Hubbry Logo
William BaudeWilliam BaudeMain
Open search
William Baude
Community hub
William Baude
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
William Baude
William Baude
William Baude
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

William Patrick Baude (/boʊd/) is an American legal scholar who specializes in United States constitutional law.

Key Information

Baude received a bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago in 2004 and a law degree from Yale Law School in 2007. He joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School as an assistant professor in 2014 and received tenure in 2018. He was named the Harry Kalven Jr. Professor of Law in 2023 and founded the Constitutional Law Institute in 2020 at the law school.

Baude became known for coining the term "shadow docket" in 2015 to describe a practice of the United States Supreme Court.

Early life and education

[edit]

Baude is the son of Patrick L. Baude (1943–2011), who was a professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law from 1968 to 2008.[citation needed]

Baude graduated from the University of Chicago in 2004 with a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics, where he was a member of Sigma Xi. He then attended Yale Law School, where he was an articles and essay editor of the Yale Law Journal. He graduated in 2007 with a Juris Doctor.[1]

Career

[edit]
[edit]

After graduating from law school, Baude was a law clerk to Judge Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from 2007 to 2008 and to Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2008 to 2009.[1]

From 2009 to 2011, Baude was an associate at the Washington, D.C. law firm Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP (now part of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel).[1]

Academics

[edit]

Baude was as a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School from 2011 to 2013. He was a summer fellow at the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego Law School during the summers of 2012 and 2013.[1]

Baude joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School as the Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law in 2014. He was named Professor of Law in 2018 and Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law in 2023.[2] He teaches constitutional law, federal courts, and conflicts of law.[1] In 2020, he founded the Constitutional Law Institute at the law school and serves as the institute's founding director.[3]

Baude coined the term "shadow docket" in 2015 to describe actions taken by the United States Supreme Court outside its regular, fully briefed and argued cases.[4][5]

Social engagement

[edit]

Baude is a co-editor of the University Casebook Series' The Constitution of the United States (4th ed., 2021).[1] and has written on originalism in the United States Constitution.[6] Baude is among the most cited active scholars of constitutional law in the United States.[7]

Baude writes for the Volokh Conspiracy blog,[8] and has contributed to the New York Times[9] and the Chicago Tribune.[10] He also co-hosts a podcast, Divided Argument, with law professor Daniel Epps on which they discuss recent Supreme Court decisions.[11][when?]

On April 9, 2021, Baude, together with fellow faculty members David A. Strauss and Alison LaCroix at the University of Chicago Law School, was appointed by United States President Joe Biden to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.[12] On December 12, 2022, Baude wrote to Senator Dick Durbin, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to support the nomination of P. Casey Pitts to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[13]

In August 2023, Baude and legal scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen released an article entitled "The Sweep and Force of Section Three", later published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, arguing that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution disqualified Donald Trump from holding political office in the United States because of his participation in the attempt to overturn the election of Joe Biden as president.[14]

Baude is an elected member of the American Law Institute.[15] He received the Paul M. Bator Award by the Federalist Society in 2017.[16]

Selected works

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

William Baude

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
William Baude is an American legal scholar serving as the Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law at the , where he also directs the Constitutional Law Institute. A specialist in and federal courts, Baude earned a B.S. in from the and a J.D. from . After law school, he clerked for Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and for on the . Baude's emphasizes originalist methods and historical analysis of constitutional provisions, including co-authoring the influential article "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" with Michael Stokes Paulsen, which interprets Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as automatically disqualifying participants in insurrection from federal office without requiring congressional legislation and applies this to former President Donald Trump's actions surrounding the , 2021, Capitol events. This work has generated substantial debate among constitutional experts regarding the provision's enforcement and scope. Baude also engages in public discourse through podcasts and lectures on and .

Personal Background

Early Life and Education

Baude received a B.S. in from the . He subsequently earned a J.D. from . Public details regarding his pre-college years and family background remain limited, consistent with Baude's emphasis on in personal matters.

