Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Trump’s promise to send every adult U.S. citizen $5,000 if Republicans retain Congress in the midterms, examining both the legality of such a scheme and whether it deserves the “socialist” label some have attached to it. Professor Dorf argues that while the payments would likely be legal if authorized by Congress, they are almost certainly unfunded “vaporware” that—far from being progressive or socialist—would be financed through borrowing that fuels inflation, ultimately harming the poor the most rather than redistributing wealth from rich to poor as genuinely socialist proposals would.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a Supreme Court case about whether Colorado can deny state funding to Catholic schools that want to exclude LGBTQ students and families while still receiving public money. Professor Griffin argues that religious freedom does not entitle schools to violate neutral antidiscrimination laws, and that the Court should reject any rule that would let religious institutions get paid to discriminate.
Criminal defense attorney Jon May discusses the risk that Donald Trump and MAGA supporters could disrupt the midterm elections through coordinated unrest at polling places, potentially enabling Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and use federal troops to control voting. Mr. May argues that January 6 showed how a mob can paralyze democracy, and that the best defense is for states and legal officials to deter disruption through prosecution, voting-access measures, and advance warnings to military officers that obeying unlawful election-deployment orders could itself be a crime.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Georgia’s planned execution of Stacey Humphreys and the related lawsuit by Appen Media Group challenging the state’s secrecy rules for lethal-injection procedures, while placing that dispute in the broader national fight over execution secrecy. Professor Sarat argues that Georgia’s restrictions are constitutionally and normatively unjustified because they give the state too much unchecked control over what the press can observe, and that the court should grant access to ensure transparency and accountability.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling that blocks HB1, the state’s new congressional map, from taking effect until voters decide a referendum on it, and he explains why that ruling will probably withstand the state’s expected appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Amar argues that Missouri’s federal constitutional objections are weak because the Missouri Constitution plainly permits the referendum, Supreme Court precedent has long allowed such referenda in congressional redistricting, and the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to disrupt the state court’s decision so close to the election.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent resurgence of capital punishment in the United States, examining rising execution numbers, shifting public opinion, and the pro-death-penalty influence of the Trump administration. Professor Sarat argues that abolitionists must urgently adapt their messaging and political strategies to counter these developments and prevent further erosion of the movement's progress.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss three recent California legislative measures aimed at federal law enforcement: a “converse-1983” civil rights statute titled the “No Kings” Act, the “Get the Feds Out” Act, and a ban on electric shock gloves. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while the “No Kings” Act establishes a constitutionally sound remedy for federal constitutional violations, the other two measures constitute performative legislation that unconstitutionally attempts to regulate federal operations in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s refusal to appeal a federal court decision striking down National Firearms Act regulations, framing the move as part of a broader pattern of selective non-enforcement. Professor Sarat argues that routinely abandoning and refusing to defend disfavored laws violates the executive’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law and fundamentally threatens the separation of powers.
University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the recent measles and whooping cough deaths tied to declining vaccination rates and examines the role of federal officials, state lawmakers, and courts in enabling or preventing those outbreaks. Professor Hamilton argues that religious and philosophical exemptions to childhood vaccine mandates should be rolled back, that courts should reject claims equating them with medical exemptions, and that states should prioritize children’s public health over anti-vaccine and religious-liberty lobbying.
