Jon Hanson

@thesituationist

Alan A. Stone Professor of Law and Director of Systemic Justice Project, Harvard Law School.

165 Siguiendo2275 Seguidores591 Publicaciones

Bluesky

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

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jul 11

Take that Alito! Well done, Judge Laplante!

Alito trying to limit the ability of district courts to vindicate basic constitutional rights for everyone via class actions

Judge Laplante acknowledging Alito's attempt to discourage class actions in this context

Laplante claiming to jump over the hurdle placed by Alito -- again, in order to protect the wider public from unconstitutional Trum policies

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jul 10

To be clear, fear of a "threat" to academic is itself a loss of academic freedom. 85% of Harvard faculty now see government pressure as a major fear; more than half say Trump’s actions have already chilled their speech. www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...

chart showing survey results from: Faculty Perceptions of Academic Freedom

I feel ____ about the current state of academic freedom at Harvard.
I feel ____ about the current state of academic freedom at colleges and universities in the U.S.

chart depicting survey responses to following question: 2025: What do you think are the greatest threats to academic freedom at Harvard? Select all that apply.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jul 8

The government lawyers also indicate that the First Amendment doesn't apply to noncitizens who are legally in the country. Again, I fear I'm too smart to understand where that completely bogus claim comes from. In fact, I probably need to stop reading to really get this.

text reads: During the trial, government lawyers appeared to waver on whether the First Amendment applies to noncitizens who are legally in the country. Santora, who delivered the government’s opening remarks, initially said that noncitizens would enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens. But she later seemed to walk back her comments, saying that there were “nuances” to noncitizens’ constitutionally protected rights.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jul 8

The government seems to be arguing here that professors are too intelligent to understand what the Trump Administration is doing when deporting international students for their political speech. I don't think it works that way, but, then, I'm just a professor.

text reads: Lawyers for the AAUP called two witnesses and laid out their case during opening arguments, accusing the administration of violating the First Amendment by instituting an “ideological deportation policy.” The policy, they said, involves attempting to deport noncitizen faculty and students for their participation in pro-Palestine activism.

But government lawyers argued in court that no such policy exists, saying that immigration officers were merely enforcing existing law related to national security when they attempted to deport students and faculty. They also suggested that the AAUP’s witnesses — many of whom are professors — work in the “realm of concepts” and were operating on “conjecture” when they said the ideological deportation policy exists.

“You’ll find that they are intelligent, because they are,” Victoria M. Santora said. “But the law requires that their case be grounded in fact. The law requires it be grounded in reality. It is not.”

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jul 2

98% of Harvard faculty surveyed support standing up to Trump -- and an overwhelming percentage strongly disagree with his particular demands. To Harvard Administration: Don't be a Columbia, UPenn, Indiana U, or Murkowski. Do the right thing while you still can! www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...

Bar chart displaying faculty disagreement with Trump’s April 11 demands. Overwhelming majorities (ranging from 64% to 90%) strongly disagreed with proposals like auditing academic programs, eliminating diversity efforts, disciplining pro-Palestine students, reporting international students, and reducing faculty power.

Two donut charts showing 98% of Harvard FAS faculty respondents support (1) the lawsuit against the Trump administration and (2) the rejection of Trump’s April 11 demands. Only 2% opposed each decision.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 27

Me: oh my god. The court! The world! Brady: Yeah, but scalloped landscaping bricks!

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 26

📣📣Mark your calendars!📣📣 The AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter is a co-plaintiff in AAUP v. Rubio, the lawsuit challenging the attempted deportations of non-citizen university affiliates for political speech is proceeding to trial on July 7. Join the rally at 1:30 PM outside the courthouse! Details 👇

Poster reading "FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE STUDENTS" - Stop the Trump administration's attack on
pro-Palestinian speech on campus. Join the rally immediately following day 1 of the trial
in AAUP v. Rubio.
Mon., July 7, 1:30 pm ET US District Court for the
District of Massachusetts
1 Courthouse Way, Boston