Professional Career

Judicial Clerkships

Following his graduation from Yale Law School in 2007, Baude served as a law clerk to Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. McConnell, appointed in 2002 and known for his scholarly background in and originalist perspectives, presided over a circuit handling diverse federal appeals, including civil rights, environmental, and criminal matters. Baude's tenure, likely spanning 2007–2008, involved drafting memoranda, analyzing precedents, and participating in the deliberative process of appellate opinions, providing foundational exposure to circuit-level judicial craftsmanship. Baude then advanced to a prestigious clerkship with John G. Roberts, Jr., on the during the 2008 term (October 2008 to October 2009). In this role, he contributed to the Court's work on landmark cases such as (affirming an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment) and follow-ons, immersing him in high-stakes constitutional interpretation, petitions, and opinion drafting under Roberts' emphasis on institutional collegiality and textual analysis. The 's chambers, handling a broad docket of emergency applications and merits decisions, offered Baude direct insight into the dynamics of oral arguments, internal conferences, and the crafting of majority opinions amid ideological tensions. These sequential clerkships equipped Baude with practical knowledge of federal judicial operations, from circuit-level fact-intensive appeals to the Supreme Court's focus on doctrinal refinement and stare decisis application. Such experiences, bridging conservative-leaning circuits and the Roberts Court's balancing act, informed his subsequent academic pursuits in constitutional structure and judicial methodology, though Baude has critiqued certain textualist excesses observed in practice.

Academic Positions and Roles

Baude joined the in 2014 as the Neubauer Family of Law. He served in this capacity until 2018, teaching core courses such as federal courts and . From 2018 to 2020, Baude held the position of Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, marking his promotion to tenured faculty. In 2020, he assumed the role of Faculty Director of the Institute, established that year to advance research on enduring constitutional matters. He became the Harry Kalven, Jr. Professor of Law in 2023, a endowed chair he retains as of 2025. Baude's teaching responsibilities encompass federal courts, , , , and elements of the law, contributing to the school's curriculum in foundational legal doctrine. As director of the institute, he facilitates scholarly initiatives addressing constitutional interpretation and structure.

Scholarly Contributions

Key Publications and Arguments

Baude's article "Is Originalism Our Law?", published in the Columbia Law Review in 2015, introduces a framework to evaluate , arguing that while original meaning provides the baseline constitutional content, subsequent evolution occurs through mechanisms like —repeated practical interpretations—and longstanding precedents that bind as . He contends that strict fails as a complete descriptive theory because constitutional law incorporates these historical accretions, supported by examples from early American practice where ambiguous provisions were clarified over time without judicial mandate. In "Constitutional Liquidation", appearing in the Stanford Law Review in 2019, Baude revives James Madison's concept of liquidation as a process where post-ratification practices resolve textual ambiguities through deliberate, durable, and consensus-driven actions by government officials. He identifies three prerequisites: initial textual indeterminacy, non-litigated practice across branches, and sufficient uniformity to evidence agreement on meaning, drawing on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century evidence such as executive interpretations of treaty powers and congressional understandings of removal authority to demonstrate how liquidation supplements originalism with empirical historical data. Co-authored with Michael Stokes Paulsen, "The Sweep and Force of Section Three" (2023, published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review in 2024) examines Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment through and historical analysis, asserting its self-executing disqualification of insurrection participants who previously took oaths to the . The authors marshal Reconstruction-era enforcement records, including disqualifications of over 1,000 officials for Confederate roles, to argue the provision's broad scope applies prospectively without needing further legislation or amnesty, emphasizing causal links between oath-breaking insurrection and automatic bar from office. Baude's "Fear of Balancing", forthcoming in the Supreme Court Review (2025 preprint on SSRN), critiques the U.S. 's reluctance to employ interest-balancing in constitutional adjudication, particularly post-Dobbs and amid originalist shifts. He argues this avoidance stems from methodological fears—such as indeterminacy or departure from text and history—but overlooks historical precedents where balancing clarified applications, using data from over 100 cases to show how rigid categorical approaches yield inconsistent outcomes compared to empirical weighing of government interests against individual .

