UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Supreme Court case FCC v. Consumers’ Research et al., which challenges the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of authority under the nondelegation doctrine. Professor Amar argues that while the nondelegation doctrine has been historically dormant, the case highlights important constitutional considerations about the delegation of legislative authority, specifically the ability to reclaim delegated power, and he urges the Court to address these broader issues if it examines the nondelegation questions in this case.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the disconnect between Donald Trump’s campaign promises, particularly regarding consumer prices, and the subsequent actions and attitudes of his administration and supporters following his second election win. Professor Buchanan argues that Trump’s voters are not misled by economic grievances but are rather motivated by deeper ideological convictions, particularly concerning race and identity, leading them to support policies and rhetoric aligned with their beliefs despite the apparent abandonment of campaign promises.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses a recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision where the majority struck down legislation purporting to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases, focusing on distinctions between vested rights and remedies. Professor Griffin argues that the dissenting justices correctly pointed out that the legislature’s extension aimed to address the unique nature of sexual abuse disclosure, challenging the notion of vested rights and emphasizing that there is no inherent right to avoid legal consequences for past wrongs.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the impact of Donald Trump’s executive orders during the first week of his second presidency, focusing on his reinstatement and expansion of the global gag rule that affects international sexual and reproductive health. Professor Grossman argues that these actions are reckless and harmful, causing severe setbacks in global reproductive health services, increasing unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and exacerbating challenges in countries heavily reliant on U.S. aid for family planning and HIV treatment.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the disregard for legal and constitutional norms demonstrated by Donald Trump and supported by figures like Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as the co-opting of religious and patriotic ideals by the political right for partisan gain. Professor Buchanan argues that the defense of Trump’s actions undermines democratic principles and shared cultural values, and he highlights the disturbing alignment of some religious leaders with Trump’s divisive rhetoric despite their religion’s traditional teachings of compassion and unity.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines Idaho’s proposed legislative “Memorial” rejecting the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage, using it as a lens to explore broader questions about states’ rights to challenge federal authority and Supreme Court decisions. Professor Amar argues that while states have the constitutional right to declare their disagreement with federal actions, attempts to enforce laws contradicting Supreme Court precedent are permissible when the argument for overturning is not frivolous (as with Obergefell), but would be impermissible when such arguments are completely frivolous (as with trying to overturn Brown v. Board of Education).

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Donald Trump’s disregard for legal and constitutional constraints during his first week in office, marked by actions such as attempting to alter birthright citizenship and dismissing inspectors general unlawfully. Professor Sarat argues that these lawless actions are a deliberate strategy to test the checks and balances of the U.S. constitutional system, warning that a lack of pushback from other branches of government could pave the way for authoritarianism.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher critiques the International Court of Justice’s decisions regarding provisional measures against Israel in the South Africa v. Israel case, focusing on the inadequacies and implications of labeling Israel’s actions as carrying a “risk of genocide” during the conflict in Gaza. Professor Estreicher argues that the ICJ’s low threshold for plausibility in its provisional measures jurisprudence and its failure to consider Israel’s humanitarian efforts have resulted in misleading accusations of genocide, exacerbating tensions and necessitating a more precise and coherent legal standard.

Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen discusses the media’s response to Donald Trump’s executive orders at the start of his administration and their connection to Project 2025, a comprehensive plan to restructure the federal government. Ms. Rikleen argues that the media has failed on two fronts: by not adequately covering Project 2025’s blueprint for dismantling government institutions, and by reflexively framing valid democratic concerns as partisan fights, which “gives the advantage to those seeking to undermine democracy and weakens the function of journalism as a bulwark for a free society.”

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Biden’s recent recognition of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and examines its potential legal implications across various contexts, including abortion rights, transgender rights, and broader sex discrimination cases. While Professor Dorf argues that the ERA’s inclusion in the Constitution may not significantly affect abortion rights due to existing Supreme Court precedent, he contends it could meaningfully influence transgender rights cases, serve as a safeguard against future rollbacks of sex discrimination protections, and hold important symbolic value in repudiating historical patriarchal assumptions in the Constitution.

