UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses concerns about constitutional violations by the Trump administration and examines claims that the arrest of Wisconsin state judge Hannah Dugan fits into a broader pattern of undermining judicial independence. Professor Amar argues that Dugan’s arrest, unlike attacks on judges for their legal rulings, appropriately addresses unlawful interference with federal law enforcement and thus upholds, rather than threatens, constitutional principles like federal supremacy and the rule of law.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s recent Fourth Circuit ruling in the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, situating it within Bruce Ackerman’s theory of dualist democracy and the concept of “higher lawmaking” in times of constitutional transformation. Professor Citron argues that Judge Wilkinson’s unusually candid and philosophically grounded opinion reflects a judiciary consciously responding to President Trump’s far-reaching efforts to reshape the constitutional balance of powers, signaling that we may be living through another transformative moment in American constitutional law.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge who challenged potential disciplinary action for conducting only opposite-sex weddings based on religious beliefs. In this first of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors focus on the threshold justiciability matters presented in the case, arguing that it serves as a valuable teaching tool for understanding overlapping legal doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and abstention. The authors critique the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning on enforcement threat assessments and point out doctrinal confusion surrounding facial versus as-applied constitutional challenges.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the Trump administration’s April 11 demand letter to Harvard University, which requires sweeping changes to the university's hiring and admissions practices to eliminate identity-based preferences and to mandate viewpoint diversity. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that the letter is deeply incoherent and self-contradictory, as its rigid insistence on merit-based selection fundamentally conflicts with its simultaneous requirement for ideological and religious viewpoint diversity across all departments.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques the Trump administration’s tariff policies and broader economic strategy, arguing that they are misguided in the face of rapidly advancing technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). Professor Dorf contends that instead of clinging to outdated protectionist policies, U.S. leadership should focus on preparing for the disruptive impact of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial super intelligence (ASI) on employment and productivity, a challenge for which Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s mounting pressure on U.S. universities, including funding threats and legal tactics that jeopardize academic freedom and chill free expression on campuses. Professor Sarat argues that universities must respond assertively by understanding and defending academic freedom, updating policies to protect faculty and students, and forging broad alliances to resist government overreach and uphold the principles of open inquiry.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the legal and ethical implications of recent executive orders from the White House targeting law firms for their past work opposing the administration, and they discuss the resulting fragmentation within the legal profession over how to respond. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while individual law firms may face practical incentives to capitulate, coordinated resistance would be both more effective and legally protected under the First Amendment based on analogous Supreme Court precedents on collective political action and petitioning the government.
In this second of a two-part series, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the broader implications of the Trump administration’s attempt to ban transgender individuals from military service, focusing on the chilling effects on service members’ mental health care and how recent litigation (specifically Talbott and Shilling) may shape future legal challenges to executive control over the military. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the administration's policy undermines trust in mental health confidentiality and threatens military readiness, while also suggesting that recent court decisions could provide a legal framework for challenging discriminatory or overreaching uses of military power in the future.
Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine recent judicial rulings halting the enforcement of a Trump administration executive order banning transgender individuals from military service, focusing on the Department of Defense’s justification efforts and the constitutional Equal Protection challenges in Talbott v. Trump and Shilling v. United States. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the administration failed to provide evidence-based, reasoned justifications necessary for judicial deference, highlighting a broader pattern of executive overreach and attempts to discredit the judiciary rather than engage in the fact-based policy-making required to lawfully exclude transgender service members.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the nomination of Edward Martin as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, examining how his conduct exemplifies what critics call the “weaponization” of the Justice Department under President Trump. Professor Sarat argues that Martin has misused his prosecutorial power for political ends—especially by pursuing partisan investigations of President Joe Biden and his family—and urges the Senate to reject his confirmation.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines recent calls by President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and their allies in Congress to remove or sideline federal judges who have blocked Trump administration policies, either through impeachment or by eliminating the courts themselves. Professor Dorf argues that such tactics are constitutionally dubious and dangerously undermine judicial independence, warning that the real threat to the republic comes not from the judges, but from efforts to evade legal checks on presidential power.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines California Governor Gavin Newsom’s shifting political positions, particularly focusing on the uncertainty surrounding his stance on the death penalty as he eyes a potential 2028 presidential run. Professor Sarat argues that Newsom’s credibility and legacy—especially given his prior vocal opposition to capital punishment—hinge on whether he will act decisively to commute the state's death row sentences before leaving office, a move that could significantly influence the national debate on the death penalty.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone address the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to rehear a case challenging a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days. Professors Amar and Mazzone explore the broader implications of that decision—especially in light of a recent Executive Order by President Donald Trump that adopts a strict interpretation of federal “Election Day” laws. The authors argue the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed, that longstanding state practices allowing some flexibility in ballot receipt are legally and constitutionally sound, and that both the court’s ruling and the Executive Order reflect an overly rigid and potentially partisan approach that should ultimately be reviewed and corrected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In this second of a two-part series of columns discussing Donald Trump and Republicans’ efforts to dismantle Social Security, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that despite public reassurances, Republican initiatives—especially those supported by figures like Elon Musk—are methodically weakening Social Security, threatening a vital, efficient, and historically successful program that prevents elder poverty and supports millions of Americans. Professor Buchanan contends that these efforts are based on false narratives, including misleading comparisons to Ponzi schemes and deceptive efficiency claims, all aimed at undermining public confidence in the system—particularly among younger generations—in order to justify harmful privatization schemes that would ultimately benefit Wall Street at the expense of working Americans.
University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan addresses the Trump administration’s attacks on Social Security, particularly through cutting the budget to force the system to deteriorate, and he debunks the false claim—recently amplified by Elon Musk—that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Professor Buchanan argues that Social Security is a sustainable, pay-as-you-go system that functions similarly to private banking and retirement savings, and that calling it a Ponzi scheme reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both financial systems and economic sustainability.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Trump administration’s apparent disregard for judicial authority, focusing on its defiance of a court order prohibiting the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations and its broader pattern of legal manipulation. Professor Dorf argues that even if technical compliance with court rulings is maintained, the administration’s deceptive tactics and overt hostility toward judicial oversight severely undermine the rule of law and pose a grave threat to American constitutional democracy.
University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to avert a government shutdown by supporting a controversial continuing resolution (CR), despite backlash from Democrats and anti-Trump groups who saw it as a capitulation. Professor Buchanan argues that while Schumer is not typically a progressive hero, he made the right decision to prevent lasting harm, as a shutdown would have handed excessive power to Trump and Musk. Professor Buchanan calls upon Democrats to stop infighting so that they can effectively resist the rise of authoritarianism.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses President Donald Trump’s attempt to use Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility for migrants, highlighting the legal and logistical obstacles that make such plan infeasible. Professor Margulies argues that Trump’s real goal has never been about policy implementation but rather about shaping public perception—using Guantanamo as a symbol to dehumanize immigrants and redefine the national identity around exclusion.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s late-night deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members despite a federal judge’s order to halt the process and examines the implications for constitutional law and executive power. Professor Sarat argues that by defying the court order, the administration dangerously undermined the rule of law, demonstrating its willingness to consolidate power and disregard constitutional checks, marking a troubling crisis for American democracy.
Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto analyze the impact of the Prioritizing Military Excellence Order, which restricts transgender military service, comparing it to past policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and detailing the order’s effects on transgender service members, military law, national security, and unit cohesion. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the policy forces transgender troops to either leave service or suppress their identity, ultimately harming military readiness, morale, and legal integrity, and they advocate for legal challenges, state-level protections, and continued resistance to discriminatory policies.