Constitutional Law Philosophy

Baude's constitutional philosophy centers on a model, under which the Constitution's content is derived from official sources such as enacted text, historical practices, and settled institutional understandings, rather than from judges' moral intuitions or adaptive societal norms. This approach treats constitutional interpretation akin to statutory or contractual analysis, governed by the law's actual rules as recognized by legal actors, thereby grounding in verifiable, causal mechanisms of legal over abstract theorizing. It rejects living constitutionalism's reliance on evolving extra-textual values, which Baude views as introducing judicial discretion untethered from enforceable constraints, and critiques rigid when it fails to align with the positive law's operational history. To resolve textual ambiguities, Baude emphasizes historical liquidation—the process by which repeated governmental practices clarify constitutional meaning through consistent application, as observed in early American legal traditions. This method privileges empirical evidence of how officials have interpreted and applied provisions over speculative historical reconstruction or policy-driven balancing, fostering by limiting judges to evidence of settled law rather than presuming interpretive supremacy. Progressive approaches that weigh competing interests without textual anchors are thus sidelined, as they risk subordinating fixed constitutional mandates to subjective judicial assessments of contemporary needs. Baude's framework aligns with a constrained judicial , debunking assumptions of court-centric by redirecting focus to the Constitution's structural limits and institutional practices. It underscores causal realism in legal reasoning, evaluating interpretive theories against observable legal behaviors rather than normative ideals, and resists narratives that elevate transient moral shifts above enacted 's enduring commands. This positive orientation promotes interpretive stability by anchoring decisions in sources subject to democratic accountability, countering risks of elite-driven revisionism in .

Public Engagement and Recognition

Affiliations and Awards

Baude maintains longstanding affiliations with conservative legal networks, notably through the , where he has delivered speaking engagements on topics including constitutional interpretation and the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2017, the awarded him the Paul M. Bator Award, recognizing excellence in legal scholarship among scholars under 40, an honor established in memory of former Law professor Paul M. Bator. He is an elected member of the , contributing as an adviser to the Third Restatement of the , which emphasizes clarification of legal principles through empirical and doctrinal analysis. Baude holds editorial roles in academic publications focused on , serving as an editor of The Supreme Court Review since 2021, a journal dedicated to rigorous examination of decisions. His professional recognitions include the 2025 Diversity Leadership Faculty Award, shared with clinical professor for initiatives in legal education. Baude has also engaged broader audiences through guest essays in , including pieces in May, July, and September 2025 analyzing rulings on executive authority and constitutional constraints.

Media and Policy Commentary

Baude maintains an ongoing presence in public discourse through contributions to SCOTUSblog, where he analyzes decisions and their broader ramifications for , such as in cases involving enforcement and state doctrines. His 2015 introduction of the term "shadow docket" to characterize the Court's non-merits rulings has shaped subsequent debates on judicial transparency, with references persisting into analyses of 2025 term practices. Baude has engaged in podcast interviews emphasizing factual legal assessments of Supreme Court dynamics, including a 2022 appearance on Conversations with Bill Kristol evaluating the Court's post-Dobbs trajectory and institutional legitimacy. In a February 2024 episode of the University of Chicago's Big Brains podcast, he addressed mechanisms for preserving judicial integrity amid eligibility disputes, prioritizing textual and historical constraints over policy preferences. In September 2025, Baude co-authored a New York Times opinion piece previewing the term as "hypercharged," highlighting procedural and substantive challenges without endorsing partisan reforms. That July, he launched the podcast series Battle of the Branches, dedicated to dissecting separation-of-powers disputes through primary sources and doctrinal evolution, underscoring empirical fidelity to constitutional structure. Baude's 2024 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review examines pedagogical strategies for instruction during periods of claimed judicial legitimacy erosion, advocating reliance on verifiable historical data and institutional precedents to counter unsubstantiated narratives of crisis.

