Our Correction Too Apology To Professor Tillman

Today our lawyers sent an error inward footnote 82 of our amicus brief inward CREW et al., v. Trump.  In add-on to correcting this error, nosotros would similar to conduct keep this chance to apologize to Seth Barrett Tillman, to whom this footnote refers.  Although nosotros acted inward practiced faith, nosotros straightaway recognize that nosotros were wrong to shout out spider web log posts criticizing Professor Tillman’s enquiry without project to a greater extent than extensive due diligence to create upward one's necessitate heed whether those criticisms were justified.  On the termination of Hamilton’s signature on the so-called Condensed Report, nosotros straightaway believe that Professor Tillman is probable correct, in addition to his critics—including us—were mistaken.

In addition, nosotros wishing to admit that footnote 82 makes several imprecise in addition to unwarranted statements close Professor Tillman’s amicus brief.  First, nosotros wrote that Professor Tillman’s brief “overlooks a fundamental Hamilton manuscript that undercuts its thesis in addition to belies its description of archival material,” when nosotros should only conduct keep observed that, inward our judgment, his brief does non clearly put a fundamental archival manuscript that bears on its thesis.  Second, nosotros wrote that a footnote (fn. 76) inward Professor Tillman’s brief “incorrectly described the ASP impress every bit ‘undated’ in addition to ‘unsigned.’”  In fact, Professor Tillman’s footnote did non role the words “ASP print” or “unsigned” but instead characterized the “ASP document” every bit “undated” in addition to the “document inward ASP” every bit “not signed yesteryear Hamilton.”

Finally, nosotros wishing to apologize to Professor Tillman for the mode inward which nosotros took termination amongst his findings in addition to arguments inward our amicus brief.  Under the circumstances, a to a greater extent than appropriate agency to choke along would conduct keep been to approach him direct in addition to inquire for clarification close his interpretation of the Condensed Report.  Each of us would promise for to a greater extent than generous handling from or then other scholar who criticized our ain function inward this fashion, then it was unfair non exhibit the same score of abide by to Professor Tillman.

We regret these errors in addition to extend our apologies to Professor Tillman, whose diligent enquiry nosotros admire. We appreciate his long-standing put on how to translate the Constitution’s reference to “Office of Profit or Trust nether [the United States],” regardless of who is asset the component subdivision of President, in addition to nosotros abide by his commitment in addition to inventiveness inward pursuing that interpretation. We await frontwards to continuing to engage the many of import historical questions raised yesteryear this lawsuit.

Sincerely,

Jed Shugerman

John Mikhail

Jack Rakove

Gautham Rao

Simon Stern