Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, examines how the media and political frenzy over Jeffrey Epstein’s client list has overshadowed the broader epidemic of institutional child sexual abuse in America, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts to USA Gymnastics. Ms. Robb argues that instead of chasing political spectacle and conspiracy theories, lawmakers must implement concrete reforms—including ending statutes of limitations, banning NDAs in abuse cases, mandating institutional transparency, and funding prevention programs—to address what is a widespread public health emergency affecting one in four girls and one in thirteen boys.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explains why he chooses not to follow the daily outrages of the Trump administration, instead focusing on understanding the broader narrative and underlying forces that explain our current political moment, including economic shifts, demographic changes, and the decline of white hegemony. Professor Margulies points out that, for him, obsessing over individual scandals and daily news is less important than crafting a comprehensive meta-narrative that explains the complex, interconnected factors driving Trumpism and American politics, even though this task is extraordinarily difficult and remains incomplete.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards, focusing particularly on the 2024-25 Term. Professor Amar argues that the Court’s rushed handling of emergency cases produces weaker opinions and undermines judicial legitimacy, and he critically observes that the Court is selectively choosing when to definitively resolve merits in cases with incomplete factual records, as demonstrated by contrasting approaches in cases like United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Trump v. CASA.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines President Trump’s threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates amid economic uncertainty from Trump’s own policies, including tax cuts, immigration enforcement, and tariffs. Professor Dorf argues that Powell’s cautious approach is justified given the unpredictable economic impacts of Trump's policies, and explores the legal ambiguity around whether Trump can lawfully remove Powell, ultimately suggesting that market forces rather than legal constraints may be the main deterrent to such action.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron examines whether Americans should be concerned about the prospect of secession in today’s politically polarized climate, compiling perspectives from several law professors on the viability and implications of states or regions leaving the United States. While most experts agree that traditional state secession is practically impossible due to political divisions existing within rather than between states, the discussion of secession remains valuable for understanding political theory, and some forms of “soft secession” (like sanctuary cities and nullification movements) may already be occurring. Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the constitutional order in ways that could theoretically enable secession.

Illinois Law professor Matthew W. Finkin and arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd critique President Trump’s Executive Order 14251, which excludes many federal employees from union protections and collective bargaining on the grounds of national security. The authors argue that the Administration’s justification, based on flawed data from a partisan report, misrepresents arbitration’s impact on performance management and that existing laws already safeguard national security without undermining federal labor rights.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton addresses the Trump administration’s attempts to cover up the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking files and draws parallels to the Catholic Church’s long-standing concealment of clergy sexual abuse. Professor Hamilton argues that true justice for child sex abuse victims requires transparency, prosecution, and institutional accountability, and warns that failing to fully disclose the Epstein files undermines public trust and perpetuates a culture of impunity for the powerful.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court restricted the use of “universal injunctions” by federal district courts, which have been used to prevent enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional laws against all people rather than just the specific plaintiffs in a case. Professor Amar argues that initial reactions characterizing this as a major threat to civil rights were overstated, because courts retain alternative tools like class action certification and traditional injunctive relief that can still provide broad protection when necessary to fully protect plaintiffs.

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, despite a legal challenge from states arguing that the move violates federal law and the Constitution. Professor Schwinn asserts that the Court’s approval of such broad executive action—without addressing its legality—contrasts sharply with its earlier rejection of President Joe Biden’s more modest student debt relief plan, revealing a troubling inconsistency and potential partisan bias in the Court’s reasoning.

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.