University of Illinois law professor Lesley M. Wexler discusses recent decisions by military review boards to retain transgender service members despite guidance requiring their discharge. Professor Wexler argues that these decisions likely constitute nullification and that, although most traditional justifications for jury nullification do not fit this setting, the rationales of checking oppressive government and respecting decision makers’ moral agency may support it.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses how Congress should respond to the 2026 midterm elections, in which voters rejected the Trump administration’s and the Supreme Court’s efforts to remake the constitutional order. Professor Hamilton argues that the new Democratic majorities should prioritize restoring constitutional checks and balances by reining in the President and his Cabinet, confronting financial and moral corruption, and reforming the Supreme Court.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses whether the size of the Democrats’ new Senate majority matters, as races in Alaska and Mississippi remain uncalled. Professor Dorf argues that every seat counts, because a larger majority guards against defections, eases the path to the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, and cushions the party against future electoral losses.

UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the federal litigation over HB1, Missouri’s 2025 congressional redistricting law, which lower federal courts tried to put into effect despite a Missouri Supreme Court ruling that a pending referendum petition had suspended it. Professor Amar argues that HB1 backers’ claim that the referendum process undemocratically violates the Elections Clause is flawed, as Missouri voters’ resounding rejection of HB1 confirms that the referendum can protect, rather than thwart, majority will.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing that many Americans support or are open to a second attempt to execute Christa Pike after Tennessee’s failed execution. Professor Sarat argues that this support reflects ignorance of the suffering failed executions inflict, and that fully informed Americans would reject a second attempt as offensive to human dignity.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the Supreme Court’s oral argument in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which asks whether Catholic preschools may receive funding from Colorado’s universal preschool program while refusing to follow its nondiscrimination rules protecting LGBTQ families. Professor Griffin argues that the schools are seeking special treatment, not equal treatment, and that the Court should uphold Colorado’s neutral and generally applicable law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the history of public executions in America in light of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s scrapped plan to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan. Professor Sarat argues that the plan, though stopped, reflects the Trump administration’s contempt for the American public, which it treats as a prop for its displays of cruelty.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses Opus Dei’s growing influence on American law and politics and two recent documentaries in which former members describe life inside the organization. Professor Griffin argues that the films expose Opus Dei as a cult that exploits its members as unpaid labor, which should raise serious concerns about its powerful allies, such as Leonard Leo and Vice President J.D. Vance.

Amherst College professor Austin Sarat discusses Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s record-setting pace of executions, using the scheduled November 5 execution of Jesse Guardado to examine DeSantis’s refusal to grant clemency, his sole control over death warrants, and Florida’s history of wrongful death sentences. Professor Sarat argues that DeSantis has turned capital punishment into cruel, arbitrary assembly-line justice that ignores remorse and rehabilitation, disregards the risk of executing the innocent, and serves his political ends.