Chapman University Fowler School of Law professor Ronald D. Rotunda explains his legal conclusion in the opinion letter he authored for Ken Star regarding the ability of a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president. Rotunda points out that the key difference between then and now is the presence of a special prosecutor statute protecting independent counsel from removal.

Former counsel to the president John W. Dean argues that it is high time for a woman—and most likely Hillary Clinton, in particular—to become our country’s next transformational president.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards, focusing particularly on the 2024-25 Term. Professor Amar argues that the Court’s rushed handling of emergency cases produces weaker opinions and undermines judicial legitimacy, and he critically observes that the Court is selectively choosing when to definitively resolve merits in cases with incomplete factual records, as demonstrated by contrasting approaches in cases like United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Trump v. CASA.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the evolving stance on capital punishment in the United States, specifically critiquing President Joe Biden’s decision to commute the sentences of some federal death row inmates but exclude high-profile offenders like Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and Robert Bowers. Professor Sarat argues that this exclusion missed an opportunity to catalyze a national conversation on abolishing the death penalty entirely, asserting that current societal and legal trends make it feasible to advocate for clemency even in extreme cases without jeopardizing abolitionist progress.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines the legal implications of Israel’s alleged attacks on Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, focusing on how these actions may be interpreted under the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), particularly its provisions on booby-traps and other devices. Professor Wexler explores various interpretations of the CCW’s articles, questioning whether the attacks constitute booby-traps under the convention’s definition, whether they violate prohibitions on using apparently harmless objects as weapons, and whether they comply with restrictions on using such devices in civilian-populated areas. She suggests that while the attacks raise complex legal questions, their legality depends on specific interpretations of the CCW and broader principles of international humanitarian law.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses key cases from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Term, focusing on cases where the Court made non-merits decisions and cases with high stakes beyond their precedential value. Professor Dorf argues that the Court’s procedural dismissals in significant cases like those involving social media content moderation and abortion access led to public confusion and missed opportunities to clarify important legal questions, while its rulings in high-stakes cases such as those involving former President Donald Trump had immediate and far-reaching consequences that sometimes overshadowed their legal precedents.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the divergent paths of Florida and Ohio with respect to capital punishment in those states. Professor Sarat argues that it is time for America to make up its mind on the death penalty and either follow Ohio’s path toward a future without capital punishment, bringing this country into line with the community of nations, or else follow Florida’s example by expanding death sentences and executions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the response of U.S. college and university administrators to the October 7 Hamas attacks, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in their reactions to different forms of hatred and violence. Professor Sarat also explores broader issues around the treatment of Jewish students on campus, citing statistics on declining enrollment in Ivy League schools, increased incidents of anti-Semitism, and a lack of targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives for Jewish students.

Illinois Law Dean Vikram David Amar and Professor Jason Mazzone argue that, in light of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s “switcheroo” regarding partisan gerrymandering, the U.S. Supreme Court should immediately grant certiorari in Huffman v. Neiman to resolve the question of “Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone point out that the intense litigation pressure of today’s presidential elections and the shaky stature of the present Supreme Court together strongly support the Court acting quickly to resolve this pressing issue.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Anuja Chowdhury comment on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit interpreting provisions of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA). Professor Estreicher and Ms. Chowdhury explain the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and conclusion that foreign defendants in TVPA civil actions cannot be found “present” within the meaning of the Act without a showing of either physical presence or purposeful direction of conduct towards the U.S. market.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should put the so-called Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory to rest sooner rather than later. Specifically, Dean Amar suggests that Justice Stephen Breyer—who is set to retire but who joined Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter in expressly rejecting ISL in 2000—should be among the voices to condemn the unsupportable theory.

In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court likely deciding soon to review a case presenting the question of the legitimacy of the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL), Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar explains why the theory necessarily fails unless its proponents make up the meaning of Article II of the Constitution without regard to its words or historical context. Dean Amar argues that the notion of ISL does not work for Article I or Article II, but it certainly does not work for Article II under the textual approach employed by its proponents.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and attorney Troy Kessler argue that the termination of workers for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine often contravenes federal, state, and city laws. Professor Estreicher and Mr. Kessler point out that relevant law requires employers to carefully consider requests for religious or medical accommodations.

In this fifth of a series of columns on the so-called Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory of Articles I and II of the federal Constitution, Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review in a case that cleanly presents ISL theory and soundly reject it, once and for all. Dean Amar calls upon the majority of the Court that rejects ISL theory to explain its sound reasoning for rejecting it, noting that when one side lays out its case in public writings and the other (much stronger) side does not, the public is not well served.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat observes that many death penalty states have developed coordinated strategies of reassuring the public and denying any wrongdoing when an execution goes wrong. Professor Sarat points out that state officials demonstrate an indifference to an inmate’s evident distress and use empty, bureaucratic language to cover their tracks and avoid confronting the grim reality of what they are doing.

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and 2L Samantha Zipper describe how several courts have invoked Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a basis for limiting rights against discrimination in public accommodations. Estreicher and Zipper argue that as American society moves increasingly online, § 230 must be read more narrowly, with goals of safeguarding individual civil rights in an already prolific internet sector.

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, explains why federalism—the autonomy of the states in our country—has been a significant barrier to many of the authoritarian projects Trump has advanced or considered. Falvy argues that the same autonomy should prevent Trump from manipulating the election results decisively in his own favor.

Amherst College Associate Provost Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman argue that there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to prevent governors from certifying slates of electors that actually reflect the vote of the people in their states. Sarat and Edelman explain why Bush v Gore is both inapplicable, and by its own terms, never supposed to be used as precedent.

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—describes how President Trump has laid the groundwork for a post-election coup d'ètat. Sarat points to Republicans’ intimidating voters from minority groups and others likely to vote Democratic, Trump’s shaping the federal judiciary with approximately 200 new judges, his pre-election statements, and the litigation already in progress as evidence of his plan to carry out a post-election coup by and through, not against, the law.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that under Title VII, an employer cannot fire an employee simply for being gay or transgender. Griffin considers what might happen next term when the Court takes up the question of whether religious organizations are exempt from these generally applicable laws and thus may discriminate against LGBTQ employees (and others).