Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent failed execution attempt of Thomas Eugene Creech in Idaho, highlighting lethal injection’s history of unreliability and the broader context of its use as an execution method in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that systemic issues and denial by state officials perpetuate the cruelty and inefficiency of lethal injections, urging an acknowledgment of its failures and a cessation of its use for capital punishment.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone, and Illinois Law’s First Amendment Clinic director Lena Shapiro examine the legal intricacies and constitutional debates surrounding a federal district court’s dismissal of the Disney Corporation’s lawsuit against Florida officials, in which Disney alleges retaliatory action for Disney’s criticism of Florida laws by changing the governance of the land regulating Disney World. The authors highlight the complexity of First Amendment issues involved, the precedent set by prior cases, and the broader implications for speech regulation and governmental retaliation, suggesting areas for deeper academic exploration.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision last week in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., in which it equates frozen embryos with “extraeuterine children,” thereby using fetal personhood rhetoric to jeopardize IVF practices. Professor Dorf argues that this reasoning not only undermines prospective parents’ freedoms but also reflects a flawed understanding of rights as zero-sum, contrasting sharply with instances where expanding rights can enhance societal well-being.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on a lawsuit filed by David Phillip Wilson, currently on Alabama’s death row for a 2004 murder, claiming that Alabama’s plan to execute him by nitrogen gas violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Professor Sarat notes the state’s problematic history with gas executions and the recent painful, 22-minute execution of Kenneth Smith by nitrogen gas, and argues that Wilson’s lawsuit makes a compelling case that nitrogen hypoxia presents a substantial risk of severe pain and suffering.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Klara Nedrelow argue that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) incorrectly imposed provisional measures on Israel regarding its actions in Gaza, as it failed to establish even a preliminary basis for genocide intent required under the Genocide Convention. Professor Estreicher and Ms. Nedrelow contend that South Africa’s allegations lacked plausibility due to the absence of specific intent to destroy the Gazan/Palestinian people, a critical element for genocide, in contrast to previous ICJ rulings that required a higher burden of proof for genocidal intent.
Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman and 3L Sarah F. Corning comment on the Alabama Supreme Court’s questionable ruling in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine that frozen embryos qualify as children under the state’s wrongful death statute, effectively granting embryos full personhood status, a decision aligned with anti-abortion efforts to establish fetal personhood legally. Professor Grossman and Ms. Corning point out that this ruling reflects broader national debates and legal challenges around fetal personhood and poses significant implications for reproductive rights, fertility treatments, and the legal recognition of embryos and fetuses. They suggest that it could even lead to the restriction or closure of fertility treatment centers in Alabama and influence future court interpretations related to abortion and reproductive technologies.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies describes his struggle with the polarized views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and expresses feeling alienated for holding nuanced positions on both sides’ rights and criticisms. Professor Margulies emphasizes the universal right to dignity and respect over territorial or partisan victories, advocating for a perspective that transcends traditional binaries and focuses on shared humanity and the equal right to thrive.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat reflects on the 100-year history of gas chamber executions in the United States, highlighting the method’s failure to provide a humane and reliable form of capital punishment despite initial claims, and marking the recent revival of its use in Alabama as a continuation of this problematic legacy. Professor Sarat details the origins and implementation of gas chambers, including the first execution of Gee Jon in Nevada and the various adaptations states made over the years, culminating in a critique of lethal gas as an inhumane method that has consistently resulted in torture and botched executions.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, in which the Justices seemed inclined to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that disqualified Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary under the Fourteenth Amendment for “engaging in insurrection.” Professor Dorf points out that the Justices’ questioning revealed a spectrum of potential rationales, from concerns over political retribution and the historical interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to structural arguments about federal versus state authority in determining a candidate’s eligibility for the presidency.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar expresses concern over the quality of the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Trump v. Anderson, suggesting that the Justices’ questions failed to adequately address the complexities of the case and the constitutional principles at stake, particularly regarding the electoral college and interstate federalism. Professor Amar critiques the Court’s understanding of the electoral college system, arguing that the Justices’ apprehensions about the potential consequences of their decision overlook the inherent flexibility states have in appointing electors—a flexibility underscored by originalist constitutional interpretations and past precedents.