Why Was John Adams Soft on Sodomy in the Navy?

Don't ask, don't tell

Good Morning:

I have them. They are safe.

---

Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable

Holly Berkley Fletcher

joined us with some legal questions. What does the recent SCOTUS ruling on deportations to third countries mean? Why did a grand jury indict Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Are green card marriages actually a thing?

---

Yesterday On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Mary Ford

Western Europeans Are Hedging on a Post-U.S. NATO

Lucas Robinson uses data from a study conducted by the Institute of Global Affairs to illustrate the faultlines plaguing NATO as American foreign policy shifts. Robinson argues that this week’s NATO summit will need to address more than just Europe’s move toward strategic autonomy—America’s changing commitment to the alliance must propel Europe to look toward a future without the United States as the cornerstone of security.

The transatlantic community is not just preparing for a future without a key pillar of its security. It’s also bracing itself for a world in which the United States is increasingly seen as an adversary, especially as Washington threatens tariffs, flirts with territorial expansion, and endorses far-right political parties that undermine European integration and collective security.

The Future of American Cybersecurity

Paul Rosenzweig breaks down the Trump-specific changes to cybersecurity and data privacy he expects to see in the next four years. Rosenzweig broadly contextualizes these changes by examining U.S.-E.U. cybersecurity and data privacy, offers predictions about the areas of cybersecurity and data privacy the Trump administration will target, and analyzes how any potential action taken on these matters will impact E.U. member states.

My theme today is to try and answer the question: “What do we expect from the Trump administration with respect to cybersecurity and data privacy in the next four years?” The “A” answer of course is that nobody really knows. Trump is exceedingly unpredictable—the more so with respect to issue areas where he really has no preconceived and settled notion. Unlike, say, tariffs, it seems likely that Trump has given little thought to cybersecurity or data privacy—and thus his reactions are likely to be off the cuff.

Trump Moved to Dismiss Police Consent Decrees—How Can Judges Respond?

Christy Lopez discusses the Trump administration’s latest attempts to strip the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division of its ability to investigate police misconduct and pending consent decrees. Lopez argues that the Trump administration’s success in unraveling a federal civil rights enforcement program three decades in the making may hinge on the judges who preside over these agreements.

Now the Justice Department appears poised to go significantly further and ask judges to dismiss some or all of the consent decrees that are currently being implemented in over a dozen jurisdictions across the country. As with other assertions of executive power in the Trump administration, it will be up to judges to scrutinize the administration’s purported justifications for these dismissals, especially given that the requests may rely on misinformation.

Documents

Olivia Manes shares the text of President Trump’s June 21 letter informing Congress of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, I sit down with Scott Anderson, Suzanne Maloney, and Dan Byman to discuss American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the response from within Iran, and whether the strikes are legal under domestic and international law.

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is this most excellent bull moose, who wants you to know that he grew that fabulous rack of antlers by his very own self:

---

Tell Me Something Interesting

I (EJ Wittes) have stumbled upon a curiosity of American legal and military history for which I can find no adequate explanation. Since law, history, and American democracy are the shared interests of this community, I’ve decided to present this curiosity to you all in hopes that one of you might know of an explanation.

In 1775, as the Continental Congress was ramping up to go to war with Britain, it appointed a committee to invent a navy, on the theory that America might need one at some point. One of the members of this committee, future President John Adams, wrote a set of rules to govern the navy they were inventing. In November 1775, the Congress adopted Adams’s rules with only a few revisions.

These rules—which you can read in full here—cover everything from how often each ship was to hold Christian services (twice daily) to what provisions sailors are entitled to if the ship runs out of pork (beef can be substituted, but the men must get extra) to what should be done with the personal possessions of a man who died at sea (the Captain should secure them until they can be returned to the family.) Honestly, I encourage you all to read through the list. It’s surprisingly short and quite fascinating.

The curiosity I’ve discovered, however, concerns not what is on the list, but what Adams omitted from it.