Honoring the memories of those who gave the greatest sacrifice.

If you’d like these posts delivered directly to you, subscribe to the Decisions newsletter now!

Memorial Day

Memorial Day is an American holiday, observed on the last Monday of May, honoring the men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. [1]

The tradition coalesced from local observances around the country after the Civil War. According to material from the Department of Veterans Affairs, [2] one of the first occurred in Columbus, MS, in April 1866, when a group of women visited a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers who had fallen in battle at Shiloh. Nearby were the graves of Union soldiers, neglected because they were the enemy. Disturbed at the sight of the bare graves, the women placed some of their flowers on those graves, as well.

Today, cities in the North and the South claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day in 1866, with many of them in the South, where most of the war dead were buried.

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans — the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) — established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers; Major General John A. Logan declared it should be May 30. It is believed the date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country. [3] “The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land,” he proclaimed. [4]

In 1966 the federal government declared Waterloo, New York, the official birthplace of Memorial Day. Waterloo— which first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866 — was chosen because it hosted an annual, community-wide event, during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags.

On the first Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, and 5,000 participants decorated the graves of the 20,000 Civil War soldiers buried there.

Memorial Day, as Decoration Day gradually came to be known, originally honored only those lost while fighting in the Civil War, but evolved to commemorate American military personnel who died in all wars, including World Wars I & II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For decades, Memorial Day continued to be observed on May 30, the date General Logan had selected for the first Decoration Day. But in 1968, Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which established Memorial Day as the last Monday in May in order to create a three-day weekend for federal employees. The change went into effect in 1971, and the same law also declared Memorial Day a federal holiday. [5]

These fallen gave their lives in service defending the very liberties and freedoms we value and benefit from today.

It is very hard to fault a soldier who gave their life to protect our freedoms. It is easy, however, to fault any current leader who shies away from or even promotes efforts that undermine these protections.

The best way to honor those who died for these values during their service is to stand up for these values in our own service.

Courts are holding the line

Post from Deborah Pearlstein on Bluesky [6]

Deborah Pearlstein is Director of the Program on Law & Public Policy at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs. In a recent post, she highlighted the primary point from recent data – the Trump administration keeps losing in court – an astonishing low 4% win rate in federal cases this month. [6] Some of these losses have come in the form of district courts issuing nationwide injunctions against the administration’s ability to pursue unconstitutional policies.

Several such injunctions [7][8][9] made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court involving the issue referred to as birthright citizenship – if you’re born here, you’re a citizen - a right which the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees. [10]

However, the arguments before the court [11] did not examine the legal merits of the president’s order to deny U.S. citizenship to children born to a mother or father who are in the U.S. unlawfully or on a temporary basis.

The issue was brought along a different tack to get around the unconstitutionality of the order; the argument focused on preventing lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. The administration’s argument is that the (unconstitutional) order should not be prevented from going forward - affected citizens should only get relief if they themselves sue in court or such individual cases somehow make their way to the Supreme Court for nationwide relief.

More specifically, the cases involved whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states. [12]

“Those injunctions thwart the executive branch’s crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness,” United States Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. “They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level.” [13]

There are some merits to providing more guidance to lower courts to prevent “judge shopping” [14] to stop policies nationally – for example, bringing a case in a jurisdiction where a friendly district judge is urged to stop a nationwide policy from going into effect. The background on this judicial tool is well presented by CBS News reporting: [15]

“The pace of universal injunctions has gotten to the point where it really is an urgent issue for the court to resolve, not just because it has meant the thwarting of the president’s ability to implement the policies for which he was elected, but also because it has led to an inundation of emergency petitions to the Supreme Court as a result of these universal injunctions,” said Joel Alicea, a law professor at the Catholic University of America.
“What universal injunction practice effectively means is that a single district court judge has a veto over the president’s national policy and because there are 94 district courts in the country, that means that you have 94 opportunities in theory to shut down any given national policy,” Alicea said. “That is a recipe for genuine paralysis in terms of national policy-making and in a way that subverts the separation of powers because single district court judges were never supposed to have this kind of authority to stop national policy in its tracks.”
…
“Universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court's 2018 decision upholding the travel ban President Trump put in place during his first term. “If federal courts continue to issue them, this court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” [16]

However, Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the number of lawsuits and injunctions stems from the volume of executive actions taken by the president in the opening months of his second term. [17]

“The administration has been subject to so many nationwide injunctions and injunctions more generally because it’s doing an incredible volume of illegal things, and that is not a reason to take away a tool that the judiciary has to check executive authority. It’s the opposite,” he said. “Now more than ever it is vital that the judiciary is a strong and robust check against illegal executive actions.”
He said birthright citizenship is an example of a situation in which the constitutional question is so clear, there is no reason the government needs to apply the policy to a single child while the legal challenges move forward.
“Citizenship really cuts through so many aspects of our society. It matters for so many educational, health, nutrition, other kinds of programs,” Wofsy said. “The idea that we would have a patchwork system where people’s citizenship isn’t just a matter of whether you’re born in the United States, but who your parents are, what their status is, do you have documentation, are you a member of this organization, were you born in this state or that state invites confusion, chaos, discrimination and for no real purpose.”

Why are people still on X?

Charlie Warzel of The Atlantic asks this question by encouraging you to “imagine if your favorite neighborhood bar turned into a Nazi hangout.” [18]

Recently, X users were exposed to its AI chatbot, Grok, responding with interjections about white genocide in South Africa. Why? No one really seems to know (note: Elon Musk, who owns X, hails from South Africa…) [19]

Yesterday, a user on X saw a viral post of Timothée Chalamet celebrating courtside at a Knicks game and had a simple question: Who was sitting next to him? The user tapped in Grok, X’s proprietary chatbot, as people often do when they want help answering questions on the platform—the software functions like ChatGPT, except it can be summoned via reply to a post. And for the most part, Grok has performed reasonably well at providing responses. But not yesterday. Chalamet was sitting with Kylie and Kendall Jenner, but here is how the chatbot replied: “I believe you’re referring to a photo with Timothée Chalamet, but the context you mention doesn’t seem to align with this image. The post discusses South African politics, which doesn’t relate to Timothée or the people around him.” Nothing in the photo or post referenced South Africa or politics.
Grok spit out similar answers to many queries for a large chunk of time yesterday, randomly contorting its responses to mention “white genocide” in South Africa, apparently in reference to controversial claims about incidents of violence against some of the country’s white farmers. When one user asked Grok for “analysis” on a video of a small, cute pig, the chatbot offered this explanation: “The topic of White Genocide in South Africa is highly contentious. Claims of systematic targeting of white farmers exist, with farm attacks averaging 50 murders yearly, often cited as evidence. Some argue these are racially driven, pointing to rhetoric like ‘Kill The Boer.’” (Boer is a term used to refer to Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch, German, or French settlers in the country.) Nothing in the video or the accompanying text mentioned South Africa, “white genocide,” or “Kill the Boer.”

And here is a little bit of Warzel’s journey in asking this question about why people still use the platform: [20]

Last Wednesday, as I watched Grok bring up white genocide in response to an anodyne query about the Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Max Scherzer’s career earnings, I couldn’t shake the question: Why are people still using this website? The same thought had also occurred to me around the time that Ye released “Heil Hitler” and I toggled over to X’s algorithmic “For You” feed. It showed a smattering of the platform’s least savory commentators posting about how the anti-Semitic anthem was “the song of the year” and how it had become popular in Thailand. What happened next is pretty standard: By clicking on a few posts about the song, I’d expressed enough interest in it that the platform fed me a steady stream of “Heil Hitler” content: AI-generated remixes of the song, covers, dozens of memes about how the song was secretly popular. I saw a video of a white couple singing the song in their car, throwing up Nazi salutes. Not long after that, I saw a link to a crowdfunding campaign for that same couple, who were asking for money to “relocate” after their video went viral and they were doxxed and “threatened.” The couple set their funding goal at $88,000—a reference, almost assuredly, to “88,” a neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler.” This Russian nesting doll of irony-poisoned, loud-and-proud racism is a common experience in the algorithmic fever swamps of X.