Controversies and Debates

Section Three Disqualification Thesis

In their 2023 law review article "The Sweep and Force of Section Three," co-authored with Michael Stokes Paulsen, Baude and Paulsen contended that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies from holding federal office due to his role in the events of , 2021, which they classified as an insurrection against the constitutional order of electing a president. The authors argued that Trump's false claims of election fraud, pressure on state officials to alter results, efforts to install alternate electors, and speech inciting the Capitol breach constituted "engaging" in insurrection after having taken an oath as president, an oath-bound office under the provision. They emphasized empirical historical evidence from post-Civil War enforcement, such as the 1869 Griffin’s Case, where federal courts held Section 3 self-executing and applicable without prior criminal conviction for insurrection, requiring only factual engagement in rebellion as determined by officials judging qualifications. Baude and Paulsen's thesis rested on original public meaning interpretation, asserting that "insurrection" encompassed organized resistance to federal authority short of civil war, as understood in 1868 ratification debates and contemporary dictionaries, without necessitating armed violence or formal declaration. They cited over 1,200 criminal convictions related to , including seditious conspiracy guilty verdicts against and leaders under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, as empirical corroboration that the events met the threshold of collective, purposeful disruption of congressional certification, akin to historical Confederate actions. The provision's "force" was deemed automatic upon engagement, barring covered individuals from offices like the unless relieved by two-thirds congressional vote under Section 3's amnesty clause, overriding normative concerns about voter choice or enforcement practicality. Following the Supreme Court's March 2024 decision in , which held states lack authority to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates absent uniform congressional legislation, Baude and Paulsen responded in a 2024 Harvard Law Review comment, "Sweeping Section Three Under the Rug," maintaining the disqualification's textual persistence despite judicial hurdles to state-level application. They critiqued the majority opinion for evading Section 3's plain command through novel federalism doctrines, arguing it inverted the amendment's post-Civil War design to empower states and officials against oath violators without awaiting legislative action, and noted concurrences like Justice Sotomayor's as implicitly affirming the provision's ongoing validity. Enforcement challenges, they posited, stem from political will rather than constitutional defect, with causal oath breach triggering disqualification irrespective of remedial ambiguity. The thesis spurred state ballot challenges in and elsewhere, culminating in Colorado's December 2023 Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump before federal reversal, and elevated scholarly debate on Section 3's original scope, compelling originalists to confront textual mandates over prudential restraint. Right-leaning critics, including scholars like Kurt Lash, faulted Baude for overbroadly interpreting "insurrection" to include non-violent rhetorical unsupported by 1868 evidence of intent to overthrow government by force, and for sidelining the political questions that reserves oath enforcement to . Others, such as Josh Blackman, argued the presidency falls outside "office under the " as a distinct Article II elective position, citing ratification-era distinctions from appointive roles. Left-leaning dismissals, often from outlets skeptical of despite embracing disqualification politically, prioritized deontological voter over textual oath causality, reflecting institutional biases favoring normative outcomes amid contested events rather than empirical engagement thresholds. Baude's framework, grounded in historical self-execution precedents, withstands these by tracing disqualification to direct constitutional violation, not contingent political processes.

