Micah Schwartzman

@micahschwartzman

Law professor at the University of Virginia.

709 Siguiendo5925 Seguidores305 Publicaciones

Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y micahschwartzman.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· 13d

There is apparently some kind of meltdown happening over there about what the “common good” means. Various abstract conceptions are being debated, with the predictable need to defend appealing to such abstractions. /1

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· 23d

Nice catch -- that's a screenshot from Westlaw. The Supreme Court Reporter got it right.

As a postscript I should note that both the federal and state
cases
are de-
cided on specified Establishment Clause considerations, without reaching the questions that would be presented if the evi-
lence in any of these cases showed that any of the involved schools restricted entry on racial or religious grounds or required all students gaining admission to receive instruction in the tenets of a particular faith. For myself, if such proof were made, the legislation would to that extent be unconstitutional.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· 23d

Reading up on St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, I went back to look at Lemon v. Kurtzman, which I'd forgotten was unanimous on Pennsylvania's law; 8-1 on Rhode Island's. Justice White was the sole dissenter. Interestingly, he included the footnote below. Will this hold up after St. Mary is decided?

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· 27d

A couple Third Circuit judges cite Aquinas and Catholic integralists in support of deregulating AR-15s and other high capacity semi-automatic weapons. If you want to know what “common good constitutionalism”/Catholic integralism (they are the same thing) really means, see how it’s applied.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jul 2

Can I get some help on the math for this one? 75 years takes us back to 1951 (Eisenhower). Since then there have been 21 Republican confirmations to the Court and 9 Democratic. Going back only 50 years doesn’t fix the problem. www.senate.gov/legislative/...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jun 30

Tell me you haven’t been to job talk in decades.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jun 28

Another good one from the Religious Liberty Commission report. Apparently Nietzsche is the patron saint of accreditation boards and research grants — you know, the will to apply for federal funding.

In the decades that followed, ideologies like those promoted by Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, and John Dewey began to tighten their grip on the American college campus.
The cultivation of reason and virtue was replaced with the formation of accreditation bodies, research grants, and ideologies. Though adherence to traditional moral and religious conventions was at first tolerated on campuses in the 19th and 20th centuries, over time, this framework has resulted in an increasingly hostile view towards those who embrace Judeo-Christian values.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jun 28

The Religious Liberty Comm’n section on vaccines (pp. 143-50) contains no citations to cases reviewing vaccine exemption claims — and there are hundreds of them. It would be generous to call this report misleading. It is better described as anti-vax propaganda. www.justice.gov/religious-li...

Chapter 10: Conscience and Coercion in Vaccine Policy
Vaccines carry significant theological implications for many religions. Religious beliefs about the sanctity of human life and the duty to avoid harm often arise in this context because of the ways in which vaccines are researched, developed, and administered. 314
Vaccine mandates during COVID-19 required individuals to take vaccines to receive a benefit, such as employment or education. For individuals whose sincerely held religious beliefs lead them to decline a vaccine, these mandates are extremely coercive. The individual is left with the choice to renounce their faith or lose their way of life.
Because the stakes are so high, respecting religious liberty in the context of vaccine mandates is an absolute necessity. The First Amendment and applicable law forbid discrimination against individuals who have requested religious accommodations. In the context of public actors, such as government employers or public schools, vaccine mandates must be narrowly tailored to the relevant public health interests at stake.
Religious accommodations cannot be treated differently than secular accommodations to mandates. 315 And, certainly, hostility and anti-religious rhetoric toward those seeking religious accommodations is contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment and, in some contexts, can be evidence of animus that violates applicable civil rights laws.
Unfortunately, the Commission heard many stories and has received hundreds of written testimonies from individuals who had been subjected to unfavorable treatment because of their religious beliefs. Perhaps most troubling was the fact that religious children and families were excluded at institutions that did not require 100 percent vaccination, but these institutions welcomed students with medical exemptions as well as students without any medical records.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jun 28

I’ve been reading the Religious Liberty Commission report. It is an embarrassing document. This passage, blaming separation of church and state on the American reception of Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault (lol) in the 1900s, makes you wonder: who writes this stuff? www.justice.gov/religious-li...

