Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to administer the oath of office to Adelita Grijalva, a duly elected representative from Arizona, and examines the constitutional and legal implications, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack. Professor Dorf argues that Johnson’s actions appear to be a politically motivated and constitutionally baseless effort to block Grijalva from voting—potentially on the Epstein files discharge petition—and reflects a broader disregard for democratic norms and the rule of law.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the Trump administration’s policy of conducting lethal maritime strikes on boats suspected of drug smuggling, highlighting the legal and moral implications when survivors are taken into custody. Professor Margulies argues that the administration is circumventing both criminal law and established due process by labeling survivors “enemy combatants,” and that its ultimate incentive is to avoid legal accountability—an incentive that could lead to more killings to eliminate potential witnesses.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the procedural and constitutional issues surrounding mootness in the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law barring transgender women from participating in women’s collegiate sports. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, to voluntarily dismiss her case after she ceased athletic participation, and they contend that the case is clearly moot under Article III, urging higher courts to recognize this and vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision accordingly.

Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, addresses how four legal mechanisms—statutes of limitations, charitable immunity, non-disclosure agreements, and bankruptcy laws—serve to shield powerful institutions from accountability in cases of child sexual abuse, often silencing survivors and obstructing justice. Ms. Robb argues that these outdated legal protections perpetuate secrecy and impunity, and she calls for urgent legal reforms to dismantle these barriers and prioritize justice for survivors.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler addresses Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s proposed rollback of military regulations on hazing, bullying, and toxic leadership, arguing that these changes are part of a broader agenda to recenter military culture around a rigid and potentially abusive interpretation of the “warrior ethos.” Professor Wexler warns that weakening existing protections risks encouraging cruelty, diminishing accountability, and harming both service members and civilians, and urges that any review be evidence-based, carefully defined, and mindful of the moral and operational consequences of reintroducing hazing practices.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Supreme Court case Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which addresses whether a candidate has Article III standing to challenge state laws on ballot counting. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that a candidate likely has standing to challenge election regulations because they have an inherent interest in the clarity of election rules, even if they cannot prove the regulation would change the election's outcome, and they emphasize that resolving these issues is crucial for electoral legitimacy.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Bowe v. United States, which raises the question of whether limits on successive habeas petitions for state prisoners also apply to federal prisoners and whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear such a case. Professor Dorf argues that while some legal scholars invoke the theory that certain review functions are essential to the Supreme Court’s constitutional role, that argument has limitations, and the Court may instead use the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to uphold its jurisdiction without definitively resolving the scope of its essential functions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to stay Robert Roberson’s execution and send his case back to trial court to reconsider the now-discredited shaken baby syndrome diagnosis that led to his conviction. Professor Sarat argues that while the court’s intervention is a positive step, it falls short by ignoring other critical issues in Roberson’s case—such as his undiagnosed autism, poor legal representation, and evidence pointing to his daughter’s death from natural causes—thus failing to address the full scope of the miscarriage of justice.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton traces the decades-long movement to reform statutes of limitations (SOLs) for child sex abuse victims, highlighting the legal, political, and cultural progress made and the recent challenges posed by unscrupulous legal practices. Professor Hamilton argues that while the movement has empowered many survivors and exposed hidden abuse, the rise of false claims by unethical mass tort firms threatens its integrity, necessitating legal safeguards like certificate of merit requirements to preserve justice and protect genuine victims.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Donald Trump’s repeated denial of any connection to Project 2025 during his campaign, despite extensive evidence that its policy goals are being actively implemented now in his second term. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s deception about Project 2025 was deliberate and consequential, revealing his broader authoritarian ambitions and marking one of the most impactful political lies in modern American history.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin reviews the documentary Marcial Maciel: The Wolf of God, which investigates the life of Marcial Maciel, a powerful Catholic priest and founder of the Legion of Christ, who sexually abused numerous minors over decades with the protection of the Church, including several popes. Professor Griffin points out that the Catholic Church has consistently failed to hold abusive clergy like Maciel accountable, prioritizing institutional power and fundraising over justice for victims, and she calls for a different, more honest approach from current Church leadership.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s current efforts to pressure major law firms and corporations, including Microsoft, to punish individuals he considers personal enemies—often through actions resembling unconstitutional “bills of attainder” that impose penalties without due process. Professor Sarat argues that while big businesses and their leaders possess the influence to resist these authoritarian tactics, they have largely remained silent out of fear, self-interest, or moral weakness, thereby failing to uphold democratic values.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine whether the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law restricting women’s sports teams to biological females, has become moot after plaintiff Lindsay Hecox withdrew from sports participation and sought to dismiss her case with prejudice. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that despite defendants’ claims of litigation gamesmanship, the Court should find the case moot and vacate the lower court’s decision under the Munsingwear doctrine, because Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement cannot be overridden by concerns about strategic behavior when vacatur adequately addresses the risk of an unreviewable precedent remaining in effect.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the shift in American political culture, focusing on a moment at Charlie Kirk’s memorial where President Trump publicly embraced hatred for his opponents, contrasting it with calls for forgiveness and unity. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s unapologetic hatred not only erodes the moral and democratic foundations of the presidency but also threatens to make animosity and division the norm in American society.