Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the implementation of the Trump administration’s transgender military service ban, focusing on recent litigation, the Department of Defense’s discharge procedures, and the implications for equal protection claims. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the Pentagon’s unique and restrictive discharge process for transgender service members—particularly its denial of consideration of prior service and its uniform policies—reflects prejudice and animus, potentially strengthening constitutional challenges while also signaling a broader return to commander-centric military justice.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explores the legality and implications of prosecutors repeatedly presenting the same charges to multiple grand juries, in the context of the weak and potentially politically motivated prosecution of James Comey. Professor Dorf argues that the current legal framework undermines the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause by allowing endless prosecutorial attempts to secure an indictment, and urges the Supreme Court to limit such practices unless new evidence is discovered, in order to preserve the grand jury’s function as a safeguard against governmental abuse.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar critiques a federal district court ruling upholding New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA), which limits civil arrests by ICE near court proceedings, framing it as a significant constitutional conflict between state law and federal immigration enforcement. Professor Amar argues that Judge D’Agostino’s ruling misunderstands basic constitutional principles—especially the Supremacy Clause—and wrongly treats regulation of federal agents as a permissible exercise of state sovereignty, making the decision likely to be overturned on appeal.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the memoir Nobody’s Girl by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, which chronicles her life of repeated sexual abuse—beginning in childhood and continuing through her exploitation by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their powerful associates—and highlights the systemic failures that allowed her abuse to go unchecked. Professor Griffin emphasizes that Giuffre’s story demands accountability from enablers and abusers alike, calling for greater empathy for survivors, the abolition of statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, and long-overdue legal justice in cases of systemic exploitation and cover-up.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Illinois Bivens Act, a new state law aiming to provide state-law remedies for constitutional violations by federal officials, particularly in civil immigration enforcement, and situates it as an innovative experiment within the broader tradition of federalism and converse-1983 legal theory. While Professors Amar and Mazzone commend the law as a promising and necessary response to the erosion of federal remedies like Bivens actions, they argue that the Act is flawed in its scope—both too narrow (retaining qualified immunity and limited to immigration) and too broad (imposing liability under the Illinois Constitution and authorizing punitive damages)—and ultimately hope it sparks more refined versions in other states.
Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb urges King Charles III to use his moral authority to call out political leaders—particularly in the United States—for their failure to prioritize justice and transparency over power and self-preservation. Ms. Robb commends King Charles for previously demonstrating principled leadership and implores him to publicly advocate for the release of sealed files related to sexual abuse, arguing that moral courage from influential figures is vital for protecting children and confronting systemic cover-ups.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the contrasting legal outcomes of Sean Dunn, who was acquitted for throwing a turkey sandwich at a federal agent in protest of government actions, and Zoe Rosenberg, who was convicted for rescuing chickens from a slaughterhouse as an act of animal rights activism. Professor Dorf argues that Dunn’s acquittal reflects juror sympathies with political protest against authority, while Rosenberg’s conviction exposes society’s deep normalization of animal agriculture and the judicial system’s resistance to acknowledging nonviolent civil disobedience that challenges that norm.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores how the pervasive presence of war, violence, and graphic content—especially through social media—has shaped the mental health and worldview of the current generation of college students. Professor Sarat argues that educators must acknowledge these traumatic influences and develop strategies to help young people navigate a world filled with conflict, despair, and cynicism in order to cultivate resilience, critical thinking, and hope.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Orr, which granted the federal government a stay to allow the use of birth-assigned sex on passports during ongoing litigation, and critiques the broader procedural and substantive patterns the Court exhibits in such interim-relief (“shadow docket”) cases. Professor Amar argues that while the Court majority should provide fuller explanations even in emergency rulings, the liberal dissenters are strategically and analytically misguided in avoiding arguments about the constitutional merits, which are increasingly central to determining outcomes in these cases.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat uses a controversial Little League legal case to explore the broader topic of justice, its role in democratic societies, and its limitations when pursued without balance. Professor Sarat argues that while seeking justice is vital, it must be guided by prudence and proportionality, cautioning against an overzealous, justice-obsessed culture that reacts to every wrong with litigation.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron explores the current legal and political challenges surrounding partisan gerrymandering and the future of the Voting Rights Act in a podcast interview with Harvard Law Professor Ruth Greenwood. Professor Greenwood argues that while the courts have increasingly stepped back from addressing gerrymandering—most notably in Rucho v. Common Cause—lasting reform must come from a combination of legal advocacy and grassroots political action, such as the establishment of independent redistricting commissions.
University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines whether President Donald Trump could face legal consequences—either domestically or internationally—for ordering the U.S. military to kill at least 64 suspected drug traffickers on the high seas without trial, purportedly as part of a broader anti-cartel strategy. Professor Alschuler argues that these killings constitute unlawful acts that violate U.S. and international law, likening them to extrajudicial executions, and concludes that while prosecution is theoretically possible, political and legal obstacles, including questionable legal justifications and potential presidential immunity, make accountability unlikely.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the use of nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution, particularly in Alabama, where it has resulted in prolonged, painful deaths that contradict claims of a humane alternative to previous execution methods. Professor Sarat argues that nitrogen hypoxia, like earlier methods, has failed to provide a foolproof or ethical solution and calls for the abolition of capital punishment altogether, emphasizing the psychological and physical torture it inflicts and questioning what such practices say about the values of American society.
