Igor De Lazari, a PhD candidate at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and a state judge; and Antonio G. Sepulveda, professor of law at Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV) and at the Fluminense Federal University, discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding parental rights in public education, drawing extensive structural and substantive parallels to recent constitutional jurisprudence from the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court. The authors argue that both the American emergency docket and Brazilian monocratic decisions exhibit a distinct procedural malfunction where expedited, unilateral judicial actions improperly displace the considered, multi-voice institutional judgments required to legitimize judicial authority.

Arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd analyzes the Supreme Court’s unanimous May 2026 decision in Flowers Foods v. Brock, tracing its holding that “last mile” delivery drivers fall within the FAA Section 1 transportation worker exemption and placing it in the context of a four-case line of rulings progressively narrowing employer access to mandatory arbitration. Mr. Winograd argues that while workers and unions are the clear winners, significant questions remain unresolved—particularly whether courts will recognize exceptions for drivers operating through corporate or title-holding business arrangements, and whether the Court will eventually engage more systematically with parallel federal labor and employment statutes rather than relying primarily on dictionary definitions of FAA text.

Albany Law professor Meredith R. Miller and graduate Grace Ann Porter examine the growing circuit split over the evidentiary standard courts must apply when deciding whether to authorize notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in FLSA collective actions, tracing the diverging approaches of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Second, and Ninth Circuits. Professor Miller and Ms. Porter argue that the emerging trend toward heightened scrutiny at the certification stage will practically narrow workers' ability to pursue collective wage and hour claims, because requiring plaintiffs to produce more substantial evidence before discovery both suppresses opt-in participation and creates a circular barrier to gathering the very evidence needed to establish similarity.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Tony Ghiotto discuss the D.C. Circuit’s June 1, 2026 ruling in Talbott v. Trump, situating it within the broader litigation landscape surrounding the executive order banning transgender military service and previewing a multi-part analysis of the three opinions issued by the court. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the ruling’s most significant contribution—shared across all three opinions, including the dissent—is its repeated affirmation of the dignity, honesty, and capacity of transgender service members, which they view as a meaningful judicial counternarrative to the administration’s animus-laden characterizations, even as they acknowledge the decision's narrow holding and limited broader implications.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal district court ruling permitting Alabama to execute Jeffrey Lee via nitrogen hypoxia despite the judge’s own findings that the method causes severe suffering, examining the decision’s constitutional implications and the broader erosion of Eighth Amendment protections. Professor Sarat argues that Judge Marks’s originalist interpretation effectively nullifies the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by limiting its scope to methods the Founders would have recognized as barbaric, rather than applying the “evolving standards of decency” framework the clause requires to remain meaningful.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Democratic Senate primary in Maine, where progressive candidate Graham Platner—despite a compelling populist platform—has faced mounting scrutiny over a series of personal controversies including offensive social media posts, a controversial tattoo, and allegations of infidelity and abusive behavior. Professor Dorf argues that, while Platner’s character flaws are genuine cause for concern, Democratic voters can rationally support him in the general election against incumbent Susan Collins, because his flaws—more akin to Bill Clinton’s than Donald Trump’s—do not threaten constitutional democracy and should yield to the practical calculus of a binary electoral choice.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the breakdown of productive religious discourse in American public life, arguing that the religious right has seized control of the conversation through strategic framing, the appropriation of the undifferentiated label “Christian,” and the suppression of inconvenient facts. Professor Hamilton proposes three corrective rules: insist on factual accuracy in policy debates rather than deferring to religious framing, recognize Christianity as a diverse category rather than a monolith, and embrace open theological disagreement among believers as a legitimate and necessary form of public discourse.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Israel's recently passed legislation creating a dedicated military tribunal to prosecute approximately 400 Hamas militants for their roles in the October 7, 2023 attacks, examining the law through the lens of philosophers Hannah Arendt and Martha Minow. Professor Sarat argues that the tribunal risks becoming a politically motivated show trial that undermines fair trial guarantees and, rather than advancing justice or security, pulls Israel away from the difficult but necessary path between vengeance and reconciliation.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the Trump administration’s proposed $1.776 billion “victims of lawfare” compensation fund, its likely beneficiaries, and the legal and political opposition it has generated. Professor Margulies argues that while the fund is a corrupt sham designed to enrich Trump allies—including January 6th rioters who were justly prosecuted—the underlying concept of compensating people genuinely wronged by federal power is sound, and the true victims deserving redress are those like unlawfully detained immigrants and targets of vindictive prosecutions.

UC Davis Law professor emeritus Alan Brownstein and professor Vikram David Amar survey recent examples of overt government religious speech—at both the federal and state levels—to examine the constitutional principles underlying Establishment Clause limits on such speech. Professors Brownstein and Amar argue that government religious speech is constitutionally impermissible because it usurps individuals’ authority over their own faith, coerces religious conformity, favors some religions over others, and distorts the marketplace of ideas in ways only a robust Establishment Clause can offset.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines two recent Trump administration actions—the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and a DOJ settlement granting the president and his family immunity from tax enforcement—arguing that both are unconstitutional and morally indefensible. Professor Sarat argues that the tax immunity arrangement amounts to an unconstitutional self-pardon by proxy, while the Anti-Weaponization Fund violates the First Amendment, equal protection, separation of powers, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit prohibition on compensating insurrectionists. He further argues that courts and the public must resist both actions before Trump normalizes using governmental power for personal benefit.