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.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines three recent events in American politics and justice: the House Republicans’ report targeting Liz Cheney, Fani Willis’s removal from the Georgia case against Donald Trump, and Judge Michael Ponsor’s reprimand for criticizing Justice Samuel Alito. Professor Dorf argues that these incidents represent a troubling pattern where those who attempt to hold powerful figures accountable face punishment and humiliation, while the primary wrongdoers face few or no consequences.

University of Chicago Law School professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden, analyzing three aspects of the pardon: preventing future prosecution, setting aside convictions, and eliminating potential prison sentences. Professor Alschuler argues that while blocking future prosecution was justified given the threat of political persecution, and limiting Hunter’s sentence could be defended despite breaking a promise, completely erasing his convictions was unjustifiable.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the upcoming execution of Joseph Corcoran in Indiana, who has voluntarily dropped his appeals, and examines the broader phenomenon of death row “volunteers” in the American justice system. Professor Sarat argues that courts should never allow inmates to volunteer for execution, not only due to questions of mental competency but also because it violates fundamental principles of natural law and inalienable rights as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, making it fundamentally un-American.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses emergency powers in various constitutional systems, including South Korea, India, and the United States. Professor Dorf argues that while emergency powers can serve legitimate purposes during genuine crises, they risk abuse by leaders, and ultimately constitutional provisions alone cannot prevent such abuse—rather, the protection of democracy depends on the commitment of people and institutions to uphold the rule of law.

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.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses a writing exercise created by award-winning writer and teacher Rachel Kadish that asks students to write from the perspective of someone expressing views they find abhorrent, connecting this practice to broader issues of societal division and empathy. Professor Margulies argues that consciously attempting to understand others’ perspectives and behaviors before passing judgment—even when their actions are deplorable—is essential for reducing social polarization and recognizing our shared humanity.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines two specific aspects of the allegations against Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth: how senators approach testimonial credibility in #MeToo cases and the risks faced by “upstanders” who intervene to protect potential victims. Professor Wexler argues that some senators show concerning bias in automatically believing Hegseth despite contrary evidence, while also highlighting how women who act as upstanders often face severe retaliation, suggesting a need for better safeguards and practices for those who intervene in potential sexual assault situations.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines Christian Nationalism and the Napa Legal Institute's Faith and Freedom Index, exploring how they relate to religious liberty, extreme religious liberty, and theocracy in America. Professor Hamilton argues that Christian Nationalism and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) represent dangerous departures from traditional First Amendment religious liberty protections, as they enable religious groups to discriminate against others and violate neutral laws while potentially paving the way for an intolerant Christian theocracy.

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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President-Elect Donald Trump's nomination of Pam Bondi and Kash Patel as potential attorney general and FBI Director, respectively, in his upcoming administration. Professor Sarat argues that these appointments signal Trump’s intention to weaponize the Justice Department and FBI for political revenge, warning that Hunter Biden’s allegedly unfair prosecution could become commonplace for Trump’s opponents if Bondi and Patel are confirmed to these positions.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines recent U.S. policy shifts under the Biden administration regarding the authorization of cluster munitions (ATACMS) and anti-personnel landmines for use in Ukraine, along with their implications for international humanitarian law. Professor Wexler argues that these reversals, particularly the facilitation of Ukraine’s violation of the Landmine Ban Treaty, represent a concerning erosion of international humanitarian law norms and treaties, warning that such case-by-case justifications could lead to a broader collapse of civilian protection standards in warfare.

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 discusses Indiana’s planned December 2024 execution of Joseph Corcoran and examines the state’s unusual policy of barring media witnesses from executions, with context about how other states handle media access to executions. Professor Sarat argues that Indiana’s media ban undermines transparency and public accountability, as journalists serve as crucial neutral observers who can document the government's most extreme action and inform the public about how their tax dollars are being used.