Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines the evolving relationship between President Donald Trump and the federal judiciary, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, focusing on initial conflicts over executive orders and judicial authority followed by recent accommodation through Supreme Court emergency docket rulings. Professor Citron argues that while a temporary détente has emerged with the Supreme Court largely supporting Trump’s initiatives through emergency orders, this fragile peace masks an ongoing institutional challenge that could threaten the Court’s legitimacy if it fails to check executive overreach in future cases.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the constitutional principles governing federal-state relations in the context of recent immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, specifically addressing what states can and cannot do regarding federal immigration operations, and what powers the federal government retains. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while states cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement (following the anti-commandeering doctrine), they also cannot discriminate against or obstruct federal operations, and the President has inherent constitutional authority to deploy federal forces to protect federal personnel and property without requiring state permission.

Arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd examines the Trump administration’s sweeping efforts during its second term to dismantle labor law protections and eliminate collective bargaining agreements for over a million federal employees, actions that have triggered multiple lawsuits by federal employee unions asserting constitutional and statutory violations. Mr. Winograd argues that these actions are not only legally flawed but also represent a retaliatory campaign against unions for exercising First Amendment rights, emphasizing the importance of judicial scrutiny and the potential critical role of the Supreme Court in upholding constitutional protections for public sector unions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Tennessee’s new policy of imposing a two-week isolation period and a 12-hour communication blackout on death row inmates prior to execution, framing it within broader concerns about the harsh conditions of death row in the U.S. Professor Sarat argues that these practices are unnecessarily cruel, serve no legitimate purpose, and should be ended either by state action or judicial intervention.

Illinois Law professor Matthew W. Finkin draws a detailed historical comparison between Donald Trump’s 2025 actions as U.S. president and key elements of the Nazi regime’s early consolidation of power, highlighting parallels in civil service purges, governmental structure, legal subordination, and ideological control. Professor Finkin argues that Trump’s efforts to reshape American institutions through loyalty tests, executive overreach, and propaganda echo dangerous authoritarian patterns, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for a similar “seizure of power” unless checked by the judiciary and public resistance.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the challenges and responsibilities of academic scholarship on the death penalty, particularly when such research offers nuanced or unpopular views within the abolitionist movement. Professor Sarat argues that scholars must pursue truthful and critical inquiry—even if it unsettles allies—because their ultimate contribution lies in illuminating the harsh realities of capital punishment, not in conforming to political or moral orthodoxy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate efforts to end a parole program for migrants from four countries, focusing on legal standards for granting a stay and the broader constitutional and policy implications of executive immigration authority. Professor Amar argues that the federal government does indeed suffer irreparable harm when prevented from enforcing duly enacted laws and policies, and criticizes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent for undervaluing these harms and overlooking legal precedent and practical consequences.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent comments dismissing the judiciary’s role in checking executive power, situating the discussion within the broader context of constitutional law education at Yale Law School. Professor Sarat argues that Vance’s remarks reflect not legal ignorance but a deliberate rejection of established constitutional principles, particularly judicial oversight, in favor of a nationalist ideology concerned with limiting immigration based on cultural and racial preferences.