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 25

Owing to serendipity today, I found myself reading some prose that I really needed. It comes from the Introduction (p.5) of James Boyd White's classic "Living Speech: Resisting the Empire of Force." Maybe you'll enjoy it too. Thread 👇

cover of Living Speech: Resisting the Empire of Force by James Boyd White

For the “force” of the empire of which Weil speaks is not simply military or physical in nature, but also psychological, emotional, and ideological. Though power may come from the barrel of a gun, as Chairman
Mao once said, it is a real power only by virtue of the understandings
among people that make the guns and bombs and spears usable and effective. All power rests on agreement among those exercising it. You
can only order the secret police to sweep a neighborhood, to spy on citizens, to kill or torture opponents, if they are willing to accept orders
and, in a democracy, only if the people become willing to accept the existence of a secret police who will do such things. And the members of
the secret police themselves will obey orders only because they accept a
vision of the world that supports this role and because this vision is
confirmed by others.
What looks like external and physical force thus always depends
upon—is really a manifestation of—forces at work within the mind and
imagination. These forces are as real, and in their own way can be ultimately as destructive, as physical power. This means that the empire of
force has presence and power in the minds of each of its agents and servants and supporters—in each of us who does not oppose it, who does
not understand it and know how not to respect it. This is in fact where
it really lives, in the mind; without that life it would have no force at all.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 23

Their WFG webpages now contain this message: "Oops! Something went wrong" Indeed! As Isabella Corbo puts it: "It's easy to do the right thing when it's good for business. But it is more important to do so when the personal risks are greater...Willkie failed that test."

Oops! Something went wrong

We can’t seem to find the page that you are looking for. Please check your URL for spellings or capitalizations. If you’re having trouble locating your destination, try visiting the homepage.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 23

Isabella McKinley Corbo: "As soon as firm leadership made the cowardly decision to capitulate to a wannabe dictator whose mafia-esque tactics evoke some of history's darkest chapters, it was clear that this was no longer my home."

text reads: ""As soon as firm leadership made the cowardly decision to capitulate to a wannabe dictator whose mafia-esque tactics evoke some of history's darkest chapters, it was clear that this was no longer my home," Corbo wrote. "It's easy to do the right thing when it's good for business. But it is more important to do so when the personal risks are greater...Willkie Farr & Gallagher failed that test.""

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 23

Anika Holland: "I knew from the moment the firm cut a deal with Trump--promising to advance conservative pro bono causes and abandon DEI commitments and initiatives--that I could not stay." "It's clear to me that now is the time to stand up and speak out against fascism."

highlighted portion of text reads: "I knew from the moment the firm cut a deal with the Trump administration—-promising to advance conservative pro bono causes and abandon DEI commitments and initiatives—-that I could not stay," Holland wrote. "It's clear to me that now is the time to stand up and speak out against fascism."

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 23

Zoe Packman: "Willkie's decision to capitulate. . . confirms that this firm is willing to compromise its autonomy and values for the bottom line." If it can't "stand up for itself against a clearly unconstitutional and unlawful order," then it can't "adequately represent others."

highlighted text reads: Willkie's decision to capitulate to the Trump administration has not only strengthened the authoritarian hold grabbing our country, but also confirms that this firm is willing to compromise its autonomy and its values for the bottom line."

"How can a law firm that cannot stand up for itself against a clearly unconstitutional and unlawful order purport to adequately represent others?" Packman added.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 22

Stephen Miller and friends sue Michigan Law Review: TL;DR: Our articles were rejected, so we sued. These stairs suck! We demand to get back on the golden escalator. media.aflegal.org/wp-content/u...

Highlighted portion of complaint reads: "The Law Review implements its Mission Statement by consciously and intentionally discriminating in favor of inferior manuscripts submitted by women, racial minorities, and homosexual or transgender authors, while rejecting better manuscripts submitted by heterosexual and non-transgender white men."

