Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyzes the rhetorical strategies JD Vance used during a New York Times interview, especially Vance’s refusal to acknowledge Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss. Professor Sarat argues that Vance’s skillful use of language techniques such as bridging, whataboutism, and question deflection demonstrates a polished version of Trumpism that poses a long-term threat to American democracy by undermining faith in elections and truth itself.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze a recent election-related lawsuit filed in Michigan federal court, critiquing the legal arguments and the court’s handling of the case in the context of federal jurisdiction principles. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the lawsuit clearly lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction and should have been promptly dismissed, highlighting this case as an example of poor lawyering and judicial oversight that is unnecessarily complicating the legal landscape ahead of the upcoming election.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler analyzes the legality of Israel’s pager and walkie-talkie strikes against Hezbollah under international humanitarian law, focusing on the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and the prohibition on unnecessary suffering. Professor Wexler concludes that while the strikes likely fall under the CCW’s definitions of “booby-traps” and “other devices,” the question whether they violate the prohibition on unnecessary suffering remains open, pending more detailed information about the injuries caused and the military necessity of the tactics used.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the current Supreme Court term and its potential implications for the 2024 presidential election. Professor Dorf argues that while the current docket seems relatively quiet, the Court’s history of partisan decisions favoring Republicans, combined with the possibility of election-related cases being added later, raises concerns about how the Court might handle potential challenges to the 2024 election results, particularly if Trump loses and uses his loyalists in state legislatures or other organs of government to declare him the winner anyway.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case that could expand the use of DNA evidence in capital punishment cases, focusing on Ruben Gutierrez’s appeal in Texas. Professor Sarat argues that the Court should allow Gutierrez to challenge Texas’s restrictions on post-conviction DNA testing, asserting that such limitations in death penalty cases across the country hinder the pursuit of justice and should be reconsidered.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the legal arguments surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s attempt to remain on some state ballots for the 2024 presidential election, particularly focusing on the applicability to presidential elections of the Supreme Court’s U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton ruling. Professor Amar argues that invoking the Term Limits case in the context of presidential elections is logically flawed and historically inaccurate, as Article II of the Constitution grants states broad powers in selecting presidential electors, unlike the more restricted state powers in congressional elections addressed in Term Limits.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines the legal implications of Israel’s alleged attacks on Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, focusing on how these actions may be interpreted under the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), particularly its provisions on booby-traps and other devices. Professor Wexler explores various interpretations of the CCW’s articles, questioning whether the attacks constitute booby-traps under the convention’s definition, whether they violate prohibitions on using apparently harmless objects as weapons, and whether they comply with restrictions on using such devices in civilian-populated areas. She suggests that while the attacks raise complex legal questions, their legality depends on specific interpretations of the CCW and broader principles of international humanitarian law.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss a legal challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing the counting of absentee ballots that arrive up to five business days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the law is consistent with federal election statutes and constitutional principles, and that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of “Election Day” is overly narrow and inconsistent with other accepted election practices.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the state of capital punishment in the United States, reflecting on the recent milestone of 1,600 executions since 1976 and examining trends in public opinion, exonerations, and execution practices. Professor Sarat argues that while the country has made progress toward abolition, persistent issues such as false convictions, racial bias, and botched executions highlight the fundamental flaws in the death penalty system.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss age-based discrimination in absentee voting laws across eight U.S. states, examining their compatibility with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that these laws, which favor older voters, violate the Amendment's clear prohibition of age discrimination in voting rights and should be challenged in court, criticizing recent circuit court decisions that have failed to properly interpret the Amendment's equality mandate.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a topic that came up in the recent debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, focusing on Trump’s remarks about healthcare and a legal challenge to a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the Supreme Court. Professor Dorf argues that while Trump lacks a clear plan to replace the ACA, Republican officials and their allies are systematically attempting to dismantle the law through litigation, not because they have a better alternative, but because they ideologically oppose government involvement in healthcare and resent the ACA’s success as a Democratic initiative.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan critiques J.D. Vance’s candidacy, highlighting the increasing negativity he brings to the Republican Party and his role in worsening the political culture in the U.S. Professor Buchanan argues that Vance embodies cruelty and harmful politics, particularly through his promotion of racist and sexist narratives, while undermining legitimate policy discussions.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May critically analyzes the Department of Justice’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, discussing its flaws and potential solutions. Mr. May argues that the program is fundamentally flawed due to its lack of certainty in awarding whistleblowers, prioritization of victim compensation over whistleblower awards, disqualification of whistleblowers eligible for other programs, and demanding cooperation requirements, ultimately deterring potential whistleblowers from coming forward with crucial information about corporate wrongdoing.

Retired UC Berkeley Law professor Jan Vetter discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a regulation classifying bump stocks as machine guns, and examines the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation. Professor Vetter argues that the Court’s majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, took an overly narrow and literal interpretation of the statute, neglecting to consider legislative intent and the broader purpose of the law, and he suggests that judges should act more as partners with the legislature in interpreting statutes to achieve their intended policy goals.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the poor state of political discourse in the United States. Professor Buchanan argues that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance frequently make incoherent or illogical statements that are not held to proper scrutiny, while Kamala Harris is unfairly criticized for making actual arguments and evolving her views based on new information or political realities.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses accusations of “flip-flopping” against Vice President Kamala Harris and examines the broader issue of how policy changes are perceived in political discourse. Professor Buchanan argues that Harris’s policy adjustments reflect evolving strategies rather than changes in core values, and he criticizes the media for mischaracterizing such adaptations as inconsistency, while also pointing out the double standard applied to Democrats compared to Republicans on this issue.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Donald Trump’s speech at the Israeli American Council summit, focusing on his comments about Jewish voters and accusations of antisemitism. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s remarks were self-centered, potentially dangerous, and reflective of his narcissistic tendencies, and he highlights the disconnect between Trump’s expectations of Jewish voter support and actual polling data.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Klara Nedrelow analyze the International Court of Justice’s July 19, 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, focusing on the dissenting opinion of Judge Julia Sebutinde. Professor Estreicher and Ms. Nedrelow argue that the ICJ’s opinion is one-sided and fails to consider the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing that a lasting solution requires carefully negotiated agreements between both parties rather than judicial recommendations based on incomplete narratives.

In this second part of a two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan examines recent Republican advice for Donald Trump to focus on “policy" rather than grievances in his presidential campaign. Professor Buchanan expands on the arguments he introduced in Part One, providing examples of Trump’s policy-free rhetoric and explaining why Republicans don’t actually want substantive policy discussions, as their specific policy positions are largely unpopular with voters.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses recent Republican advice for Donald Trump to focus on policy rather than “culture wars” in his presidential campaign. Professor Buchanan argues that this advice is misguided because Republicans lack popular policy positions, and their call for Trump to “talk policy” actually means inflaming voters’ emotions on select issues like immigration and the economy without offering substantive solutions.