UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explores the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, focusing particularly on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion and its implications for the nondelegation doctrine and the separation of powers. Professor Amar argues that while Kavanaugh makes several insightful points defending executive discretion and the use of “intelligible principles,” his reasoning on independent agencies, Article II implications, and national security exceptions lacks nuance and requires further elaboration to be convincing.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the legality of the Trump administration’s deals with Nvidia and AMD, which require the companies to pay 15% of AI chip sales made to China to the U.S. government, evaluating whether these payments constitute unconstitutional export taxes. Professor Dorf argues that although the payments function as export taxes—which are barred by the Constitution—the companies are unlikely to challenge them due to fears of political retaliation and economic consequences from the administration.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan Brownstein explore the long-standing and increasingly pressing conflict within First Amendment jurisprudence between the Free Exercise Clause, which often justifies special accommodation for religious expression, and the Free Speech Clause, which prohibits viewpoint discrimination by the government. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that recent federal policies privileging religious expression—particularly in political and workplace contexts—risk violating core free speech principles by distorting democratic processes and creating inequities between religious and secular voices, a dilemma the Supreme Court can no longer avoid addressing.

As most folks paying attention this year appreciate, President Donald Trump has been issuing Executive Orders that, taken as a whole, seem unprecedented in their number, scope, and constitutional aggressiveness. Federal courts, in which the lion’s share of the legal challenges to these Orders have been filed, have been playing catch up in this regulatory-blitzkrieg…

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the recent mass stabbing in Michigan by Bradford James Gille and explores the deeper systemic and personal factors behind seemingly random acts of violence. Professor Margulies argues that before society can decide what justice or punishment looks like in such cases, we must first understand the humanity and complex stories behind individuals like Gille, rejecting questions that strip away their personhood.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate Lior Polani examinee the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal practice, focusing on the technical constraint of “context windows”—the limited amount of information AI systems can process at once—which hampers their ability to handle complex, interconnected legal documents and tasks requiring nuanced judgment. The authors argue that while AI can boost efficiency in narrow, rule-based legal functions, its fundamental constraints make fully autonomous legal analysis unreliable, and they emphasize that AI should be used as a supportive tool under human oversight rather than a replacement for legal professionals.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Delaware’s historic efforts to constitutionally ban the death penalty, positioning the state to become one of the few U.S. jurisdictions with an explicit constitutional prohibition against capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that to ensure lasting abolition, death penalty opponents across the country should pursue constitutional amendments rather than rely on statutes or court rulings, which are more susceptible to reversal.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Alan Dershowitz’s threat to sue a pierogi vendor who refused to serve him over political disagreements, using the incident to explore whether laws should prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on political affiliation. Professor Dorf argues that while such discrimination is currently legal in most jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, and rarely occurs, creating laws against it could be both unnecessary and costly, and might conflict with First Amendment protections.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the impending execution of Byron Black in Tennessee, highlighting deep flaws in the state’s application of the death penalty, particularly for intellectually disabled and medically vulnerable individuals. Professor Sarat argues that Black’s case exemplifies the cruelty, legal absurdities, and moral failings of the death penalty system, urging an end to a practice that undermines justice and human dignity.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the enduring presence and normalization of violence in American culture, using the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence and the recent mass stabbing in Traverse City, Michigan, as entry points to examine broader societal trends. Professor Sarat argues that while violence has long been part of America's foundation, former President Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric and dehumanizing language have dangerously amplified a culture of cruelty and retribution, making it more urgent than ever to resist these influences.