Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses his book project about society’s tendency to ostracize wrongdoers and explores the complex role of remorse in how society judges and responds to those who have committed serious transgressions. Professor Margulies grapples with a particular challenge in his research—how to address cases where individuals who have committed wrongful acts feel no remorse for their actions, using examples like January 6 rioters and abortion providers in different states—and invites such individuals to share their perspectives.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams and the legal and ethical implications of potentially using criminal charges as leverage to influence local government policy decisions. Professor Amar argues that if the DOJ dismissed charges as part of a quid pro quo to gain Adams’s cooperation with federal immigration policies, this would constitute an unconstitutional violation of federalism principles by improperly pressuring local officials to act against their constituents’ interests, similar to prohibited practices outlined in Supreme Court cases like New York v. United States and Spallone v. United States.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf compares the Trump administration’s recent efforts to interfere in a federal corruption case to Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” highlighting the resignations of principled conservative prosecutors who refused to comply. Professor Dorf argues that while Trump’s actions align with the unitary executive theory favored by some conservatives, the real issue is his disregard for longstanding legal norms that prosecutors should act based on law and facts rather than political influence.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s ongoing de facto moratorium on executions and the broader implications for the future of the death penalty in both Ohio and the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Ohio’s inability to procure lethal injection drugs, combined with public opposition, racial disparities, financial inefficiencies, and declining crime rates, demonstrates that the state—and potentially the nation—can function without capital punishment, signaling a possible shift toward abolition.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the current state of American democracy under Trump’s leadership and contemplates both immediate and long-term prospects for democratic restoration. Professor Buchanan argues that while the current situation is dire, there are reasons for hope, including Trump’s limited lifespan, the likely power struggle among his potential successors, and historical precedents of democratic renewal following periods of authoritarianism.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the surge in federal lawsuits challenging the new Trump administration’s extensive assertions of executive power. Emphasizing the critical role of the judiciary in these times, Professor Amar explains the significance of court rulings, particularly preliminary injunctions, as temporarily halting executive actions to prevent irreparable harm while the legal merits are fully adjudicated, and he highlights the immense pressure on judges to navigate these complex and politically charged constitutional issues.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent execution of Marion Bowman in South Carolina, focusing on his case and the broader cruelties inherent in the American capital punishment system. Professor Sarat argues that Bowman’s case exemplifies multiple systemic issues in death penalty cases, including the treatment of those claiming innocence, the coercive nature of plea deals, inadequate legal defense, and the psychological torture of death row conditions, particularly during the final months before execution.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 2L Matthew Fouracre exploree the legal and jurisdictional complexities surrounding the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, focusing on the challenges against the ICC’s jurisdiction and the implications of head of state immunity. Professor Estreicher and Mr. Fouracre argue that while the ICC’s jurisdiction is contested due to Palestine’s statehood status and international legal principles, the varying international responses underscore a broader debate on the enforceability of such warrants against high-ranking officials.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the actions taken by Donald Trump shortly after his inauguration, focusing on his disregard for democratic norms and the potential legal violations involved, particularly highlighting the removal of security details from political adversaries like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Anthony Fauci. Professor Dorf argues that these decisions reflect Trump’s vengeful and autocratic tendencies, likening his behavior to that of a dictator or crime boss, and warning of the broader implications for democratic governance and personal safety of those perceived as his enemies.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the paradoxical status of the death penalty in California, highlighting its high number of death row inmates and new sentences despite a moratorium on executions and a progressive stance. Professor Sarat contrasts this with Texas’s declining death penalty numbers, emphasizing the complex political landscape in California where local prosecutors and public opinion continue to support capital punishment, creating challenges for abolitionists trying to effect change.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Supreme Court case FCC v. Consumers’ Research et al., which challenges the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of authority under the nondelegation doctrine. Professor Amar argues that while the nondelegation doctrine has been historically dormant, the case highlights important constitutional considerations about the delegation of legislative authority, specifically the ability to reclaim delegated power, and he urges the Court to address these broader issues if it examines the nondelegation questions in this case.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the disconnect between Donald Trump’s campaign promises, particularly regarding consumer prices, and the subsequent actions and attitudes of his administration and supporters following his second election win. Professor Buchanan argues that Trump’s voters are not misled by economic grievances but are rather motivated by deeper ideological convictions, particularly concerning race and identity, leading them to support policies and rhetoric aligned with their beliefs despite the apparent abandonment of campaign promises.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses a recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision where the majority struck down legislation purporting to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases, focusing on distinctions between vested rights and remedies. Professor Griffin argues that the dissenting justices correctly pointed out that the legislature’s extension aimed to address the unique nature of sexual abuse disclosure, challenging the notion of vested rights and emphasizing that there is no inherent right to avoid legal consequences for past wrongs.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the impact of Donald Trump’s executive orders during the first week of his second presidency, focusing on his reinstatement and expansion of the global gag rule that affects international sexual and reproductive health. Professor Grossman argues that these actions are reckless and harmful, causing severe setbacks in global reproductive health services, increasing unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and exacerbating challenges in countries heavily reliant on U.S. aid for family planning and HIV treatment.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the disregard for legal and constitutional norms demonstrated by Donald Trump and supported by figures like Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as the co-opting of religious and patriotic ideals by the political right for partisan gain. Professor Buchanan argues that the defense of Trump’s actions undermines democratic principles and shared cultural values, and he highlights the disturbing alignment of some religious leaders with Trump’s divisive rhetoric despite their religion’s traditional teachings of compassion and unity.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines Idaho’s proposed legislative “Memorial” rejecting the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage, using it as a lens to explore broader questions about states’ rights to challenge federal authority and Supreme Court decisions. Professor Amar argues that while states have the constitutional right to declare their disagreement with federal actions, attempts to enforce laws contradicting Supreme Court precedent are permissible when the argument for overturning is not frivolous (as with Obergefell), but would be impermissible when such arguments are completely frivolous (as with trying to overturn Brown v. Board of Education).

