Jeff Bellin

@bellinj.bsky.social

946 Followers 354 Following

William & Mary Law School Professor

pic of attendees
List of symposium contributions also available at the link.
Faithless Prosecution 58 Pages Posted: 7 Jan 2026 Last revised: 4 Feb 2026 Jeffrey Bellin Vanderbilt University - Vanderbilt Law School Date Written: January 02, 2026 Abstract In Fall 2025, Donald Trump publicly urged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate prosecutions of his political foes. This disturbing directive may signal the beginning of a new norm, rather than a temporary break in the old one. Trump’s interference with DOJ independence is inconsistent with the practices of Republican and Democratic administrations over the past fifty years. But the DOJ’s acquiescence models the “unitary executive,” a theory of constitutional law that has become popular with legal influencers, including Justices on the Supreme Court. Left unchecked, these developments are poised to add federal prosecutions to the toxic stew of American politics. And while Congress shows little interest in intervening, judges possess limited tools to do so. “Selective” and “vindictive” prosecution doctrines forbid a narrow set of prosecutions but these undertheorized doctrines, anchored in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, only tangentially address the problem of a politicized DOJ. To counteract the politicization of federal prosecutions, this Article urges the Supreme Court to recognize a new doctrine anchored in a distinct constitutional provision. Article II, Section 3 states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision is rarely invoked and somewhat obscure, but it offers one clear and enforceable command: when a President intervenes in individual law enforcement decisions, the President must act in good faith. Overruling career prosecutors to initiate cases against political enemies is the opposite of taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is “faithless prosecution,” and should be voidable in the courts.
me in front of roundtable announcement poster
picture of about 10 scholars
Putting the above-described standards together reveals a concrete evidentiary charging standard: a prosecutor should only charge a case when the prosecutor expects that the evidence introduced at trial will prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I
pic of Amazon listing for Evidence casebook with tag "#1 Best Seller"
Used copy of book selling for $249.
picture that shows best selling evidence casebooks on amazon
Picture of caption of Justice Alito's statement - full statement available at link.
Book cover David Sklansky's Criminal Justice in Divided America
List of the articles in the symposium - full text is available at the link.
Cover of W&M Symposium Issue
reserved parking spot for jeff bellin at wake forest law school
Picture of the cover of the new rules supplement.
The Superfluous Rules of Evidence Vanderbilt Law Review, Forthcoming 29 Pages Posted: Jeffrey Bellin William & Mary Law School Date Written: October 2023 Abstract There are few American legal codifications as successful as the Federal Rules of Evidence. But this success masks the project’s uncertain beginnings. The drafters of the Federal Rules worried that lawmakers would not adopt the new rules and that judges would not follow them. As a result, they included at least thirty rules of evidence that do not, in fact, alter the admissibility of evidence. Instead, these rules: (1) market the rules project, and (2) guide judges away from anticipated errors in applying the (other) nonsuperfluous rules. Given the superfluous rules’ covert mission, it should not be surprising that the rules’ drafters were not transparent about their nature. Instead, the drafters incorporated these rules so seamlessly into the overall project that their evidentiary insignificance goes largely unnoticed....