UC Davis professor emeritus Alan Brownstein discusses America’s historical embrace of diversity, especially in the military, through the lens of Woody Guthrie’s song honoring the multiethnic sailors lost on the U.S.S. Reuben James in 1941. Professor Brownstein argues that America’s diverse heritage has long been a source of strength and unity, and warns against dismissing this legacy as merely “woke” ideology, urging continued recognition and respect for the nation’s pluralism.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques President Donald Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system, positioning it as a modern sequel to Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” initiative, and evaluates its flaws in light of current technological and geopolitical realities. Professor Dorf argues that despite advancements since the 1980s, missile defense remains ineffective and dangerous, as it cannot reliably prevent nuclear catastrophe and may actually increase the risk of nuclear war by encouraging adversaries to consider first strikes.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Wilcox regarding presidential authority to remove federal agency officials, focusing particularly on Justice Kagan’s dissent that criticized President Trump for “taking the law into his own hands” by attempting to fire NLRB and MSPB members despite existing legal protections. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that Justice Kagan’s criticism is misplaced because presidents, as coordinate branch officials rather than subordinate courts, should be permitted to act contrary to statutes they believe unconstitutionally constrain executive power—especially since such presidential “disobedience” is sometimes necessary to bring constitutional questions before the Supreme Court for resolution. They point out that Justice Kagan herself has previously supported executive defiance of congressional statutes in other separation-of-powers cases.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explores the idea that profound suffering, such as that experienced in Auschwitz or in high-security prisons, can serve as a powerful catalyst for personal growth and the realization of human potential. Professor Margulies reflects on Dr. Edith Eger’s belief that suffering can be a “greatest classroom,” concluding that while suffering alone does not guarantee human flourishing, it is the presence of unconditional love and support in response to suffering that enables individuals to achieve their fullest selves.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher discusses pragmatic, bipartisan labor law reforms designed to enhance the stability, fairness, and durability of union representation processes, the authority of the NLRB, and employer-employee relations in both union and non-union settings. Professor Estreicher argues that rather than sweeping partisan overhauls like the PRO Act, sensible reforms such as strengthening secret-ballot elections, improving NLRB remedies, allowing varied union structures, and fostering constructive dialogue in non-union workplaces can result in more lasting and effective labor policy.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat calls for an end to the longstanding ritual of collecting and publicizing the final statements of death row inmates, spotlighting the recent execution of Glen Rogers in Florida and his unusual last words referencing Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that these last words are often performative, feed public morbid curiosity, and serve to legitimize the death penalty by giving the illusion of dignity and humanity to an inherently inhumane practice.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, focusing not just on the order’s constitutionality but also on the procedural question of whether “universal” injunctions or nationwide class actions are the better tool for challenging federal policies. Professors Amar and Mazzone contend that class actions offer a fairer and more practical alternative, providing enforceable relief, reducing strategic litigation abuse, and avoiding the legal uncertainties that surround non-party protection under universal injunctions.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument on whether lower federal courts can issue universal injunctions, using as context the Trump administration’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants. Professor Dorf argues that while the Court may focus on the procedural issue of universal injunctions, it has a duty to strongly reject the Trump administration’s constitutionally unfounded attack on the Fourteenth Amendment and safeguard effective judicial remedies against executive overreach.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies critiques Stephen Miller’s advocacy for reopening Alcatraz as a symbolic place to isolate and permanently segregate violent offenders, using it as a lens to explore broader societal misconceptions about criminality and rehabilitation. Professor Margulies argues that Miller’s perspective is rooted in ignorance and fear, and counters it by emphasizing the real and transformative possibility of redemption among incarcerated individuals—something Miller could only understand by engaging directly with the prison population.

Guest columnist Gary J. Simson—Macon Chair in Law at Mercer Law School and Professor Emeritus at Cornell Law School—critiques executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that punish specific law firms for their clients or past actions, arguing that these orders resemble historically condemned legislative punishments known as bills of attainder. Professor Simson contends that these orders are fundamentally unconstitutional assaults on the legal system and should be challenged under the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause, which was designed to prevent exactly such abuses of power.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines the judicial legacy of Justice David Souter, focusing on how his intellectually rigorous and nuanced approach in key Supreme Court cases—particularly Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and United States v. Mead Corp.—has had lasting but complex effects. Professor Citron argues that while Souter’s brilliance and detailed reasoning reflected a high-minded commitment to the common law tradition, his tendency to write narrowly yet extensively may have unintentionally undermined the clarity and durability of his rulings.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the judicial philosophy and legacy of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, contrasting him with ideologically driven judges and situating his approach within the traditional conservative lineage of Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan. Professor Dorf argues that, despite being criticized by conservatives, Souter embodied a principled, restrained, and thoughtful conservatism that emphasized judicial humility and methodological integrity—qualities lacking in today’s ideologically rigid judiciary.