Verdict

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.

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent emergency-docket rulings that, without explanation, allow the Trump administration to remove independent agency officials, potentially dismantling key regulatory bodies, while disregarding a foundational 1935 precedent supporting the autonomy of such agencies. Professor Schwinn argues that by acting without transparency or justification, the Court undermines the constitutional balance of powers, weakens congressional authority, and damages its own legitimacy and credibility.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin reviews Dr. Robert Hoatson’s book The Sacrifice of the Masses, which details his experiences as a former Catholic priest turned whistleblower who exposed clergy abuse and cover-ups within the Roman Catholic Church, including his own victimization and subsequent legal battles against church officials. Professor Griffin argues that despite Hoatson losing most of his court cases due to various legal technicalities and procedural barriers, he made significant personal sacrifices to help thousands of abuse victims and courageously challenged what he calls the most corrupt organization in the world.

Albany Law School professor Meredith R. Miller examines the complex and evolving legal landscape of non-compete agreements in the United States, highlighting how their enforceability varies widely across states and is influenced by shifting political and legal tides, especially after the abandonment of a federal ban by the FTC. Professor Miller argues that outright bans on non-competes, as adopted by a few states, are the most effective policy approach because they provide clarity, protect workers' mobility and bargaining power, and still allow employers to safeguard their interests through less restrictive legal tools.

Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, examines how the media and political frenzy over Jeffrey Epstein’s client list has overshadowed the broader epidemic of institutional child sexual abuse in America, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts to USA Gymnastics. Ms. Robb argues that instead of chasing political spectacle and conspiracy theories, lawmakers must implement concrete reforms—including ending statutes of limitations, banning NDAs in abuse cases, mandating institutional transparency, and funding prevention programs—to address what is a widespread public health emergency affecting one in four girls and one in thirteen boys.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explains why he chooses not to follow the daily outrages of the Trump administration, instead focusing on understanding the broader narrative and underlying forces that explain our current political moment, including economic shifts, demographic changes, and the decline of white hegemony. Professor Margulies points out that, for him, obsessing over individual scandals and daily news is less important than crafting a comprehensive meta-narrative that explains the complex, interconnected factors driving Trumpism and American politics, even though this task is extraordinarily difficult and remains incomplete.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards, focusing particularly on the 2024-25 Term. Professor Amar argues that the Court’s rushed handling of emergency cases produces weaker opinions and undermines judicial legitimacy, and he critically observes that the Court is selectively choosing when to definitively resolve merits in cases with incomplete factual records, as demonstrated by contrasting approaches in cases like United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Trump v. CASA.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines President Trump’s threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates amid economic uncertainty from Trump’s own policies, including tax cuts, immigration enforcement, and tariffs. Professor Dorf argues that Powell’s cautious approach is justified given the unpredictable economic impacts of Trump's policies, and explores the legal ambiguity around whether Trump can lawfully remove Powell, ultimately suggesting that market forces rather than legal constraints may be the main deterrent to such action.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron examines whether Americans should be concerned about the prospect of secession in today’s politically polarized climate, compiling perspectives from several law professors on the viability and implications of states or regions leaving the United States. While most experts agree that traditional state secession is practically impossible due to political divisions existing within rather than between states, the discussion of secession remains valuable for understanding political theory, and some forms of “soft secession” (like sanctuary cities and nullification movements) may already be occurring. Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the constitutional order in ways that could theoretically enable secession.

Illinois Law professor Matthew W. Finkin and arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd critique President Trump’s Executive Order 14251, which excludes many federal employees from union protections and collective bargaining on the grounds of national security. The authors argue that the Administration’s justification, based on flawed data from a partisan report, misrepresents arbitration’s impact on performance management and that existing laws already safeguard national security without undermining federal labor rights.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton addresses the Trump administration’s attempts to cover up the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking files and draws parallels to the Catholic Church’s long-standing concealment of clergy sexual abuse. Professor Hamilton argues that true justice for child sex abuse victims requires transparency, prosecution, and institutional accountability, and warns that failing to fully disclose the Epstein files undermines public trust and perpetuates a culture of impunity for the powerful.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court restricted the use of “universal injunctions” by federal district courts, which have been used to prevent enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional laws against all people rather than just the specific plaintiffs in a case. Professor Amar argues that initial reactions characterizing this as a major threat to civil rights were overstated, because courts retain alternative tools like class action certification and traditional injunctive relief that can still provide broad protection when necessary to fully protect plaintiffs.

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, despite a legal challenge from states arguing that the move violates federal law and the Constitution. Professor Schwinn asserts that the Court’s approval of such broad executive action—without addressing its legality—contrasts sharply with its earlier rejection of President Joe Biden’s more modest student debt relief plan, revealing a troubling inconsistency and potential partisan bias in the Court’s reasoning.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton responds to Francis X. Maier’s proposal to remove child sex abuse victims from the legal system and place them in “autonomous reparations programs,” examining the implications for institutions like the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, and state entities facing billion-dollar settlements. Professor Hamilton argues that Maier’s approach would prioritize cost reduction and institutional secrecy over justice and truth, contending that civil litigation is essential for uncovering institutional cover-ups, validating victims’ experiences, and preventing future abuse through transparency and accountability.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the Social Security Administration’s politically-charged email praising Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and its supposed tax relief for seniors—a departure from the agency’s traditional independence. Professor Sarat argues that the SSA’s misleading email represents a betrayal of public trust and the agency’s mission, serving Trump’s personal branding agenda while failing to address Social Security’s actual funding crisis or accurately describe the legislation’s limited benefits.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Jennifer Robbennolt examine how President Donald Trump reverses the traditional role of public apologies by refusing to apologize for state wrongdoing while demanding apologies from lawful actors like media outlets, universities, and government officials. Professors Wexler and Robbennolt argue that this pattern reflects authoritarian logic that undermines truth, accountability, and democratic values, and they urge non-wrongdoing actors to resist these coerced apology demands to preserve the rule of law and democratic institutions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the massive funding increase for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities in the recently passed spending bill, which will triple detention funding and enable rapid expansion of immigrant detention centers across the country. Professor Sarat argues that given ICE’s documented history of abuse, inadequate medical care, and inhumane conditions in existing facilities, this dramatic expansion will likely lead to increased human suffering and cruelty for detainees, many of whom have never been charged with any crime.