Touro Law professor Rodger D. Citron examines five different aspects of presidential pardon power in the context of recent actions by Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump, including traditional uses (family pardons, crony pardons, and criminal justice policy) as well as two novel developments: Trump’s campaign-related pardons for January 6 defendants and Biden’s preemptive pardons to protect individuals from potential political retribution. Professor Citron argues that Trump’s use of pardons as campaign promises and Biden’s responsive use of preemptive pardons represent significant departures from historical norms, highlighting how the pardon power has become increasingly weaponized in contemporary politics.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses recent court decisions in South Carolina and Massachusetts regarding whether churches can claim charitable immunity to avoid liability in sexual abuse cases. Professor Griffin argues that charitable immunity should never protect churches from sexual abuse liability—whether for intentional torts or negligence—because sexual abuse is inherently not charitable, and allowing such immunity unjustly harms abuse survivors.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Joe Biden’s issuance of preemptive pardons to various public figures including January 6 Committee members, General Mark Milley, and Dr. Anthony Fauci in anticipation of potential persecution under Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Professor Sarat argues that while these pardons are unprecedented in being used as protection against a successor president, they are legally sound and represent a justified response to genuine threats of political persecution rather than, as some critics suggest, an undermining of democratic norms.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman has put together an “Advent Calendar” project sharing daily facts about Texas’s policies and statistics related to maternal and child welfare. Through 25 data points covering topics like maternal mortality, teen pregnancy, healthcare access, and abortion restrictions, Professor Grossman argues that Texas’s claims of being “pro-life” are contradicted by its poor performance on maternal and child health metrics and its restrictive policies that harm women and children.

Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen and Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyze Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2024 Year-End Report and examine his pattern of using historical references in his annual reports from 2021 to 2024. Ms. Rikleen and Professor Sarat argue that Roberts uses selective historical examples and appeals to judicial independence as rhetorical devices to deflect attention from ethical concerns within the Supreme Court, particularly regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’s alleged ethical lapses and Roberts’s own refusal to enforce stronger ethical standards for the Court.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines two influential articles by recently deceased Columbia Law professor Henry P. Monaghan, focusing on Monaghan’s work regarding constitutional precedent versus originalism and his critique of viewing the Constitution as “perfect.” Professor Dorf argues that while today’s conservative Supreme Court supermajority might appear to align with Monaghan’s views, they actually contradict his core principles by selectively overturning precedents and finding constitutional justification for their preferred policies, demonstrating precisely the kind of constitutional interpretation that Monaghan criticized.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines recent death penalty statistics and trends in the United States, drawing from the Death Penalty Information Center’s 2024 Annual Report and Death Penalty Census, as well as academic research spanning several decades. Professor Sarat argues that capital punishment should be abolished nationwide, citing the dramatic decline in death sentences since the 1990s, the extremely low rate of sentences actually resulting in executions (15.7%), and the high rate of reversals due to serious errors, all of which suggest the system is ineffective and not worth maintaining.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses various contenders for the “worst legal decision of 2024,” including Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity and controversial death penalty cases, before ultimately focusing on Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. Professor Sarat argues that the Gaetz nomination was the year’s worst legal decision because it demonstrated Trump’s contempt for the rule of law and signaled his intention to transform the Justice Department into a personal defense operation based on loyalty rather than legal principles, even after Gaetz’s withdrawal and replacement by Pam Bondi.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin chronicles the six-decade history of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic priest Lawrence Hecker in New Orleans, including his recent guilty plea and death in December 2024. Professor Griffin argues that Hecker’s ability to continue abusing children for so long was enabled by a systematic pattern of protection and cover-ups by church officials and sympathetic judges, who consistently prioritized Hecker’s interests over those of his victims until overwhelming evidence finally forced a conviction just weeks before his death.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the systemic culture of brutality, secrecy, and dehumanization within the Marcy Correctional Facility, as exposed by the murder of Robert Brooks by correctional officers and the indifference of bystanders. Professor Margulies argues that such a culture is sustained by unwritten norms—normalization of violence, secrecy, silence, impunity, and dehumanization—which reflect deep failures of leadership, training, and accountability, calling for systemic reform to prevent future atrocities.