Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s expanding use of arrest threats and criminal prosecutions against state and local officials to enforce federal immigration and election policies. Professor Sarat argues that this strategy marks a dangerous shift toward autocracy, weaponizing federal law enforcement to intimidate political opponents and coerce compliance when judicial avenues fail.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Tony Ghiotto discuss the D.C. Circuit's Talbott ruling on the transgender military ban, covering judicial deference standards, the harsh reality of ongoing separation proceedings, weak reinstatement precedent from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate reversal, and the new testosterone-screening policy’s effect on the litigation. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue the ruling risks giving the Administration a roadmap to shield future exclusionary policies from real scrutiny, and that even a future reversal of the ban is unlikely to make separated servicemembers whole.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a lawsuit by two Idaho death row inmates challenging the secretive, unexplained process behind the state’s newly adopted execution protocol, which grants officials broad discretion to deviate from procedures at will. Professor Sarat argues that such vague protocols undermine accountability when executions go wrong, and urges Idaho courts to resist the troubling trend of relaxing administrative law norms whenever the death penalty is at stake.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses how incoming law students should approach AI use in law school, addressing academic integrity, exam and classroom policies, the Socratic method, and AI’s proper role in legal research and practice. Professor Dorf advises that students should follow institutional AI rules to avoid cheating classmates and clients, avoid using chatbots to shortcut genuine engagement with course material, rigorously verify any AI-generated legal research, and extend patience to instructors who are also adapting to unprecedented technological change.

In this second of a series of columns, Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler discusses the differences between the Obama administration’s response to the 2015 Kunduz trauma center strike and the Trump administration’s response to the 2025 Minab school strike in Iran, examining operational tempo, the role of AI in targeting, the prevailing military legal culture, and accountability practices. Professor Wexler argues that while Obama’s administration moved relatively quickly to acknowledge responsibility, apologize, provide redress, and implement reforms to prevent recurrence, the Trump administration has been far less transparent and forthcoming—failing to clearly acknowledge U.S. fault, offer apologies, or announce concrete measures to prevent future civilian harm, and is instead dismantling prior civilian protection infrastructure.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the parallels between Iran’s aggressive use of capital punishment—including record execution numbers, hangings, and executions for drug offenses—and President Trump’s own enthusiasm for expanding and intensifying the death penalty in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s fixation on capital punishment reflects an authoritarian impulse akin to Iran’s use of executions as a tool of control and intimidation, and warns that while global trends favor abolition, the U.S. under Trump risks moving in the opposite, regressive direction.