UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the ongoing legal battle over congressional redistricting in New Mexico, where Republicans have filed a lawsuit claiming that new district maps favor Democrats and violate the state constitution. Professor Amar emphasizes the importance for the New Mexico state courts to clearly base their rulings on the state constitution rather than the federal Constitution, and to justify their decisions more explicitly so as to demonstrate greater legitimacy.

Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the confluence of forces that have made the victories in the fight against child sex abuse possible. Among the key factors, Hamilton argues, are the end of the old boys’ network; survivors who are empowered by the justice system; and revelations that go public far more quickly than they could have prior to the Age of the Internet, when victims and critics of abusers have a strong, far-reaching voice and the ability to recruit allies and supporters. With all these developments, together, sparking public outrage, Hamilton notes that even previously untouchable football institutions can be made accountable—noting, for instance, the crimes toward a young woman in Steubenville, Ohio, by members of that town’s team.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate efforts to end a parole program for migrants from four countries, focusing on legal standards for granting a stay and the broader constitutional and policy implications of executive immigration authority. Professor Amar argues that the federal government does indeed suffer irreparable harm when prevented from enforcing duly enacted laws and policies, and criticizes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent for undervaluing these harms and overlooking legal precedent and practical consequences.

UC Davis professor emeritus Alan Brownstein discusses America’s historical embrace of diversity, especially in the military, through the lens of Woody Guthrie’s song honoring the multiethnic sailors lost on the U.S.S. Reuben James in 1941. Professor Brownstein argues that America’s diverse heritage has long been a source of strength and unity, and warns against dismissing this legacy as merely “woke” ideology, urging continued recognition and respect for the nation’s pluralism.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses concerns about constitutional violations by the Trump administration and examines claims that the arrest of Wisconsin state judge Hannah Dugan fits into a broader pattern of undermining judicial independence. Professor Amar argues that Dugan’s arrest, unlike attacks on judges for their legal rulings, appropriately addresses unlawful interference with federal law enforcement and thus upholds, rather than threatens, constitutional principles like federal supremacy and the rule of law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines California Governor Gavin Newsom’s shifting political positions, particularly focusing on the uncertainty surrounding his stance on the death penalty as he eyes a potential 2028 presidential run. Professor Sarat argues that Newsom’s credibility and legacy—especially given his prior vocal opposition to capital punishment—hinge on whether he will act decisively to commute the state's death row sentences before leaving office, a move that could significantly influence the national debate on the death penalty.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to avert a government shutdown by supporting a controversial continuing resolution (CR), despite backlash from Democrats and anti-Trump groups who saw it as a capitulation. Professor Buchanan argues that while Schumer is not typically a progressive hero, he made the right decision to prevent lasting harm, as a shutdown would have handed excessive power to Trump and Musk. Professor Buchanan calls upon Democrats to stop infighting so that they can effectively resist the rise of authoritarianism.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines two influential articles by recently deceased Columbia Law professor Henry P. Monaghan, focusing on Monaghan’s work regarding constitutional precedent versus originalism and his critique of viewing the Constitution as “perfect.” Professor Dorf argues that while today’s conservative Supreme Court supermajority might appear to align with Monaghan’s views, they actually contradict his core principles by selectively overturning precedents and finding constitutional justification for their preferred policies, demonstrating precisely the kind of constitutional interpretation that Monaghan criticized.

Leading experts at an NYU webinar discussed three major constitutional challenges to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in light of recent Supreme Court decisions: restrictions on presidential removal of Board members, the status of administrative law judges, and potential jury trial requirements. While panelists predicted the Supreme Court may be reluctant to completely invalidate the NLRB's structure, they acknowledged growing judicial skepticism toward administrative agency independence, with potential implications for labor relations and administrative governance more broadly.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Stanford Law professor emeritus Lawrence M. Friedman trace the historical and legal evolution of adultery laws in the United States, from colonial-era capital punishment through state-by-state criminalization to the recent 2024 repeal of New York’s adultery law. Professors Grossman and Friedman argue that while adultery has gradually been decriminalized across most states and is rarely prosecuted even where it remains illegal, it continues to have social significance and limited legal relevance in specific contexts like military justice, bigamy laws, and civil matters such as divorce proceedings.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies analyzes a statement by Senator Ron Wyden criticizing Trump’s Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent, using it as a case study to examine modern political discourse. Professor Margulies argues that instead of engaging in substantive policy discussions about important economic issues like tariffs and deportation, political figures and media often resort to simplistic character attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, contributing to a culture of unthinking political animosity.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyzes the rhetorical strategies JD Vance used during a New York Times interview, especially Vance’s refusal to acknowledge Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss. Professor Sarat argues that Vance’s skillful use of language techniques such as bridging, whataboutism, and question deflection demonstrates a polished version of Trumpism that poses a long-term threat to American democracy by undermining faith in elections and truth itself.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the poor state of political discourse in the United States. Professor Buchanan argues that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance frequently make incoherent or illogical statements that are not held to proper scrutiny, while Kamala Harris is unfairly criticized for making actual arguments and evolving her views based on new information or political realities.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the adoption of “expressive activity policies” by colleges and universities in response to recent campus protests, examining the legal and practical implications of such policies. Professor Dorf argues that it is a mistake for educational institutions to frame their regulations as targeting expressive activities specifically, suggesting instead that they should focus on content-neutral conduct regulations that apply equally to expressive and non-expressive activities.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s newly published book Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law and his recent public statements criticizing excessive regulation. Professor Sarat argues that despite Gorsuch’s attempts to present himself as a champion of ordinary Americans, his judicial record and conservative stance on federal regulations suggest that his book’s message should be viewed skeptically, as reduced regulation often benefits powerful interests at the expense of workers, the disabled, and environmental protection.

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 discusses the increasingly partisan and unethical behavior of the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, providing examples of actions by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas that he argues undermine public trust in the institution. Professor Sarat contends that progressives in Congress need to take more aggressive action, beyond speeches and task forces, to hold the Court accountable and rein in rogue behavior, suggesting they use their oversight powers to subpoena justices and potentially reduce the Court’s budget.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies comments on a pro-Palestinian encampment set up by student activists at Cornell University, which the author views as a peaceful protest in line with the university’s stated values. Professor Margulies shares an opinion piece he wrote in the student newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun, in which he criticized the university administration’s cold response to the encampment, arguing that the students’ demands for divestment, acknowledgement, disclosure, and absolution are just, and that Cornell is failing to live up to its reformist ideals by deriding the protesters and remaining silent on the issues they raise.

In this first of a two-part series of columns discussing a recent incident at a North Carolina high school where a student was suspended for using the term “illegal alien” in class, UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone explain the relevant First Amendment case law surrounding student speech in public K-12 schools. Professors Amar and Mazzone suggest that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which allows schools broad authority to regulate student speech that occurs within the curriculum, the school may have been justified in disciplining the student, but they note that there are still some unresolved questions and complexities that they will address in Part II of their analysis.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Joe Biden’s commentary on “shrinkflation” during his State of the Union address, particularly Biden’s call to pass legislation to combat this deceptive practice where companies reduce the product size while maintaining the price. Professor Dorf explains why he agrees with the need to address shrinkflation but critiques Biden’s focus on junk food examples, arguing that consuming fewer unhealthy products might not harm consumers. Additionally, Professor Dorf highlights a broader issue of consumerist populism and the inconsistency in addressing economic policies and environmental challenges.