Josh Blackman (South Texas; Google Scholar), John Roberts and the Professoriate:

Chief Justice Roberts signaled that he doesn't very much care what academics think. What admin law professors think about Chevron is no different than what Bulgarian evidence professors think about Immanuel Kant. And Roberts was sure to tell us that in Loper Bright:

[Chevron's] flaws were nonetheless apparent from the start, prompting this Court to revise its foundations and continually limit its application. It has launched and sustained a cottage industry of scholars attempting to decipher its basis and meaning.

Underneath the scorn, there is something to this statement. Over the past two days, admin law professors have had something of an existential moment: the world they have known for four decades was extinguished. The "cottage industry" they've propped up is no longer. The expertise they've developed, and imparted to generations of law students, is now obsolete. This is not a pleasant feeling. For example, if the Court were to come out and reject originalism—imagine after some Court packing—what would I do? I'd be adrift at sea.

On the relevance of law professors, I remain uncertain of how Chief Justice Roberts actually views Justice Barrett. She would seem to embody the sort of person Roberts would want nowhere near Article III–a lifetime academic with no real-world practice. Professor Scalia, at least, mixed practice with scholarship. Ditto for Bork. But what about Barrett? I'm sure Roberts can flash his charm with anyone, but what does he really think of her?

Editor's Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.