Warzel’s article (with a gift link) is a good one worth reading for full context, as he acknowledges why it might be hard to make the overt choice to leave what used to be Twitter: [21]

To torture the metaphor, though, they’re sitting at a table outside the Nazi bar; their friends are there, they’re having a good time, maybe they hear a slur emanate from the window from time to time. Others fully recognize that they’re at a Nazi bar, but this was their bar first and they don’t want to cede the territory; they’re hanging around to debate, never mind that the bar’s owner is palling around with the new customers.

Warzel’s finally lands here with the Nazi bar analogy: [22]

If a billionaire bought one of your local haunts, renamed it, humiliated the employees, brought back many of the people who’d been banned for harassing other regulars, eliminated basic rules of decency, started having town halls with Republicans and a leader of the AfD, taking your business elsewhere would be perfectly rational. This is essentially what’s happened on X, only the reality is wildly, at times comically, more extreme. A critical mass of the nation’s politicians, news outlets, and major brands regularly post content for free to the exclusive streaming platform for the Ye song “Heil Hitler.” This platform is owned by the world’s richest man, a conspiracy theorizing GOP mega-donor who still holds a position in the Trump administration. Even if he winds down his official role, X will remain an instrument for Musk’s politics. Let’s pause to sit with the absurdity of these facts.

I left Twitter (now X) in 2022 – no regrets. We should continue to urge others who want to be part of polite society to do the same.

Harvard

President Trump is ramping up his tiff with Harvard University by attempting to block the admission of foreign students. [23] And of course, a day later, Trump loses again in court after a federal judge blocked his order against Harvard. [24]

Note – this doesn’t seem to be about illegal immigration anymore. All of these enrollees would have student visas with legal status to be in the country to attend school. This is about exacting pain against non-Americans and against Harvard for standing up for themselves.

When we find ourselves on the other side of this, Harvard will be broadly seen as an institution worth attending and supporting. Founded in 1636, before America was America, Harvard is currently acting more American than any other institution because it is standing up to the authoritarian and will have come out still standing.

By the way, if you’re interested in learning from these elite American universities, Harvard is offering courses for free, with such classes as: [25]

American Government: Constitutional Foundations
Citizen Politics in America: Public Opinion, Elections, Interest Groups, and the Media
Energy Within Environmental Constraints
CS50: Introduction to Computer Science
CS50 for Lawyers
Resilient Leadership
The Health Effects of Climate Change
Christianity Through Its Scriptures
Judaism Through Its Scriptures
Hinduism Through Its Scriptures
Data Science: Probability
Monteverdi’s L’Orfeo and the Birth of Opera
Beethoven's 9th Symphony and the 19th Century Orchestra
Justice
Introduction to Family Engagement in Education
And many more…

Many of the courses can be audited for free, or you can enroll to add a verified certificate for a fee.

An Update on Checking Your Work

Last week, I discussed the need for us to remain critical thinkers, [26] since what we see, hear, or read can’t always be taken at face value. Sometimes we’re deceived by mistake or by the bad intentions of others.

This also happens through laziness and not checking one’s work.

In a recent newsletter by AI scientist Gary Marcus, [27] he describes how legal proceedings are being impacted by the use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT. Marcus points to a database of judicial decisions where generative AI was used in court filings, and citations were made up. [28]

One recent example is a Utah Court of Appeals case, Garner v Kadince, where fabricated citations were included in filings to the court, which originated from a ChatGPT query. [29]

“As the primary example, Respondents’ counsel pointed to the citation to “Royer v. Nelson, 2007 UT App 74, 156 P.3d 789” as an AI “hallucinated” case that does not exist anywhere other than on ChatGPT.”