Critiques of Originalism and Judicial Methods

In his 2015 essay "Is Originalism Our Law?", William Baude contends that does not exhaustively define the of the U.S. , as subsequent judicial precedents—even those diverging from original public meanings—can become binding through the founding-era mechanism of . occurs when repeated official interpretations or practices resolve constitutional ambiguities, transforming them into settled law independent of initial expectations under stare decisis. Baude illustrates this with historical examples, such as early congressional and executive actions clarifying executive removal powers, arguing that such liquidations integrate non-originalist developments into "our law" rather than rendering them mere deviations. This framework critiques rigid for overlooking how evolves through practice, potentially requiring originalists to accommodate precedents like those from Blaisdell on contract clauses. Baude's approach highlights empirical inconsistencies in originalist practice: while proponents claim fidelity to original meanings, courts often defer to liquidating precedents without rigorous historical reevaluation, as seen in selective reliance on post-enactment history. He posits that evaluating theories via standards—asking what the Constitution's law is, not what it should be—exposes originalism's partial fit, urging a hybrid methodology that privileges original meanings but binds to verified liquidations. In a 2025 article, "Fear of Balancing," Baude challenges the emerging originalist aversion to judicial balancing in rights adjudication, asserting that founding-era evidence demonstrates pragmatic weighing of interests for general liberties, such as under the Second Amendment or free speech protections. Analyzing cases like United States v. Rahimi, he argues that historical practices involved inevitable balancing for "unfinished liberties" lacking precise categorical rules, rather than the rigid, history-bound tests favored by some post-2020 Supreme Court decisions. Baude critiques this anti-balancing trend as ahistorical, noting that framers anticipated judicial discretion in applying broad rights against contextual threats, supported by 18th-century treatises and precedents permitting interest-weighing. Baude's critiques have elicited mixed reception. Centrist scholars praise their nuance for grounding originalism in verifiable positive law and historical pragmatism, avoiding dogmatism while addressing real-world adjudication. Strict originalists, however, fault them for diluting textual fidelity, contending that liquidation risks entrenching erroneous precedents and undermines the Constitution's fixed meanings, as evidenced in responses emphasizing empirical originalism's primacy over evolved practices. These debates underscore observable tensions: originalist judges inconsistently invoke history to constrain balancing in conservative-favoring cases while tolerating pragmatic elements elsewhere, mirroring prior non-originalist expansions without equivalent self-restraint.

References

  1. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/baude
  2. https://news.uchicago.edu/profile/william-baude
  3. https://fedsoc.org/bio/william-baude
  4. https://highschoolscotus.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/interview-william-baude/
  5. https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/william-baude-transcript/
  6. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol172/iss3/1/
  7. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/context/penn_law_review/article/9843/viewcontent/UPLR_172.3_A_Article_1_Baude___Paulsen.pdf
  8. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/will-baude-responds-objections-his-section-three-article-michael-stokes-paulsen
  9. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/william-baude-host-new-podcast-examining-balance-powers-us-government
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUseqPHoCII
  11. https://amarkfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Clerks-Roberts.pdf
  12. https://www.uchicago.edu/education-and-research/center/constitutional-law-institute
  13. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/about-institute
  14. https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/December-2015-11-Baude-CORRECTED.pdf
  15. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672631
  16. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/8187/
  17. https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Baude-71-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1-2019.pdf
  18. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3214035
  19. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/9882/
  20. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4952397
  21. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5162145
  22. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3921/
  23. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12088&context=journal_articles
  24. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2978208
  25. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/will-baude-speaks-federalist-society-discussion-insurrection-and-14th-amendment
  26. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/baude-wins-federalist-societys-paul-m-bator-award
  27. https://fedsoc.org/paul-m-bator-award-recipients
  28. https://www.ali.org/profile/1314
  29. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/scr/board
  30. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/william-baude-and-judith-miller-receive-2025-diversity-leadership-award
  31. https://www.nytimes.com/by/william-baude
  32. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/opinion/the-supreme-court-trump-executive-agencies.html
  33. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/opinion/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump.html
  34. https://www.scotusblog.com/author/william-baude/
  35. https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/academic-highlight-baude-and-sachs-on-state-sovereign-immunity/
  36. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-behavior-on-the-shadow-docket/
  37. https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/william-baude-ii-transcript/
  38. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1sbMmPieJk
  39. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/william-baude-discusses-upcoming-us-supreme-court-term-new-york-times-opinion-piece
  40. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol99/iss2/4/
  41. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
  42. https://harvardlawreview.org/?p=16976
  43. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=14468&context=journal_articles
  44. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4568771
  45. https://www.cato.org/blog/cato-scholars-section-3-disqualification
  46. https://columbialawreview.org/issue/no-8/
  47. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=jcl
  48. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3945/
  49. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=supremecourtrev
  50. https://columbialawreview.org/content/unfinished-liberties-inevitable-balancing/
  51. https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1764/
  52. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2202&context=concomm
  53. https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/charles-barzun/785366
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.