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Donald Trump’s disregard for legal and constitutional constraints during his first week in office, marked by actions such as attempting to alter birthright citizenship and dismissing inspectors general unlawfully. Professor Sarat argues that these lawless actions are a deliberate strategy to test the checks and balances of the U.S. constitutional system, warning that a lack of pushback from other branches of government could pave the way for authoritarianism.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher critiques the International Court of Justice’s decisions regarding provisional measures against Israel in the South Africa v. Israel case, focusing on the inadequacies and implications of labeling Israel’s actions as carrying a “risk of genocide” during the conflict in Gaza. Professor Estreicher argues that the ICJ’s low threshold for plausibility in its provisional measures jurisprudence and its failure to consider Israel’s humanitarian efforts have resulted in misleading accusations of genocide, exacerbating tensions and necessitating a more precise and coherent legal standard.

Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen discusses the media’s response to Donald Trump’s executive orders at the start of his administration and their connection to Project 2025, a comprehensive plan to restructure the federal government. Ms. Rikleen argues that the media has failed on two fronts: by not adequately covering Project 2025’s blueprint for dismantling government institutions, and by reflexively framing valid democratic concerns as partisan fights, which “gives the advantage to those seeking to undermine democracy and weakens the function of journalism as a bulwark for a free society.”

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Biden’s recent recognition of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and examines its potential legal implications across various contexts, including abortion rights, transgender rights, and broader sex discrimination cases. While Professor Dorf argues that the ERA’s inclusion in the Constitution may not significantly affect abortion rights due to existing Supreme Court precedent, he contends it could meaningfully influence transgender rights cases, serve as a safeguard against future rollbacks of sex discrimination protections, and hold important symbolic value in repudiating historical patriarchal assumptions in the Constitution.