The attorneys were sanctioned for these submissions, being calling out the need to check their work as part of their obligations to the court: [30]

Number of court decisions where filings included hallucinated AI-generated citations. Data from Damien Charlotin, “AI Hallucination Cases” [28]

“Opposing counsel cannot be required to independently verify the veracity of each citation in another’s court filings. And Utah courts cannot be charged with independently checking the veracity of each citation in an attorney’s filings. Our system of justice must be able to rely on attorneys complying with their duty of candor to the court.”

Marcus points out that the problem is getting worse, as we can see from the trend of court decisions where filings included hallucinated AI-generated citations (data from [28]).

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" Patrick Henry delivering his great speech on the rights of the colonies, before the Virginia Assembly, convened at Richmond, March 23rd 1775, concluding with the above sentiment, which became the war cry of the revolution,” New York: Published by Currier & Ives, c1876, from Prints & Photographs Online Catalog, *Library of Congress*, retrieved May 25, 2025 [32]

A Little History

Marking the Semiquincentennial of American Independence 250 years ago

May 23, 1775 – Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” speech

Cassandra Good is a historian and writer who has taught at Marymount University, George Washington University, and the University of Mary Washington and authored First Family: George Washington’s Heirs and the Making of America. Good recently wrote a piece for Smithsonian Magazine about “the famous oration [that] marked the height of [Patrick] Henry’s influence.” [31]

In a simple white church in Richmond, Virginia, tourists regularly fill the pews to hear a re-enactment of a speech first given within the building’s walls 250 years ago, on March 23, 1775. Here, with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the audience, Patrick Henry delivered an address to his fellow Virginia colonists, closing with the words that would make him famous: “Give me liberty or give me death!” That line has echoed down through the centuries, a dramatic plea that Americans have used time and again to capture their commitment to freedom.

The full text of Henry’s speech is available here. [33]

Narratives

The book I’m reading or movie I’m watching

“The Presidents and The People” - by Corey Brettschneider

Finalist for the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award for Media and the Arts

Brettschneider is a professor at Brown University, where he teaches constitutional law and politics. From the book jacket: [34]

Imagine an American president who imprisoned critics, spread a culture of white supremacy, and tried to upend the law so that he could commit crimes with impunity.
In this propulsive and eminently readable history, constitutional law and political science professor Corey Brettschneider provides a thoroughly researched account of assaults on democracy by not one such president but five. John Adams waged war on the national press of the early republic, overseeing numerous prosecutions of his critics. In the lead-up to the Civil War, James Buchanan colluded with the Supreme Court to deny constitutional personhood to African Americans. A decade later, Andrew Johnson urged violence against his political opponents as he sought to guarantee a white supremacist republic after the Civil War. In the 1910s, Woodrow Wilson modernized, popularized, and nationalized Jim Crow laws. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon committed criminal acts that flowed from his corrupt ideas about presidential power. Through their actions, these presidents illuminated the trip wires that can damage or even destroy our democracy.
Corey Brettschneider shows that these presidents didn’t have the last word; citizen movements brought the United States back from the precipice by appealing to a democratic understanding of the Constitution and pressuring subsequent reform-minded presidents to realize the promise of “We the People.” This is a book about citizens―Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Daniel Ellsberg, and more―who fought back against presidential abuses of power. Their examples give us hope about the possibilities of restoring a fragile democracy.

GIF Game

Notes and Sources

[1] “Memorial Day,” History.com, retrieved May 25, 2025, https://www.history.com/articles/memorial-day-history

[2] “The Origins of Memorial Day,” U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, retrieved May 25, 2025, https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/celebrate/memday.pdf

[3] Ibid.

[4] “Memorial Day,” History.com

[5] Ibid.

