Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut comments on the 10-page letter from lawyers of former President Donald Trump to Rep. Mike Turner, chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Aftergut points out that Special Counsel Jack Smith has significant evidence that contradicts many of the claims in the letter, and the weakness of the letter suggests Trump has no viable defense against the likely obstruction charge.

Continuing his discussion of the incident at Stanford Law School, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explains the essential difference between disagreeable speech and intimidation and threats of physical violence. Professor Buchanan reminds us that the consequences of being disfavored and vulnerable are not a matter being socially unpopular, but matters of life and death.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies describes a choice that Jack Teixeira—the 21-year-old former member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard accused of leaking classified documents on Discord servers—now faces: paint himself as a heroic truth-teller martyred by a war-mongering liberal political establishment, or as a chastened young man who made a terrible mistake but who loves his country and would never intentionally do her any harm. Professor Margulies points out this choice leads to the further question whether can society forgive Teixeira, or any wrongdoer, if they insist they have done no moral wrong.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes how Washington’s Democratic Governor Jay Inslee’s approach to the death penalty demonstrates the value of “strategic gradualism.” Professor Sarat points out that the careful use of a scalpel, particularly in the movement to abolish the death penalty, can be more effective than the use of a sledgehammer.

Barry Winograd comments on the recent New York grand jury indictment of Donald Trump, specifically noting key points that most political and legal commentary seems to overlook. Mr. Winograd points out seven things that the public should keep in mind as the case progresses.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent Supreme Court oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, which raises the question of what may constitute a “true threat,” which is outside the scope of First Amendment protection. Professor Dorf argues that, notwithstanding the present case about stalking, the Court’s rulings gutting the Voting Rights Act, greenlighting extreme political gerrymandering, and expanding the scope of the Second Amendment are the true threat to democracy.

In this second of a series of columns in response to a recent controversy at Stanford Law School, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan considers how universities should respond to organized efforts to stir up politically useful controversy on campus. Professor Buchanan argues that it is a recipe for disaster to fail to see through the schemes of individuals or organizations who are acting in bad faith and that other universities should not play along.

Criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Jon May discusses the rules regarding televising high-profile trials and calls for the trials of former President Donald Trump to be televised in the interest of transparency. Mr. May argues that courts have adequate procedural controls to ensure jurors and the judicial process are sufficiently protected and that televising the trials will allow anyone, anywhere in the country or the world, to see the truth for themselves.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the Republican Party has embraced a kind of messianic politics, which divides the world into two categories: those who are “faithful” and those who are “heretics.” Professor Sarat explains why this dualistic division is dangerous and antithetical to democracy.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies comments on the recent expulsion of two Democratic representatives from the Tennessee legislature after the representatives (along with one other) participated in a peaceful but disruptive protest on the House floor. Professor Margulies points out that Tennessee has a history of silencing Democratic voices through state-law preemption of local laws on matters including minimum wage, antidiscrimination law, restrictions on plastic containers, access to broadband internet, gun control, and more.

In this second of a series of columns in response to the Stanford Law School controversy involving disruption of a federal judge’s speech, Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone offer additional thoughts about how to design a training session about the freedom of speech and norms of the legal profession should include. Specifically, Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone discuss (1) when and how educational institutions should themselves speak, (2) the best ways to register disagreement with offensive speakers and messages, and (3) what schools should do about students who say they feel genuinely harmed or unsafe when certain kinds of speakers are present.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan and Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explain why the so-called platinum coin option to address the looming debt ceiling crisis is not only a bad idea but also illegal. Professors Buchanan and Dorf argue that the least unconstitutional option, if Republicans insist on crashing the economy via the debt ceiling, is for the Treasury Department to do what it always does: go into the financial markets and raise funds from willing lenders.

UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan assumes the role of president of a fictional university writing in response to the recent “shouting down” incident at Stanford Law School. Specifically, Professor Buchanan takes on the claim some have advanced that the law student protesters were acting like children, and he argues that in fact, the (adult) federal judge behaved in the most juvenile manner.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 Presidential Election, there is a genuine possibility that he would serve some or all of a presidential term while in prison. Professor Dorf points out that while the best reading of the Constitution would render Trump ineligible to serve as President while in prison, the only actors authorized to declare him ineligible would be extremely unlikely to do so.

Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman, SMU Law professor Nathan Cortez, and SMU Law professor Seema Mohapatra critique the ruling last week by federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issuing a preliminary injunction to “delay” the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortion. Professors Grossman, Cortez, and Mohapatra explore some of the deepest flaws in Judge Kacsmaryk’s opinion and the ways he manipulated law, science, and language to hew closely to the anti-abortion playbook.

In response to the Stanford Law School controversy involving disruption of a federal judge’s speech, Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone offer thoughts about how to design a training session about the freedom of speech and norms of the legal profession should include. In this first of a series of columns, Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone focus on two key topics: (1) What, precisely is “shouting down” of a speaker, and why can such activity be prohibited and punished? And (2) What About the Venerable Tradition of “Civil Disobedience”?

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the Republican Party has been consumed by the desire for revenge and retribution rather than love of country. Professor Sarat points out that a path toward a viable, democracy-loving second party will be bumpy, but has already been paved by the will of the voters in the last three national elections, which resulted in rejection of Trump and his MAGA followers.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on the Attorney General’s Report on Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Professor Griffin explains why statute of limitations reform is so important for victims to obtain justice.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat observes that even in the Deep South, support for the death penalty is waning, with the latest development last week by Louisiana Governor John Bell Edwards announcing his support for ending the death penalty in his state. Professor Sarat calls upon other politicians in the South to sponsor and support bills to end capital punishment in their states.