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the ageism evident in special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Joe Biden's handling of classified documents, highlighting its undue focus on the President’s age-related memory issues as irrelevant and prejudicial. Professor Sarat argues that such ageism, while pervasive and often ignored, undermines the valuable contributions of older individuals, emphasizing the importance of experience over age-related cognitive decline.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professors Meredith R. Miller and Laura A. Dooley discuss the complexities of federal jurisdiction in cases involving limited liability companies (LLCs), suggesting an amendment to the diversity statute to simplify determining an LLC’s citizenship based on its state of creation and principal place of business. Professors Miller and Dooley evaluate the strategic implications of such a change from both procedural and business law perspectives, considering the impact on litigants’ access to federal courts, the influence of recent legislative efforts on ownership transparency, and the balance between offering fair legal proceedings and maintaining the advantages of state versus federal litigation.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the proposal by Oklahoma’s Attorney General and the Director of the Department of Corrections to execute execute six individuals with 90-day intervals between each, in a purported effort to address operational and mental health strains on execution team members. Professor Sarat points out that this plan fails to address deeper injustices within the death penalty system, not the least of which is the significant toll on those involved in executions, as well as the systemic issues of unfair trials and racial bias affecting death row inmates.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold the decisions of the Colorado and Maine courts that disqualified Donald Trump from running for President under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Falvy identifies several ways that the Court could rationalize putting Trump back on the ballot and explains the legal and consequential problems with each. In particular, Mr. Falvy criticizes the superficially appealing “let the people decide” line of thought, pointing out that it is actually highly undemocratic and dangerous; indeed, such dictators as Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte in France, Adolf Hitler in Germany, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, each launched a failed coup d’état, endured a short stint in jail, and returned to win power through elections.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the groundbreaking prosecution for involuntary manslaughter of Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of Ethan Crumbley, who killed four classmates in a school mass shooting. Professor Margulies highlights legal and moral complexities surrounding causation and parental responsibility, questioning whether the parents’ negligence in not foreseeing their son’s violent actions, despite clear warning signs, justifies holding them criminally liable for the murders. Professor Margulies also reflects on the broader implications for societal expectations of parental foresight and the limits of criminal law in addressing such tragic events.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone comment on a federal lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Mississippi, among others, challenging Mississippi’s law that counts mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within five business days thereafter for federal elections. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed due to the implausibility of its legal theory, highlighting the distinction between the act of voting and the counting of votes, and underscoring the constitutional and statutory framework that grants states broad leeway in election administration, including the acceptance of mail-in ballots.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the recent execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith by nitrogen hypoxia in Alabama, questioning the humanity of this method and comparing it unfavorably to other methods like lethal injection and electrocution. Professor Dorf delves into the complexities of the death penalty, including the constitutional implications, the effectiveness of alternative execution methods, and the ethical dilemmas facing death penalty abolitionists and pharmaceutical companies regarding the provision of more humane execution drugs.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies reflects on the Department of Justice’s recent indictment of four Russian officers for torturing an American in Ukraine, interpreting it as a significant legal and moral statement against torture. Professor Margulies speculates whether this action represents a broader condemnation of torture or a narrower stance against torture when Americans are victims, contrasting it with the U.S.’s own history of torture post-9/11.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat laments the continued occurrence of botched executions in the United States, focusing on the recent introduction of nitrogen hypoxia in Alabama, which resulted in another failed attempt. Professor Sarat describes the disturbing details of Kenneth Smith’s execution, where the promise of a quick and painless death by nitrogen hypoxia was broken, leading to a prolonged and torturous process, thus adding to the history of failed executions with new methods in the United States.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar defends the University of Illinois’ reinstatement of standout basketball player Terrence Shannon Jr. following a court injunction against his suspension due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Professor Amar argues that the University’s compliance with the court order, which recognized Shannon’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, was legally sound, and emphasizes that the decision to play Shannon was not influenced by the unproven allegations but rather by a legal obligation to treat him as any other team member in good standing. Professor Amar criticizes commentary by sports journalists like Gary Parrish for misunderstanding the legal nuances and the University’s obligation to adhere to the court’s ruling, noting that the decision to play Shannon is a matter of legal compliance, not a disregard for the seriousness of the allegations.