Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the upcoming U.S. elections, focusing on New York State’s Proposal 1 (a state Equal Rights Amendment) and its potential effect on abortion rights. Professor Dorf argues that while Proposal 1 is a positive step towards protecting abortion rights in New York, it cannot guarantee these rights in the face of potential federal anti-abortion policies, emphasizing the critical importance of both state and federal elections in safeguarding civil liberties.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States regarding presidential immunity, drawing parallels to the Court’s interpretation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that in both cases, the Court has ignored the original public meaning of the Constitution, compromising the rule of law by allowing government officials to escape accountability for unlawful acts, while noting that the vagueness in the Trump decision may leave room for future refinement of the immunity framework.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Joe Biden’s recent proposals for Supreme Court reform, including a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision on presidential immunity, term limits for Justices, and a binding ethics code. Professor Sarat notes that while these proposals mark a significant shift in Biden’s stance on Court reform, they stop short of embracing Court packing, which Professor Sarat suggests may be the most far-reaching response to the perceived crisis in the Supreme Court and the threat its conservative majority poses to democracy and the rule of law.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan critiques J.D. Vance’s performance as a vice-presidential candidate and his controversial statements about parenthood, family, and voting rights. Professor Buchanan argues that Vance’s views on parenthood and societal investment are deeply flawed, emphasizing that all individuals, regardless of parental status, have a stake in society’s future and that Vance's narrow understanding of human interdependence renders him unfit for leadership.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the role of racial bias in California’s death penalty system, drawing on various studies and statements from political figures like Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom. Professor Sarat argues that despite California’s progressive reputation and efforts to address racial injustice, the state’s capital punishment system remains plagued by racial disparities, supporting the call for its abolition.

Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman and Boston University law professor Linda C. McClain discuss the sexist and misogynistic rhetoric employed by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance in their political campaigns, particularly focusing on their attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris. Professors Grossman and McClain argue that these attacks, which include criticizing Harris for being “childless” and labeling her a “DEI hire,” are part of a broader Republican strategy to reinforce patriarchal values and undermine women’s progress in politics and society.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies reflects on the bodycam footage of the fatal shooting of Sonya Massey by Sangamon County Sheriff’s Officer Sean Grayson, detailing the events that led to the tragic incident. Professor Margulies observes that Officer Grayson’s actions were unnecessary and excessive, arguing that the officer had multiple opportunities to peacefully resolve the situation but instead escalated it to a tragic conclusion.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the improper-documents-handling indictment against former President Donald Trump, focusing on Judge Cannon’s interpretation of the Appointments Clause and its implications for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. In this second in a series of columns, Professor Amar argues that Judge Cannon’s ruling is flawed because it fails to consider the broader constitutional context and ignores that the current arrangement with Smith does not meaningfully differ from alternative setups that would be unquestionably constitutional, thus suggesting a need for a more flexible interpretation of the relevant statutes.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the potential presidency of Kamala Harris, focusing on how her experience as a district attorney and California’s attorney general might positively influence her performance in the Oval Office. Professor Sarat argues that Harris’s prosecutorial background will be beneficial for her presidency, citing her pragmatic approach to law enforcement, her ability to make difficult decisions, and the skills she developed in exercising prosecutorial discretion judiciously.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago document handling indictment against former President Donald Trump, focusing on the judge’s reasoning regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. Professor Amar argues that Judge Cannon’s ruling is flawed due to her failure to respect the proper role of a district court judge in relation to higher court precedents, particularly the Supreme Court’s Nixon tapes case, and her misunderstanding of the larger constitutional context surrounding special counsel appointments.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the concept of national unity, its meaning, and its implications in the context of recent calls for unity following tragic events. Professor Margulies argues that while unity on broad goals may be achievable, disagreement on means to achieve those goals is not only inevitable but also a healthy feature of democracy, challenging the notion that unity is always desirable or attainable in a diverse society.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Republican National Convention’s strategy of downplaying controversial issues like abortion, the January 6 insurrection, and election denialism. Professor Sarat argues that the GOP employed a “hidden ball trick” to conceal their true positions on these topics, deceiving voters and potentially harming democracy in their pursuit of power.

Surgeon and bioethicist Charles E. Binkley discusses the ethical implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) models in clinical decision-making, particularly focusing on patient informed consent. Dr. Binkley argues that patients should be fully informed about the use of AI in their healthcare, not only as patients but also as data donors and potential research subjects, to maintain autonomy, transparency, and trust in the physician-patient relationship.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the potential threats to American higher education, particularly elite institutions, in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 election. Professor Sarat argues that colleges and universities, especially prestigious ones, need to urgently develop a concrete political strategy to counter the GOP’s plans to reshape higher education through defunding, ideological attacks, and enforced “reforms” that could fundamentally alter their approach to education and threaten their survival.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the aftermath of a recent shooting incident at a Donald Trump rally, exploring the various narratives, conspiracy theories, and political implications that have emerged. Professor Buchanan argues that the deeply polarized nature of current American politics makes it nearly impossible for people to agree on a shared understanding of events, potentially exacerbating political divisions and undermining the democratic process.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the concept of demonization in society, particularly in light of a recent attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Professor Margulies argues that rejecting demonization requires more than just avoiding certain language; it demands recognizing our own capacity for evil, abandoning the notion that eliminating a single person or group will solve all problems, and ultimately accepting that there is no “them,” only “us.”

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses recent events in American politics, including a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, President Biden’s debate performance, and an assassination attempt on former President Trump. Professor Sarat argues that these events have been traumatic for the nation and warns against allowing them to induce collective amnesia about Trump’s past actions and rhetoric, emphasizing the importance of remembering the full context as the country approaches the 2024 election.

In this second of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd continues to explore the challenges in interpreting the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and proposes a solution. Mr. Winograd suggests that courts should look to established labor and employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, Railway Labor Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act, for guidance in determining who qualifies as a transportation worker, rather than relying on vague qualifiers created by the courts.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the recent shooting at a Trump rally and its implications for American politics and society. Professor Buchanan argues that the incident represents three interconnected tragedies: the personal loss of life and injury, the failure of the political system to prevent such violence, and the inability of the public to reach a consensus on what actually happened due to the current polarized and conspiratorial political climate.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the variable effectiveness of political violence, particularly assassination attempts on political figures, and the challenges in preventing such acts. Professor Dorf argues that while political violence is widely condemned, it can sometimes achieve its intended goals, and that effective prevention requires not only heightened security measures but also stricter gun control laws, which the United States has been reluctant to implement.