Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the moral implications of the wrongful conviction movement and contrasts it with his own focus on humanizing those who have been rightfully convicted of serious crimes. Professor Margulies argues that society’s preoccupation with innocence inadvertently reinforces the dehumanization of the guilty, asserting that we must recognize the shared humanity of all incarcerated individuals rather than dismissing them as monsters.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Indep. School District, which disregarded Supreme Court precedent regarding the Establishment Clause. Professor Dorf argues that the Fifth Circuit improperly bypassed the Supreme Court’s exclusive authority to overrule its own precedents by unilaterally declaring Stone v. Graham dead.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” in light of recent criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the release of historical internal memos regarding the 2016 EPA Clean Power Plan. Professor Amar argues that while some common criticisms of the Court’s emergency-relief practices are inconsistent or misguided, the Court should enhance its legitimacy by adopting more robust procedures, such as requiring expedited briefing and providing transparent, reasoned explanations for its decisions.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the societal tendency toward punitive rigidity in the face of criminal conduct, contrasting our current “unforgiving society” with the need for a more compassionate approach. Professor Margulies argues that by shifting our focus from merely asking what a person did to understanding the complex life circumstances that led to their actions, we can move toward a more humanizing justice system that recognizes the potential for atonement and shared humanity.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the federal lawsuit brought by former Illinois judge James Brown against the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court following his removal from a temporary recall appointment. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while judicial immunity likely bars the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages, the case presents complex, unresolved questions regarding the application of First Amendment speech protections to judicial appointments and the extent to which states may manage their own judiciaries.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the California legislature’s attempt to salvage its law restricting federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks by introducing SB 1004 to achieve legal parity between state and federal agents. Professor Amar argues that this effort is performative and legally futile because the statute constitutes an unconstitutional direct regulation of federal operations under the Supremacy Clause, regardless of whether it is applied evenhandedly.
University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines Donald Trump’s public projection of himself as a messianic figure, contextualizing this behavior within his interactions with other global leaders and religious authorities. Professor Hamilton argues that the American religious right is responsible for fostering Trump’s dangerous messiah complex and urges them to reckon with the authoritarian monster they have helped create.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which applied strict scrutiny to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban as applied to a licensed talk therapist, including the strategic reasoning that led Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to join the conservative majority. Professor Dorf argues that neither the limiting principles the Court articulated nor Justice Kagan's concurrence provide coherent guidance, leaving professional regulation—especially of lawyers—dangerously exposed to First Amendment challenges.
Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan recounts his three-year experience emigrating through the Netherlands, Canada, and Ireland before returning to the United States. Professor Buchanan suggests that while the impulse to leave the US is understandable, expatriation is far more logistically grueling, expensive, and isolating than most people anticipate—and explains that these practical realities, rather than any resolution of the political concerns that drove him abroad, were central to his decision to return.
Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb discusses the sanctioning of attorney Richard Trahant for allegedly violating a protective order in the Archdiocese of New Orleans bankruptcy case, examining the tension between litigation confidentiality rules and child safety in institutional sexual abuse cases. Ms. Robb argues that broadly interpreted protective orders in such cases can function as instruments of institutional secrecy that endanger children, and she calls for narrowly tailored exceptions that prioritize child safety and align with mandatory reporting policies.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Israel’s newly passed death penalty law for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis, situating it within broader historical, ethical, and international legal contexts. Professor Sarat argues that the law is a serious mistake—unnecessary, discriminatory, inconsistent with Israel’s own founding principles, and contrary to the country's potential to serve as a democratic and moral example in the region.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the legal challenges facing President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order directing federal agencies and states to cross-check voter lists against a federal citizenship registry to prevent non-citizen mail-in voting. Professor Amar argues the order rests on shaky constitutional footing because the Constitution assigns voter qualification authority to states rather than the President, the executive order’s primary statutory basis (18 U.S.C. § 611) has never been closely scrutinized and may not survive it, and several provisions exceed federal power even under the most favorable reading of existing law.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Trump administration’s legal battle against several prominent law firms targeted by executive orders, following the administration’s erratic appellate strategy through the D.C. Circuit. Professor Sarat argues that the executive orders constitute clear First Amendment retaliation, that the administration’s legal claims are meritless, and that its portrayal of the president as a free-speech victim is both legally untenable and absurd.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent surge of anti-Semitic violence in the United States, using the March 2026 attack on a Michigan synagogue as a launching point for a broader historical and political argument. Professor Sarat contends that attacks on Jews threaten America’s democratic foundations—not just its Jewish community—and that the Trump administration has failed to respond meaningfully while cynically weaponizing anti-Semitism concerns for political ends.