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 20

Justice Jackson today has summarized my current co-authored project: Textualism/Originalism = B.S. (this is not news) Justice must be the "guiding light" of the judiciary (this, strikingly, is very controversial) What KBJ does in a few sentences takes us more than 300 pages. 🫡 😞

perinent portion of opinion reads as follows: The majority’s contention that I reject “‘pure textualism’ [a]s insufficiently pliable to secure the result [I] seek,” ante, at 10, stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role. Our interpretative task is not to seek our own desired results (whatever they may be). And, indeed, it is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted, as best we can ascertain its intent. A methodology that includes consideration of Congress’s aims does exactly that—and no more. By contrast, pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences. By “finding” answers in ambiguous text, and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as “textual” inevitabilities. So, really, far from being “insufficiently pliable,” I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s its primary problem—and, indeed, it is certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority’s desired outcome.

key portion of opinion reads as follows: It is easy to deprecate the single phrase inscribed atop the entrance to our courthouse by conceptualizing it as a mere platitude. But “Equal Justice Under Law” remains this Court’s guiding light nearly a century after those words were first engraved there. Striving to embody that particular ideal is what distinguishes our work as judges from that of the well-heeled lawyers and lobbyists who walk into similarly ornate buildings every day to promote the interests of their clients. It may sometimes be difficult to tell one marble façade from another—especially when some of them share a common architect.11 But those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution’s unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor. If the Court privileges the interests of one class of litigants over others, even unintentionally, it can damage Americans’ faith in an impartial Judiciary and undermine the long-term credibility of its judgments.

Time will tell if today’s decision portends a broader shift in the Court’s view of Article III standing for all litigants. If it does not, and if the Court is not fastidious in maintaining consistency across its certiorari decisions and substantive rulings, its decisions will come to represent, like so many marble façades, another mere facsimile of justice.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 20

Right?! Trump’s racism is so transparent, so old school. This is also a class play, no? Workers support this holiday! Trump pretends that (white) workers are being harmed by Black workers: it's classic racial-wedge politics to screw all workers in service of capital. Again, so old school!

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 18

5/ And now, today, in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the conservative Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench: "In sadness, I dissent.” and “Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

image of final paragraph from Sotomayor's dissent -- highlighted portion reas as follows: "Thus, the majority subjects a law
that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial
review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons
transgender children and their families to political whims.
In sadness, I dissent."

Highlighted portion of final paragraph from Sotomayor's dissent reads: "Thus, the majority subjects a law
that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial
review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons
transgender children and their families to political whims.
In sadness, I dissent."

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 16

This is all connected. Trump escalates most when he's feeling wounded and seething with rage. His HUMILIATION is REAL! What he wrote here is diabolical, but it's also a tell. He knows he's losing. He can FEEL it. Escalation is dangerous—but it builds opposition and deepens solidarity.

Screenshot of a post by Donald Trump calling for the biggest mass deportation in U.S. history. He praises ICE and attacks Democrats, blaming them for crime, voter fraud, and “chaos” in cities like LA, Chicago, and NYC. He says immigrants are ruining towns and promises to send them back. The post includes anti-immigrant and anti-trans language and ends with “GET THE JOB DONE! DJT.”

Split-screen photo of marco rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, from parade, with two facial expressions conveying boredom

images of several people at (trump, hegseth) bored or asleep as Trump parade passes

image of hundreds of protesters spreading across streets during LA's No Kings protest

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 15

thinking about recent split screens reminds me of Justice Jackson's insight on futility of efforts to "coerce uniformity." "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

paragraph from Justice Jackson's majority opinion in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), with the following language highlighted: "Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 14

No Kings from Harvard Mass!

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 11

Calling on @cornelluniversity.bsky.social to stop confirming stereotypes. www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...

highlighted text reads: Every Ivy League institution except Cornell University and Columbia University signed the brief — a rare move from Harvard’s peer institutions to wade into a politically charged battle together. (An alumni group from Columbia submitted a separate brief alleging the funding freeze would hurt Columbia and Harvard alike.)

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 10

And again tonight.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 10

Hey @cornelluniversity.bsky.social, even Dartmouth joined! Come on! Don't be an @columbiauniversity.bsky.social!

