University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton responds to Francis X. Maier’s proposal to remove child sex abuse victims from the legal system and place them in “autonomous reparations programs,” examining the implications for institutions like the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, and state entities facing billion-dollar settlements. Professor Hamilton argues that Maier’s approach would prioritize cost reduction and institutional secrecy over justice and truth, contending that civil litigation is essential for uncovering institutional cover-ups, validating victims’ experiences, and preventing future abuse through transparency and accountability.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the Social Security Administration’s politically-charged email praising Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and its supposed tax relief for seniors—a departure from the agency’s traditional independence. Professor Sarat argues that the SSA’s misleading email represents a betrayal of public trust and the agency’s mission, serving Trump’s personal branding agenda while failing to address Social Security’s actual funding crisis or accurately describe the legislation’s limited benefits.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Jennifer Robbennolt examine how President Donald Trump reverses the traditional role of public apologies by refusing to apologize for state wrongdoing while demanding apologies from lawful actors like media outlets, universities, and government officials. Professors Wexler and Robbennolt argue that this pattern reflects authoritarian logic that undermines truth, accountability, and democratic values, and they urge non-wrongdoing actors to resist these coerced apology demands to preserve the rule of law and democratic institutions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the massive funding increase for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities in the recently passed spending bill, which will triple detention funding and enable rapid expansion of immigrant detention centers across the country. Professor Sarat argues that given ICE’s documented history of abuse, inadequate medical care, and inhumane conditions in existing facilities, this dramatic expansion will likely lead to increased human suffering and cruelty for detainees, many of whom have never been charged with any crime.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Vice President JD Vance’s brief June 20 visit to Los Angeles, which lasted just 4.5 hours and included minimal time at federal operations centers but ample time for media appearances and political events. Professor Sarat argues that Vance has abandoned the traditional role of political leadership in promoting the public good and unity, instead embracing divisive rhetoric, racist provocations, and inflammatory attacks on political opponents that exemplify the Trump administration’s politics of provocation rather than serious governance.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron discusses the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court limited federal district courts’ authority to issue universal injunctions that block enforcement of executive orders nationwide. Professor Citron describes the various opinions written by the justices and argues that the Court’s formalist approach, which restricts courts’ ability to check illegal executive actions while creating a two-track system where only active litigants receive constitutional protections, represents a dangerous refusal to consider the real-world consequences during a period of unprecedented assertions of executive power.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the most recent Supreme Court term, arguing that while it lacked the blockbuster decisions of previous years, it revealed the Roberts Court’s deeply conservative nature and troubling approach to the Trump administration. Professor Dorf argues that the conservative supermajority either fails to recognize or actively shares Trump’s authoritarian goals, treating him like a normal president and facilitating his attacks on the rule of law rather than confronting the unprecedented threat he poses to constitutional democracy.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Vance Boelter, who allegedly murdered Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and attempted to murder Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in politically motivated attacks targeting elected Democrats. Professor Sarat argues that despite the horrific nature of these crimes, federal prosecutors should not seek the death penalty in Minnesota, which abolished capital punishment over a century ago and whose citizens would likely reject it.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the importance of applying constitutional principles consistently across different political contexts, using examples from free speech, federalism, and equal protection cases. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that constitutional interpretation should follow a “Golden Rule” principle—applying the same legal standards regardless of whether the outcome favors one’s own political preferences—though they acknowledge this is difficult because it requires people to subordinate their substantive desires for the sake of even-handed constitutional application.

Samuel Estreicher, G. Roger King, and David S. Sherwyn examine the likely Supreme Court reversal of Humphrey’s Executor, which protects independent agencies from presidential removal, and they propose restructuring the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a purely adjudicatory “Labor Court” to survive this constitutional challenge. The authors suggest converting the NLRB into a six-member tribunal (two Democrats, two Republicans, and two Independents) with only judicial functions, while transferring all executive and enforcement powers to the General Counsel who would remain removable at-will by the President, thereby preserving the agency's core functions while satisfying constitutional concerns about presidential control.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti upholding Tennessee’s SB1 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Professor Dorf analyzes the Court’s rejection of arguments that the law discriminates based on sex or transgender status and argues that while the Court’s opinion avoided overtly offensive rhetoric, it problematically sanitized anti-transgender legislation by treating it as legitimate medical regulation rather than acknowledging the discriminatory animus behind laws that explicitly aim to make minors “appreciate their sex” assigned at birth.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher examines how recent Supreme Court decisions expanding presidential removal power threaten the constitutional structure of the National Labor Relations Board, tracing the evolution from Humphrey’s Executor (which upheld independent agencies) through Morrison v. Olson, Free Enterprise Fund, and Seila Law. Professor Estreicher argues that while the NLRB’s current structure faces serious constitutional challenges under the Court’s “unitary executive” jurisprudence, the agency might survive either through judicial recognition that it does not exercise “substantial executive power” or through congressional restructuring to separate its adjudicatory functions from its enforcement powers.

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.