Good Morning:
And that’s all the explanation you’re going to get.
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
came by to talk about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s little oopsie with Polish sovereign territory:Yesterday On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Isabel Arroyo.
Beyond Jus ad Bellum: A Rejoinder to Faisal Kutty’s Analysis of Israel’s June 2025 Strikes
Jeffrey Lovitky—in response to Faisal Kutty’s claim that Israel’s June strikes on Iran were unlawful according to jus ad bellum—argues that Israel was entitled to use force under jus in bello without demonstrating the existence of an imminent threat.
At the outset, it is essential to distinguish between the two principal bodies of law: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The former governs the conditions under which states may lawfully resort to force in peacetime. Under that framework, a state may not employ force in anticipation of a future attack unless faced with an imminent threat. Jus in bello, by contrast, regulates the conduct of hostilities once an armed conflict has commenced. Unlike under jus ad bellum, force may lawfully be used under jus in bello even in the absence of an actual or imminent attack. Because an international armed conflict existed between Israel and Iran at the time of the June 2025 strikes, the proper legal framework for assessing those strikes is jus in bello, not jus ad bellum.
The Return of 287(g): How Trump’s Immigration Plan May Leave Sheriffs Liable
Gigi Liman explains how the Trump administration’s reimplementation of the 287(g) Task Force Model program—which authorizes local law enforcement officers to act as federal immigration agents—opens up new legal pathways to hold officers who violate the law to account.
Federal agents, however, are not operating alone. While ICE is bolstering its reach with a recently expanded budget, it still lacks the capacity to achieve Trump’s goal of 1,000,000 ICE deportations in his first year. Given this, the administration has enlisted the help of sheriffs across the country by reimplementing the 287(g) Task Force Model (TFM) program—which authorizes local law enforcement officers to function as federal immigration agents—for the first time since it was disbanded for violation of civil rights in 2012.
Unlike ICE, these local agencies are not immune from liability. The return of the 287(g) TFM opens a critical legal avenue for civil suits against sheriffs and municipalities whose officers violate the law, serving as a method of recourse for individuals and a necessary check against potential overreach by the Trump administration.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Natalie Orpett speaks with John Ryan about why the alleged perpetrators of the September 11 attacks have yet to go to trial, the challenges of reporting from Guantanamo, and the role of torture in the 9/11 case.
On Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sits down with Orpett, Rebecca Ingber, and me to discuss the week’s big national security news, including Russian drones that penetrated Polish airspace, Israeli missile strikes on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and the implications of the Trump administration’s strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean.
On Scaling Laws, Joshua Gans joins Kevin Frazier to discuss artificial intelligence (AI)-induced job displacement, various AI regulatory proposals, and how AI tools are changing higher education.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is a fawn with the zoomies:
In honor of today’s Beast, bounce.
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.
 | A guest post by
|