The administration has claimed elite universities pedal leftist ideologies and have failed to address antisemitism on campus since Hamas launched its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

Cornell and Columbia are the only Ivy League schools that have not joined as of Monday. Columbia leaders have said they would comply with the administration’s demands after officials froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, arguing the school failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. Last week, the administration announced it was targeting the school’s accreditation, which could ultimately result in Columbia losing federal financial aid for its students.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 9

Reading today’s headlines together.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 9

Look at all the foreign flags. They're moving in on Disney. Mickey has been compromised. Repeat: Mickey is compromised.

Stephen M tweet - pertinent part reads: Look at all the foreign flags. Los Angeles is occupied territory.

silhouette of mickey mouse colored in with flags - with Epcot and Disney logos

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 9

Ok, as long as we're speaking euphemistically, how 'bout: Because of Trump, we're all headed toward a long uncomfortably warm summer.

WSJ Article Headline -- pertinent part reads: The U.S. Economy Is Headed Toward an Uncomfortable Summer: Companies are freezing hiring and investment to deal with shifting tariff policies. 'Even Trump doesn't know what Trump will do next.'

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 8

Shouldn't be controversial: www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/b... Trump embraced the role of world-class hater, calling for more police & death of innocent men. Rejecting idea that hate "be removed from our hearts," he proclaimed in NYTimes: “I want to hate. . . . I want to hate. . . . and always will."

They laugh because they know
that soon, very soon, they will be returned to the
streets to rape and maim and kill once again-and
yet face no great personal risk to themselves.
Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor
should be removed from our hearts. I do not think
so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers.
They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill,
they should be executed for their crimes. They must
serve as examples so that others will think long and
hard before committing a crime or an act of violence.
Yes, Mayor Koch, I want to hate these murderers and 1
always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or
understand them, I am looking to punish them. If the
punishment is strong, the attacks on innocent people
will stop. I recently watchedanewscast trying to
explain the "anger in these young men". I no longer
want to understand their anger. I want them to
understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.
How can our great society tolerate the
continued brutalization of its citizens by crazed
misfits? Criminals must be told that their
CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON
OUR SAFETY BEGINS!
When I was young, I sat in a diner with my
father and witnessed two young bullies cursing and
threatening a very frightened waitress. Two cops
rushed in, lifted up the thugs and threw them out the
door, warning them never to cause trouble again. 1
miss the feeling of security New York's finest once
gave to the citizens of this City.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 6

Given composition and commitments of the Supreme Court, I'm somewhat relieved by this reassurance from Garber: "Harvard’s Schools continue to make plans to ensure that our international students and scholars will be able to pursue their academic work fully." TBD, if that work will be accredited.

Note to community from President Garber that reads as folllows:
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

In my message yesterday, I indicated we would ask the court to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the federal government from implementing the proclamation issued on June 4, suspending entry to the United States for any international student studying at Harvard University on an F or J visa. Last night, the court granted Harvard’s motion. This step by the court halts enforcement of the proclamation while our case proceeds. The court also extended its previous order, stopping the federal government from revoking Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. A hearing has been scheduled for June 16.

Harvard’s Schools continue to make plans to ensure that our international students and scholars will be able to pursue their academic work fully. Additionally, the Harvard International Office remains focused on supporting members of our community.

We will continue to protect the rights of our international students and scholars, and the Constitutional rights of our University.

Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· Jun 1

“One morning, plainclothes federal agents with badges and baseball caps on a bench outside a state courtroom decided how they wanted a judge to control that courtroom and the people in and near it. For not doing as they wished, the judge faces federal criminal charges.” — MTD, U.S. v. Dugan

front page of memo in support of motion to dismiss in U.S. v. Dugan - includes language from post.

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· May 30

BREAKING: Trump reveals that the Federalist Society is run by a “sleazebag” and filled the courts with judges who “probably hate America.” Court watchers now asking: What will this mean for the Alito family flag collection?

Text from Trump's Truth Social Post
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is! In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten! With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do . . .

Jon Hanson@thesituationist· May 29

Feeling grateful and hopeful. Great day sending an army of lawyers out to fight for law and justice. Go get ‘em!