Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf analyzes the eight possible outcomes of today’s U.S. federal elections (based on whether Democrats or Republicans win control of the presidency, Senate, and House) and their implications for governance. Professor Dorf contrasts how unified government enables major legislation with how divided government limits policy changes, while emphasizing an asymmetric risk: Republican control of even one chamber could enable them to challenge a Harris victory or force a debt ceiling crisis, making Democratic control of at least one chamber essential for a potential Harris presidency to function.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines various government efforts since 2010 to address the harms suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) service members who were discharged from the U.S. military due to their sexual orientation between the 1950s and 2010, including discharge upgrades, VA benefit eligibility changes, and presidential pardons. Professor Wexler argues that while recent reforms are positive steps, they remain insufficient due to their limited scope, and advocates for three key changes: a proactive Pentagon review of all discharges back to the 1950s, broader discharge upgrade eligibility for anyone discharged due to sexual orientation (except those with unrelated misconduct), and VA benefits access for those who could not complete their service terms due to discriminatory policies.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyzes the contrasting decision-making styles and presidential temperaments of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as highlighted by Harris’s recent CNN Town Hall appearance. Professor Sarat argues that while Harris’s careful, pragmatic, and “boring” approach to leadership may lack charisma, it would be far preferable to Trump’s impulsive, inattentive, and narcissistic style that would make him dangerous in the role of President.

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in Republican National Committee (RNC) v. Wetzel holding invalid, as conflicting with and thus preempted by federal law governing federal elections, a Mississippi statute that permits the counting of ballots that arrive at election offices by mail after Election Day—up…

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Biden’s recent controversial comment calling Trump supporters “garbage” and its impact on Vice President Harris’s presidential campaign, set against a broader context of inflammatory political rhetoric from both parties. Professor Sarat argues that Harris should forcefully denounce Biden’s remarks to both benefit her campaign and uphold democratic values, rather than merely distancing herself from the President.

Lauren Stiller Rikleen examines Project 2025’s proposals for presidential power in light of Senator Whitehouse’s report “Unworthy of Reliance,” which details how the Trump administration constrained the FBI’s 2018 supplemental investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ms. Rikleen argues that the Kavanaugh confirmation process, where the White House secretly limited the FBI’s investigation while publicly claiming it had “free rein,” serves as a real-world example of how Project 2025’s vision of presidential control over independent agencies has already been implemented and threatens American democracy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allows voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to technical errors to cast provisional ballots in person, and examines the Republican National Committee's subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to block this ruling. Professor Amar argues that the RNC’s appeal lacks merit because it misapplies both the Purcell doctrine (which constrains federal, not state, courts from making last-minute election changes) and the Supreme Court’s Moore v. Harper decision, which actually supports states’ authority to interpret their own election laws through various governmental processes, including state courts.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut discusses the potential economic and institutional dangers of a second Trump presidency, drawing parallels between authoritarian kleptocracies throughout history and Trump's demonstrated patterns of behavior. Mr. Aftergut argues that Trump’s return to power would threaten not only democratic freedoms (as warned by former officials like General John Kelly) but also Americans’ financial well-being through systemic corruption and self-enrichment, with no remaining “guardrails” of principled advisors to constrain such behavior.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses a constitutional interpretation regarding the requirements for winning the U.S. presidency through the Electoral College, specifically addressing scenarios where some state electors are not appointed. Following up on an argument he has made with Professors Michael Dorf and Laurence Tribe, Professor Buchanan argues that, contrary to popular belief (the “House-decides error”), under the Twelfth Amendment, a candidate does not need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency but only a majority of actually appointed electors. Professor Buchanan points out this means that successfully blocking some state electors, as Donald Trump likely will try to do, would not automatically force the decision to the House of Representatives unless there is an actual tie or a third-party candidate prevents either major candidate from achieving a majority of appointed electors.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman commemorates the life and legacy of Lilly Ledbetter, who passed away on October 12, 2024, and details her fight against pay discrimination at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., her subsequent Supreme Court case, and the landmark legislation that bears her name. Professor Grossman emphasizes how Ledbetter's perseverance led to meaningful change through the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which removed significant legal barriers for women seeking to challenge pay discrimination, even though she never personally received compensation for the discrimination she endured.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the history of free speech in America and recent controversies surrounding it, particularly on college campuses. Professor Dorf argues that while there was once a bipartisan consensus supporting free speech, recent events have led to inconsistent stances on both sides of the political spectrum, with many people supporting free speech only when it aligns with their views.

Attorneys Stephen Marcus and Bruce Kuhlik discuss the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in the context of predicted attempts by Donald Trump and his allies to undermine the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The authors argue that lawyers considering advocating unsubstantiated claims of election fraud should learn from the disciplinary actions taken against Trump’s 2020 election lawyers, adhere to their ethical duties, and follow the example of those who refused to violate their obligations to their profession and the Constitution after the 2020 election despite significant pressure to do so.

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.