Criminal defense attorney Jon May discusses the risk that Donald Trump and MAGA supporters could disrupt the midterm elections through coordinated unrest at polling places, potentially enabling Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and use federal troops to control voting. Mr. May argues that January 6 showed how a mob can paralyze democracy, and that the best defense is for states and legal officials to deter disruption through prosecution, voting-access measures, and advance warnings to military officers that obeying unlawful election-deployment orders could itself be a crime.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Georgia’s planned execution of Stacey Humphreys and the related lawsuit by Appen Media Group challenging the state’s secrecy rules for lethal-injection procedures, while placing that dispute in the broader national fight over execution secrecy. Professor Sarat argues that Georgia’s restrictions are constitutionally and normatively unjustified because they give the state too much unchecked control over what the press can observe, and that the court should grant access to ensure transparency and accountability.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling that blocks HB1, the state’s new congressional map, from taking effect until voters decide a referendum on it, and he explains why that ruling will probably withstand the state’s expected appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Amar argues that Missouri’s federal constitutional objections are weak because the Missouri Constitution plainly permits the referendum, Supreme Court precedent has long allowed such referenda in congressional redistricting, and the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to disrupt the state court’s decision so close to the election.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent resurgence of capital punishment in the United States, examining rising execution numbers, shifting public opinion, and the pro-death-penalty influence of the Trump administration. Professor Sarat argues that abolitionists must urgently adapt their messaging and political strategies to counter these developments and prevent further erosion of the movement's progress.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss three recent California legislative measures aimed at federal law enforcement: a “converse-1983” civil rights statute titled the “No Kings” Act, the “Get the Feds Out” Act, and a ban on electric shock gloves. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while the “No Kings” Act establishes a constitutionally sound remedy for federal constitutional violations, the other two measures constitute performative legislation that unconstitutionally attempts to regulate federal operations in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s refusal to appeal a federal court decision striking down National Firearms Act regulations, framing the move as part of a broader pattern of selective non-enforcement. Professor Sarat argues that routinely abandoning and refusing to defend disfavored laws violates the executive’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law and fundamentally threatens the separation of powers.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the recent measles and whooping cough deaths tied to declining vaccination rates and examines the role of federal officials, state lawmakers, and courts in enabling or preventing those outbreaks. Professor Hamilton argues that religious and philosophical exemptions to childhood vaccine mandates should be rolled back, that courts should reject claims equating them with medical exemptions, and that states should prioritize children’s public health over anti-vaccine and religious-liberty lobbying.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America,” explaining its political symbolism, historical ignorance, and legal limits. Professor Dorf argues that the order is unlawful because Congress delegated geographic-naming authority to federal agencies that must consider public and state interests, and that New York businesses and the state could sue under the APA to block it.

In this second of a series of columns on the recent uproar over U.S. federal debt surpassing $40 trillion, law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan examines the scope of government borrowing, including debt crises and interest-rate effects. Professor Buchanan argues that the headline number itself is not the real problem; what matters is whether debt grows unsustainably and, more importantly, whether the government borrows for productive public purposes rather than wasteful or politically motivated spending.

Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the public debate over the U.S. federal debt, focusing on how media coverage of the “$40 trillion debt” relies on confused, misleading, or context-free comparisons and on basic terminology mistakes such as mixing up debt, deficit, gross debt, and net debt. Professor Buchanan argues that the raw debt figure is not meaningful on its own and that sensible analysis requires context—especially debt relative to GDP—so scare-driven coverage distorts the real fiscal issues.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines how the religious right and Christian Nationalist movement promote a narrow framework of “religious liberty” to influence American jurisprudence and public policy. Professor Hamilton argues that these groups misrepresent religious freedom to impose minority theological beliefs on the public, erode civil rights for women and LGBTQ+ individuals, and compel the government to fund religious discrimination.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California staying a lower court injunction against an executive order that involves the Postal Service in regulating mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Professor Sarat contends that the ruling abandons the Court’s established Purcell principle, needlessly injecting chaos into the upcoming election and undermining democratic integrity by favoring executive overreach.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Grant v. Belangia, which invalidated a South Carolina law restricting automatic absentee voting to seniors and created a federal circuit split on the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Professor Amar contends that the bipartisan panel correctly applied originalist principles to hold that the Constitution strictly forbids age-based discrimination in voting procedures, establishing a sound textual model for eventual Supreme Court review.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron discusses a recent podcast conversation with Professor Rachel Rosenbloom regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara and the broader legal history of birthright citizenship. Professor Citron highlights that while the Court rightly reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, the surprisingly narrow margin and fractured, revisionist dissents underscore ongoing political threats to constitutional equality.

Michael C. Dorf discusses the extensive national news coverage to the University of Michigan’s decision to adopt a pass/fail grading policy for first-semester undergraduates. Professor Dorf argues that this routine administrative change became a national story because conservative culture-war narratives and the Trump administration weaponize such decisions to portray higher education as anti-meritocratic and overly permissive.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s expanding use of arrest threats and criminal prosecutions against state and local officials to enforce federal immigration and election policies. Professor Sarat argues that this strategy marks a dangerous shift toward autocracy, weaponizing federal law enforcement to intimidate political opponents and coerce compliance when judicial avenues fail.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Tony Ghiotto discuss the D.C. Circuit's Talbott ruling on the transgender military ban, covering judicial deference standards, the harsh reality of ongoing separation proceedings, weak reinstatement precedent from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate reversal, and the new testosterone-screening policy’s effect on the litigation. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue the ruling risks giving the Administration a roadmap to shield future exclusionary policies from real scrutiny, and that even a future reversal of the ban is unlikely to make separated servicemembers whole.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a lawsuit by two Idaho death row inmates challenging the secretive, unexplained process behind the state’s newly adopted execution protocol, which grants officials broad discretion to deviate from procedures at will. Professor Sarat argues that such vague protocols undermine accountability when executions go wrong, and urges Idaho courts to resist the troubling trend of relaxing administrative law norms whenever the death penalty is at stake.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses how incoming law students should approach AI use in law school, addressing academic integrity, exam and classroom policies, the Socratic method, and AI’s proper role in legal research and practice. Professor Dorf advises that students should follow institutional AI rules to avoid cheating classmates and clients, avoid using chatbots to shortcut genuine engagement with course material, rigorously verify any AI-generated legal research, and extend patience to instructors who are also adapting to unprecedented technological change.

In this second of a series of columns, Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler discusses the differences between the Obama administration’s response to the 2015 Kunduz trauma center strike and the Trump administration’s response to the 2025 Minab school strike in Iran, examining operational tempo, the role of AI in targeting, the prevailing military legal culture, and accountability practices. Professor Wexler argues that while Obama’s administration moved relatively quickly to acknowledge responsibility, apologize, provide redress, and implement reforms to prevent recurrence, the Trump administration has been far less transparent and forthcoming—failing to clearly acknowledge U.S. fault, offer apologies, or announce concrete measures to prevent future civilian harm, and is instead dismantling prior civilian protection infrastructure.