You are hands down the best legal writer out there. Crazy complex issues made easy to understand. Writing so simple and clear it’s almost pedantic . Yet it’s a rhetorical gift. You are awesome Adam!
Great piece. Isn’t the attenuation issue as to financial injury a prudential issue rather than an Article III issue though? I know we aren’t supposed to say “prudential standing” after Lexmark but it feels like you’re making a zone of interest point here.
The Fifth Circuit delenda est
these posts always make my week
You are hands down the best legal writer out there. Crazy complex issues made easy to understand. Writing so simple and clear it’s almost pedantic . Yet it’s a rhetorical gift. You are awesome Adam!
Great piece. Isn’t the attenuation issue as to financial injury a prudential issue rather than an Article III issue though? I know we aren’t supposed to say “prudential standing” after Lexmark but it feels like you’re making a zone of interest point here.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that. The zone of interests issue drives my intuitions a lot here.
Wonderful article and analysis as always, thank you for taking the time to write it all up
the drug is designed to snuff a baby. but it's rational to allow it, much less allow it to be mailed
Can you post a reference for the Adams administration's foxglove-dropsy controversy?
No.