[6] Deborah Pearlstein [@debpearlstein.bsky.social], Bluesky, May 24, 2025, https://bsky.app/profile/debpearlstein.bsky.social/post/3lpvvuppqs222

[7] Casa Inc. et al v. Trump et al, No. 8:2025cv00201 - Document 65 (D. Md. 2025), February 5, 2025, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.65.0_1.pdf

[8] State of Washington v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00244 – Document 161 (W.D. Wash.), February 16, 2025, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459/gov.uscourts.wawd.344459.161.0_5.pdf

[9] State of New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1170 – Dcoument 108257710 (1st Cir. 2025), March 11, 2025, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.52523/gov.uscourts.ca1.52523.00108257710.0_1.pdf

[10] United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, retrieved on May 25, 2025, from “Fifth Amendment,” Constitution Annotated, U.S. Congress, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

[11] Oral Arguments for Trump v CASA, Inc., Trump v Washington, and Trump v New Jersey, 24A884, 24A885, 24A886, 604 U.S. _______ (2025), May 15, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24a884_c07d.pdf

[12] “Trump v. CASA, Inc.,” SCOTUSblog, retrieved May 25, 2025, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-casa-inc/

[13] Melissa Quinn and Graham Kates, “Supreme Court asks tough questions of federal government in birthright citizenship case,” CBS News, May 15, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-case-trump/

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Charlie Warzel, “What Are People Still Doing on X?” The Atlantic, May 23, 2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/stop-using-x/682931/?gift=bQgJMMVzeo8RHHcE1_KM0ZFAJnC47hGETLAEy8bNA0Q&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

[19] Ali Breland and Matteo Wong, “The Day Grok Told Everyone About ‘White Genocide’,” May 15, 2025, The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/elon-musk-grok-white-genocide/682817/

[20] Warzel, “What Are People Still Doing on X?”

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Collin Binkley and Michael Casey, “Trump administration bars Harvard from enrolling foreign students,” AP News, May 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/harvard-trump-foreign-student-457d07268fba9c1f6f7f32fe0424bc3b

[24] Collin Binkley, “Federal judge blocks Trump administration from barring foreign student enrollment at Harvard,” AP News, May 23, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/harvard-foreign-students-enrollment-trump-lawsuit-94b65866c563e67a7a7a3c79e90144d6

[25] “Free Courses,” Harvard University, retrieved May 25, 2025, https://pll.harvard.edu/catalog/free?price%5B1%5D=1&page=1

[26] Mic Farris, “Critical Thinking,” May 18, 2025, https://www.micfarris.com/articles/critical-thinking

[27] Gary Marcus, “AI literacy, hallucinations, and the law: A case study,” Marcus on AI, May 18, 2025, https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/ai-literacy-hallucinations-and-the

[28] Damien Charlotin, “AI Hallucination Cases,” retrieved May 24, 2025, https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

[29] Garner v Kadince, 2025 UT App 80, No. 20250188-CA, May 22, 2025, https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Garner_v._Kadince_UT_AC_USA_2025.pdf

[30] Ibid.

[31] Cassandra Good, “Discover Patrick Henry’s Legacy, Beyond His Revolutionary ‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’ Speech,” Smithsonian Magazine, March 21, 2025, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/discover-patrick-henrys-legacy-beyond-his-revolutionary-give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death-speech-180986266/

[32] "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Patrick Henry delivering his great speech on the rights of the colonies, before the Virginia Assembly, convened at Richmond, March 23rd 1775, concluding with the above sentiment, which became the war cry of the revolution,” New York: Published by Currier & Ives, c1876, from Prints & Photographs Online Catalog, Library of Congress, retrieved May 25, 2025, https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2001700209/

[33] “Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death,” The Avalon Project, Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School, retrieved May 25, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp

[34] Corey Brettschneider, The Presidents and The People, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2024, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1324110880/

Decisions with Mic Farris

Seek Truth. Honor Differences.