Verdict

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision ordering counties not to count undated/misdated mail-in ballots for the November 2024 election, specifically examining the broader implications of courts claiming exclusive authority to interpret constitutionality. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the court’s position that only judges can determine constitutional matters is problematic, as executive officials throughout American history have demonstrated the capacity to make sound constitutional judgments, and a decentralized system of constitutional review by multiple government actors can better protect individual rights.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent federal case in which a court struck down Louisiana’s law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms based on the 1980 Supreme Court precedent Stone v. Graham, and the subsequent partial stay of that ruling by the Fifth Circuit. Professor Dorf argues that while the district judge correctly followed the still-binding Stone precedent, the disagreement among lower courts reflects broader uncertainty in an era where the current Supreme Court is willing to overturn long-standing precedents, making it increasingly difficult for lower courts to determine which precedents remain controlling law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines how the 22nd Amendment’s presidential term limits, originally passed to prevent another FDR-style extended presidency, affects second-term Presidents in general and Donald Trump’s anticipated second term in particular. Professor Sarat argues that term limits can paradoxically enable presidential overreach by freeing second-term Presidents from electoral accountability, suggesting this could be especially concerning in Trump's case given his stated plans to expand executive power.

In this second of a series of columns, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explores whether Americans concerned about Donald Trump’s potential return to office can realistically relocate to other countries, drawing from the his personal experience as an expatriate and broader analysis of international migration patterns. Professor Buchanan argues that large-scale emigration from the U.S. is virtually impossible due to logistical constraints in host countries (even immigrant-friendly ones like Canada), noting that even temporary surges in immigration can overwhelm countries’ housing, healthcare, and education systems while potentially triggering xenophobic political backlash.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses how progressives should reconsider their traditional opposition to states’ rights (federalism) and the Senate filibuster in light of Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory. Professor Sarat argues that despite progressives’ historical criticism of these mechanisms, they should now embrace both federalism and the filibuster as valuable tools to resist and limit Trump’s agenda, just as they did during his first administration.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton analyzes three key outcomes for the religious right following Election Day: their diminishing control over abortion policy, their continued success in “othering” certain groups (particularly LGBTQ+ individuals), and their unexposed agenda regarding children's rights and education. Professor Hamilton argues that while the religious right has lost ground on abortion rights due to successful state ballot measures and Trump’s apparent abandonment of their stance, they continue to wield significant influence through their campaign against LGBTQ+ rights and could pose future threats through their lesser-known initiatives to weaken child labor laws, compulsory education, and vaccination requirements.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the practical realities and challenges of Americans considering emigration in response to concerning political developments, particularly following recent election results. Professor Buchanan, who himself emigrated, argues that while the desire to leave may be legitimate, actually relocating abroad is a realistic option for very few people due to the expensive and complex immigration process, increasingly restrictive immigration policies worldwide (even in traditionally welcoming countries like Canada), and practical limitations in destination countries’ abilities to absorb large numbers of immigrants.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines whether recent changes to public university campus policies regarding protests and speech, which were largely prompted by Gaza-Israel related demonstrations, can be considered unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Professor Amar argues that while such policy changes may disproportionately affect certain viewpoints in the short term, they are generally legally permissible as long as they are facially neutral, since proving discriminatory intent in free speech cases is particularly challenging and courts have historically upheld similar reactive but neutral regulations in various contexts.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf analyzes the eight possible outcomes of today’s U.S. federal elections (based on whether Democrats or Republicans win control of the presidency, Senate, and House) and their implications for governance. Professor Dorf contrasts how unified government enables major legislation with how divided government limits policy changes, while emphasizing an asymmetric risk: Republican control of even one chamber could enable them to challenge a Harris victory or force a debt ceiling crisis, making Democratic control of at least one chamber essential for a potential Harris presidency to function.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines various government efforts since 2010 to address the harms suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) service members who were discharged from the U.S. military due to their sexual orientation between the 1950s and 2010, including discharge upgrades, VA benefit eligibility changes, and presidential pardons. Professor Wexler argues that while recent reforms are positive steps, they remain insufficient due to their limited scope, and advocates for three key changes: a proactive Pentagon review of all discharges back to the 1950s, broader discharge upgrade eligibility for anyone discharged due to sexual orientation (except those with unrelated misconduct), and VA benefits access for those who could not complete their service terms due to discriminatory policies.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyzes the contrasting decision-making styles and presidential temperaments of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as highlighted by Harris’s recent CNN Town Hall appearance. Professor Sarat argues that while Harris’s careful, pragmatic, and “boring” approach to leadership may lack charisma, it would be far preferable to Trump’s impulsive, inattentive, and narcissistic style that would make him dangerous in the role of President.