Building Walls of Separation between Church and State
In the 1900s, however, a new philosophy emerged in Europe, which laid the intellectual foundations for threats to American religious liberty which persist even today.?2 Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, and others famously embraced the belief that "God is dead," rejecting God and dismissing ideals of objective truth and morality as simply pretenses used to gain power.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jun 27

This TNR piece draws the relevant comparison: newrepublic.com/article/2123...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· May 19

The Virginia Law Review has published a tribute to Fred Schauer. I am grateful to the editors for making this possible and for bringing together this set of reflections on Fred's life and work. virginialawreview.org/articles/in-...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· May 6

Or suppose in addition to the 10 Commandments, one town adds KJV John 14:6 (from above), and then another decides to go with the quotation below. (We’re doing con law here — not asking about whether any of this is sensible policy.) Still good? /4

“The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.”

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· May 5

If only Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Mill, Dewey were more *readable*. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/05/o...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Apr 23

If you’re a law professor thinking about reposting the claim that the Unite the Right rally was staged or faked, I’d encourage you to read the transcripts from Sines v Kessler. I know they run several thousand pages of testimony from the organizers, but they’re easily accessible and linked below.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Apr 14

The cope is strong with this one.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Apr 13

Nothing in our principles commits us to humoring the disorders of antisemitic ultramontists.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Apr 4

I know legal scholars are supposed to stop making legal arguments and just make moral/political ones, but can I get an exception here?

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Mar 31

Some pointed questions in an excellent post by @gowder.io on the role of legal argument in the controversy over birthright citizenship. balkin.blogspot.com/2026/03/poli...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Mar 29

For the laughs then! Hadn’t read Rothfeld before, but enjoyed reading her piece. She knows the philosophy. I don’t agree with parts of this reply, or its angry tone, but Berkowitz has a point here: www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/202....

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Mar 29

Pretty sure I got blocked (maybe ostracized is the word now?, casssunstein.substack.com/p/ostracism) on Twitter for asking a version of this question. Still a fair one. thepointmag.com/criticism/li...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 23

Here’s the relevant part of Schempp (see below), which itself relied on prior precedent. /5 www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 20

I wandered over there to check on how things are looking from the right. I hadn’t realized we’re in the midst of a Rawls conniption. Is this displaced anxiety about going to war with Scandinavia? Or just the usual eruption?

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 10

Fwiw, in his partial dissent, Judge Ebel rightly rejects the majority’s approach to sincerity, which isn’t supported by circuit or Supreme Court precedent. It’s also remarkable that the panel majority accused Judge Ebel of religious animus, not something I’ve seen before (except maybe in CA5?). /end

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 10

I had missed this CA10 decision supporting religious exemptions from a university’s vaccine requirement. The panel majority said the university was constitutionally forbidden from inquiring in any detailed way into the plaintiffs’ sincerity: /1 uploads-ssl.webflow.com/63d954d4e4ad...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 9

My colleague @amandafrost.bsky.social is excellent on this panel about birthright citizenship. Her response on what sources to read to understand the issue (at ~1:14) — as compared to the other answers given — is notable. @uvalaw.bsky.social www.youtube.com/live/scYYIy9...

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 7

There is no limiting principle articulated, so this panel is inviting religious for-profits and hospitals to raise “church autonomy” defenses for firing anyone who doesn’t share their religious views. Note that the employees at issue in the present case involve those providing medical services: /3

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Jan 7

CA9 says its decision is limited — it applies only when religious groups have a sincere religious basis for preferring coreligionists, which is basically no limit at all. The only other limit is that this decision doesn’t reach religious for-profits or hospitals, but the panel doesn’t say why: /2

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Dec 28

Not always.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Dec 28

Before self-denaturalizing for insufficiently enthusiastic celebration of Christmas (“nothing bad” would happen to the Jews, we’re told), maybe I’ll teach a seminar on Locke’s letter, if American citizens are still allowed to read it. Or given all this talk of family, the first treatise.

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman· Dec 26

Subtle.