowaman v. Reeve, (1721) 24 English Reports 259, 261 (Chancery) (Harcourt, L.C.) (“[T]hey must take what part they think fit in satisfaction of their debts . . . .” (emphasis added)), 1 Robert Burns, The Works of Robert Burns 112 (Liverpool, M’Creery 1800) (“[A]nd who can chuse what book he shall read . . . .” (emphasis added)), John Dickinson, An Essay on the Constitutional Power of Great-Britain over the Colonies in America 391 n. (Philadelphia 1774) (“Every man’s children being by nature as free as himself . . . may . . . choose what society they will join themselves to . . . [and] what commonwealth they will put themselves under . . . .” (emphases added) (quoting John Locke)), and 6 J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 271 (2005) (“ ‘Magic?’ [Tom Riddle] repeated in a whisper. ‘That’s right,’ said [Albus] Dumbledore. ‘It’s . . . it’s magic, what I can do?’ [said Riddle] ‘What is it that you can do?’ [said Dumbledore]” (emphasis added)). 

Whether the Constitution’s language was “stilted,” as suggested by Professor Amar, depends on whether its original audience was more like Rowling’s (and Dickinson’s and the eighteenth century English Court of Chancery’s) or more like Amar’s Stanford Law Review audience. Cf. Mary Sarah Bilder, James Madison, Law Student and Demi-Lawyer, 28 Law & Hist. Rev. 389 (2010) (taking a more linguistically exacting approach as suggested here).

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Harry Potter and the Constitution’s Text,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 4, 2025, 1:00 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/harry-potter-and-constitutions-text.html>; 

CHAT GPT versus GROK

CHAT GPT:

Tillman asking:

Was ex parte merryman a federal circuit court decision?

ChatGPT said:

Short answer: Yes — technically.

Explanation:

Ex parte Merryman (1861) was not a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It was issued by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney acting in his capacity as a circuit judge for the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. At that time, Supreme Court justices “rode circuit” and presided over the federal circuit courts.

So, while it is often discussed as a Supreme Court–level constitutional confrontation, Ex parte Merryman was formally a federal circuit court opinion, not a ruling of the Supreme Court itself.

GROK:

Tillman asking:

Was ex parte merryman a federal circuit court decision?

No, Ex parte Merryman (1861) was not a federal circuit court decision in the modern sense.

It was a ruling issued by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney sitting as a single circuit judge in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, not a decision of a multi-judge appellate circuit court.

Key context:

At that time (1861), U.S. Supreme Court justices “rode circuit” and held circuit court sessions individually in their assigned districts, in addition to their Supreme Court duties.

Taney was the circuit justice assigned to the Fourth Circuit, which included Maryland.

John Merryman had been arrested and detained at Fort McHenry by Union military authorities for alleged pro-Confederate activities.

Merryman’s lawyers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus directly with Taney in his capacity as the circuit judge for Maryland.

On May 28, 1861, Taney issued the opinion Ex parte Merryman, ruling that President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional and that only Congress (not the President) had the power to suspend the writ.

Important points about its status:

It was a single-judge circuit court ruling, not a decision of the full U.S. Court of Appeals (the modern circuit courts did not exist in their current form until the Evarts Act of 1891).

The military commander at Fort McHenry (General Cadwalader) simply ignored Taney’s order, and the Lincoln administration refused to comply.

Because it was issued by a single circuit judge and never reviewed or enforced, it has no binding precedential value as circuit court or Supreme Court precedent.

It is historically significant as one of the most dramatic confrontations between the judiciary and the executive during the Civil War, but legally it is essentially Taney’s opinion from the circuit court bench, not an appellate decision.

In short: Ex parte Merryman was a federal circuit court ruling in the narrow historical sense (issued by a Supreme Court justice sitting as a circuit judge), but it was not a decision of a federal court of appeals or a multi-judge panel, and it carries no formal precedential weight today.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘CHAT GPT versus GROK,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 4 ,2025, 9:19 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/chat-gpt-versus-grok.html>; 

Today’s Footnote

In connection with my amicus filings, I found myself on an enemies list. See, e.g., NARAL, The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement 7 (2018) (citing Tillman’s publications, and amicus briefs filed jointly with the Judicial Education Project and Carrie Severino, Esq.); see also, e.g., James Hohmann, Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump ballot access case—2/8, Washington Post (Feb. 8, 2024) (“Hilariously, this is an argument that was actually pushed by this obscure assistant [Tillman adding: associate] professor in Ireland at a law school. His name is Seth Tillman. And he has been writing these law review articles for decades. He was dismissed as a crackpot. People made fun of him.”) (1:04:20ff); id. at 3:29:35 (“pretty obscure Irish legal academic”). For what it is worth, I am a US citizen living abroad, and I am also a legal academic affiliated with an Irish university. Even the foreign media has made efforts to get their digs in. See, e.g., Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, Episode 221: The Rest Is Politics (Feb. 21, 2024) (at 36:00–39:00) (citing Tillman’s scholarship’s role in Trump’s election and Section-3 litigation, and characterizing Tillman as a “constitutional fundamentalist”); see also, e.g., Sun Chenghao, 最高法院与特朗普参选资格：争议、走向与影响 / The Supreme Court and Trump’s candidacy: controversy, trends and impact, 美国观察 / American Observer #89, Jan. 19, 2024 (characterizing my co-authored scholarship as the work of “hardline conservatives”). Social media, although not quite an enemies list, was a place for playground level name-calling by domestic and foreign academics. See, e.g., Professor Laurence H. Tribe (Harvard Law School) (@tribelaw), X (formerly Twitter) (Sept. 1, 2017, 7:20 PM), https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/903804726717841409 [https://perma.cc/GS65-VAYA] (“Another devastating critique of Tillmania by @jedshug.” (emphasis added)); Shane Glackin, Senior Lecturer (University of Exeter, Philosophy) (@eltorosolo.bsky.social) Bluesky (Jan. 28, 2025, 2:06 PM) (reproducing Glackin’s tweet at bottom of Tillman’s post). And sometimes, the glass is half-full. Compare Professor Akhil Amar (Yale Law School) in Charlie Savage, Offbeat Interpretation From Legal Outsider Could Shape Election, New York Times, Feb. 8, 2024, A21 (Amar opining that Tillman’s position is a “gimmick”), with id. (Amar further opining that Tillman is “brilliant” and “one of the genuinely interesting people in the world”).

Seth Barrett Tillman, Today’s Footnote, New Reform Club (Dec. 4, 2025, 3:05 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/todays-footnote.html>;