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in Republican National Committee (RNC) v. Wetzel holding invalid, as conflicting with and thus preempted by federal law governing federal elections, a Mississippi statute that permits the counting of ballots that arrive at election offices by mail after Election Day—up…

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Biden’s recent controversial comment calling Trump supporters “garbage” and its impact on Vice President Harris’s presidential campaign, set against a broader context of inflammatory political rhetoric from both parties. Professor Sarat argues that Harris should forcefully denounce Biden’s remarks to both benefit her campaign and uphold democratic values, rather than merely distancing herself from the President.

Lauren Stiller Rikleen examines Project 2025’s proposals for presidential power in light of Senator Whitehouse’s report “Unworthy of Reliance,” which details how the Trump administration constrained the FBI’s 2018 supplemental investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ms. Rikleen argues that the Kavanaugh confirmation process, where the White House secretly limited the FBI’s investigation while publicly claiming it had “free rein,” serves as a real-world example of how Project 2025’s vision of presidential control over independent agencies has already been implemented and threatens American democracy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allows voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to technical errors to cast provisional ballots in person, and examines the Republican National Committee's subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to block this ruling. Professor Amar argues that the RNC’s appeal lacks merit because it misapplies both the Purcell doctrine (which constrains federal, not state, courts from making last-minute election changes) and the Supreme Court’s Moore v. Harper decision, which actually supports states’ authority to interpret their own election laws through various governmental processes, including state courts.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut discusses the potential economic and institutional dangers of a second Trump presidency, drawing parallels between authoritarian kleptocracies throughout history and Trump's demonstrated patterns of behavior. Mr. Aftergut argues that Trump’s return to power would threaten not only democratic freedoms (as warned by former officials like General John Kelly) but also Americans’ financial well-being through systemic corruption and self-enrichment, with no remaining “guardrails” of principled advisors to constrain such behavior.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses a constitutional interpretation regarding the requirements for winning the U.S. presidency through the Electoral College, specifically addressing scenarios where some state electors are not appointed. Following up on an argument he has made with Professors Michael Dorf and Laurence Tribe, Professor Buchanan argues that, contrary to popular belief (the “House-decides error”), under the Twelfth Amendment, a candidate does not need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency but only a majority of actually appointed electors. Professor Buchanan points out this means that successfully blocking some state electors, as Donald Trump likely will try to do, would not automatically force the decision to the House of Representatives unless there is an actual tie or a third-party candidate prevents either major candidate from achieving a majority of appointed electors.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman commemorates the life and legacy of Lilly Ledbetter, who passed away on October 12, 2024, and details her fight against pay discrimination at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., her subsequent Supreme Court case, and the landmark legislation that bears her name. Professor Grossman emphasizes how Ledbetter's perseverance led to meaningful change through the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which removed significant legal barriers for women seeking to challenge pay discrimination, even though she never personally received compensation for the discrimination she endured.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the history of free speech in America and recent controversies surrounding it, particularly on college campuses. Professor Dorf argues that while there was once a bipartisan consensus supporting free speech, recent events have led to inconsistent stances on both sides of the political spectrum, with many people supporting free speech only when it aligns with their views.

Attorneys Stephen Marcus and Bruce Kuhlik discuss the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in the context of predicted attempts by Donald Trump and his allies to undermine the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The authors argue that lawyers considering advocating unsubstantiated claims of election fraud should learn from the disciplinary actions taken against Trump’s 2020 election lawyers, adhere to their ethical duties, and follow the example of those who refused to violate their obligations to their profession and the Constitution after the 2020 election despite significant pressure to do so.