Non-Dog Shirts
A few are said to exist
Good Afternoon:
Some non-dog shirts.
Tuesday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Alicia Wanless, the assembled Greek Chorus, and I discussed whether it’s possible to have a midlife crisis with dignity and without cliche:
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Ari Tabatabai came on the show to talk about the situation in Iran. Then the estimable Anastasiia Lapatina showed up with questions about wiretapping under U.S. law and custom:
Recently On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Marissa Wang
The Law of Going to War with Iran, Redux
Scott R. Anderson argues that President Trump’s expanded military campaign against Iran, following the Feb. 28 joint U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, pushes the outer limits of international and domestic law. Anderson urges Congress to assert its war powers and rein in Trump’s actions in Iran before the conflict escalates further.
All told, Trump’s decision to use such broad military force against Iran pushes against the legal limits on his authority in almost characteristic fashion. His apparent international legal arguments lean heavily on permissive U.S. interpretations of when states may resort to the use of force, while his domestic legal arguments seem likely to focus narrowly on the limited risks to U.S. servicemembers without constraining how the president may use military force beneath that high threshold. While neither set of arguments are entirely without precedent, prior presidential administrations have generally approached their limits with a degree of caution; Trump and his advisors are instead leveraging them to the hilt. As in so many other areas, the end result is a clear vision of a president with few hard legal constraints, so long as he does not feel obligated to exercise his legal authority in good faith. Only here, the most severe consequences of these actions are not being felt by Americans, but by individuals in Iran and across the broader Middle East now caught in their wake.
El Mencho’s Death and the Kingpin Strategy Paradox
Omar García-Ponce examines the killing of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, otherwise known as “El Mencho” and the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and contends that targeting cartel leaders can backfire and lead to increased violence.
Within hours, however, the cartel demonstrated why celebrations may be premature. The CJNG launched coordinated reprisals across 20 Mexican states, torching vehicles, blocking highways, attacking gas stations and convenience stores, and engaging security forces in armed confrontations. Guadalajara—Mexico’s second-largest city and a host venue for the 2026 FIFA World Cup—was effectively shut down. Flights were canceled out of Puerto Vallarta and other airports. The U.S. Embassy issued shelter-in-place warnings across nine Mexican states.
For anyone who has followed Mexico’s security trajectory over the past two decades, the pattern is grimly familiar. The question is not whether the Mexican government scored a symbolic victory—it clearly did—but whether El Mencho’s death will actually translate into reduced violence for Mexican communities or curb the flow of drugs into the United States. The academic evidence, unfortunately, offers strong reasons for concern.
Brendan Carr Has a Point About the Equal Time Rule
Eric Columbus examines the legal justifications behind Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr’s interpretation of the statute that requires broadcasting stations to provide equal opportunities for legally qualified candidates in an election—otherwise known as the equal time rule—and argues that Carr’s interpretation is consistent with precedent.
“Let’s just call this what it is,” said Colbert. “Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV.” Colbert accused CBS and its corporate owner, Paramount, of caving to FCC “bullies.”
So is the FCC again running roughshod over free speech as a corporate behemoth bends the knee to Trump once more?
Not exactly. Brendan Carr is a partisan actor with much to answer for. But this is not a reprise of the Jimmy Kimmel episode from last fall, where—as detailed in Lawfare—Carr adopted an absurd reading of FCC regulations and policies to mount a bad-faith attack on Kimmel, which led to ABC temporarily taking him off the air. While Carr may well be acting in bad faith once again, his interpretation of the equal time rule is on a stronger legal footing than his interpretations in the Kimmel saga. And CBS’s purported legal concerns, in turn, have merit.
The Trump Administration’s Legal Shell Game
Reed Shaw explains how the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent plaintiffs from challenging the Solar for All grant program freeze through contradictory jurisdiction arguments is a veiled attempt to avoid a merits-based argument in the courts that could form the basis for more lawsuits against other questionable grant cancellations.
The Solar for All grant program was created by Congress; grantees had entered into agreements with the federal government to deliver millions of dollars in energy savings to Americans, with many projects already underway. The Trump administration, however, claimed that the 2025 budget bill repealed the grant program’s legal basis, authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end the program and cancel the grant agreements. But rather than defend its actions on the merits, the administration is taking steps to evade, or at minimum delay, judicial review—including by advancing arguments directly contrary to those it previously put forward. The government’s actions in the Solar for All case could have troubling consequences for plaintiffs in other grant cancellation litigation.
Documents
Olivia Manes shares Trump’s war powers report notifying Congress of the Feb. 28 U.S.-Israeli strikes in Iran. The report comes days after the strike that killed Khamenei, which was carried out without prior congressional authorization.
Podcasts
On Scaling Laws, Packy McCormick joins Kevin Frazier to discuss the power of narratives in tech, the intersection of investment and policy, and what it means to build frameworks for the future in an age of rapid technological change.
On Lawfare Daily, Scott R. Anderson sits down with Kathleen Claussen, Peter E. Harrell, and Marty Lederman to discuss the Supreme Court decision that struck down President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The group unpack the Court’s opinion, its implications for the Major Questions Doctrine and foreign relations law, and potential legal challenges to the other tariff authorities used by the Trump administration.
Announcements
Lawfare, the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy, and the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology will host a one-day convening to mark the 40th anniversary of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The event will take place at the Georgetown Law Center, 125 E St NW, Washington, D.C., from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 6. Learn more and register here.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the deer, seen here teaching me a new and excellent word:
In related news, today’s word of the day is “stotting.” From Wikipedia:
Stotting (also called pronking or pronging) is a behavior of quadrupeds, particularly gazelles, in which they spring into the air, lifting all four feet off the ground simultaneously. Usually, the legs are held in a relatively stiff position. Many explanations of stotting have been proposed, though for several of them there is little evidence either for or against…
Stot is a common Scots and Northern English verb meaning “bounce” or “walk with a bounce”. Uses in this sense include stotting a ball off a wall, and rain stotting off a pavement. Pronking comes from the Afrikaans verb pronk-, which means “show off” or “strut”, and is a cognate of the English verb “prance”.
In honor of today’s Beast, expand your vocabulary.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.