Verdict

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the current state of political violence in the United States, focusing on recent polls, statements from political leaders, and the impact on public officials. Professor Sarat argues that there is an alarming asymmetry in the acceptance of political violence, with MAGA Republicans more likely to endorse it; he calls for addressing this issue through education, electoral efforts, and legal accountability, while urging presidential debate moderators to question candidates on this critical topic.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a legal and political controversy in Arizona surrounding the execution of death row inmate Aaron Gunches, involving various state officials including the county attorney, attorney general, and governor. Professor Sarat criticizes Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell’s unprecedented and allegedly illegal attempt to seek a death warrant, portraying it as a politically motivated move that undermines the established legal process and threatens to create chaos in Arizona's death penalty system.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professor Rodger D. Citron compares Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of Donald Trump's classified documents case to Judge Irving Kaufman’s controversial management of the Rosenberg espionage trial in the 1950s. Professor Citron argues that Cannon should learn from Kaufman’s mistakes and prioritize impartiality in her management of the high-profile case, warning that her current approach of favoring the defense and delaying proceedings could negatively affect her professional legacy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing common criticisms that the Court has become a partisan, far-right institution aggressively pushing a conservative agenda. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that, contrary to these criticisms, the Court’s decisions in the 2023-24 term have not been consistently conservative or partisan, and that many of the high-profile cases were essentially thrust upon the Court rather than actively sought out, suggesting a more nuanced and less ideologically driven approach than critics claim.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the shifting sentiments of independent voters in the 2024 U.S. presidential race, examining recent polls, historical trends, and potential influencing factors such as upcoming Supreme Court decisions. Professor Sarat suggests that independent voters could play a crucial role in determining the election outcome, with recent polls showing a swing towards Biden, while also noting that the views of these voters remain malleable and could be significantly affected by future events, particularly Supreme Court rulings on key issues.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss North Dakota’s recently passed Initiated Measure 1, which prohibits anyone over the age of 81 from serving in or being on the ballot for the U.S. House or Senate. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that Measure 1 violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights, which they contend includes the right to be voted for and hold office, making the measure unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court were to overturn its precedent barring states from adding congressional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the controversy surrounding Harvard Dean Lawrence Bobo’s op-ed, which argued that faculty should face sanctions for publicly criticizing their university in ways that invite outside intervention. Professor Sarat ultimately disagrees with Bobo, asserting that while faculty should exercise good judgment when criticizing their institutions, universities must protect their right to do so to avoid undermining academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a federal regulation banning bump stocks by finding that they do not fall under the statutory definition of a machinegun. Professor Dorf argues that the Justices’ ideological views on gun control, rather than principled differences in interpretive methodology, best explain the divided outcome in this case and many other closely contested Supreme Court cases.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines how President Joe Biden has handled his son Hunter Biden’s legal troubles and what it reveals about the President’s character. Professor Sarat argues that throughout Hunter’s struggles, Joe Biden has demonstrated unfailing loyalty, love, and self-restraint—important character traits for a leader—and that voters can be assured of the President’s strong character based on how he has responded to this challenging situation.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses a recent Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the state legislature’s decision to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse survivors to sue their abusers. Professor Griffin argues that this ruling correctly prioritized the rights of abuse survivors over the property rights of defendants, and that it represents an important victory for victims seeking justice, although uncertainty remains regarding the impact of the Archdiocese of New Orleans’ bankruptcy filing on survivors’ ability to have their day in court.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent Illinois state court ruling in Colazzo v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which dealt with the complex issue of ballot access and the application of a new state law that would have prevented certain Republican candidates from appearing on the November 2024 general election ballot. Professor Amar argues that while the court reached the correct result in this case, the reasoning behind the decision raises interesting questions about the independence of state law grounds, the constraints on altering election rules close to an election, and the need to balance fairness and notice concerns with the importance of each election in maintaining democratic integrity.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the potential threat to the U.S. Constitution and rule of law posed by a second Trump presidency, as indicated by the statements and plans of Trump and his allies. Professor Sarat argues that defenders of democracy must take seriously what Trump’s advisors are saying about their intentions to radically transform the constitutional order, and be prepared to resist their efforts to subvert long-established legal norms and principles.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May discusses the oral argument the U.S. Supreme Court heard on April 25, 2024, regarding Donald Trump’s argument that the “January 6” case against him should be barred by presidential immunity. Mr. May argues that while some Justices are concerned about the implications of limiting presidential immunity, Justice Barrett’s approach of distinguishing between official acts done in the national interest and the misuse of presidential power for personal gain is a workable solution that would allow the prosecution of Trump’s actions on January 6 without negatively impacting future presidents making difficult decisions.

Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman and professor Lawrence M. Friedman discuss the tension between donors who place restrictions on their charitable gifts and the organizations that receive those gifts, focusing on the current legal battle involving the Orlando Museum of Art’s attempt to use funds from the Margaret Young trust for purposes other than those specified by the donor. Professors Grossman and Friedman argue that while the law generally favors upholding donor intent, there are situations where courts may allow modifications to the terms of a charitable gift, especially when the original purpose becomes impractical or wasteful over time, and they suggest that donors should be cautious about being too specific in their instructions to avoid such issues.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the reactions of former President Trump and his allies to his conviction in the New York hush money trial, including their claims that the prosecutions against him are politically motivated and their threats to retaliate with prosecutions against Democrats if Trump is re-elected. Professor Sarat argues that these false allegations and threats represent a dangerous escalation in the MAGA campaign to discredit the rule of law and turn criminal prosecution into a tool of political combat, which would undermine fundamental freedoms and allow future presidents to target individuals based on their political views rather than actual crimes committed.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the challenge faced by colleges and universities in accepting donations from wealthy alumni and other benefactors while maintaining academic freedom and independence from ideological influence. Professor Dorf argues that while donors have the right to direct their funds to specific purposes, they should refrain from using their financial leverage to unduly influence hiring decisions or curriculum, as doing so undermines the scholarly and pedagogical judgment that is essential to the success and value of these institutions.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and Peter Rawlings, J.D., discuss the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Leslie v. Starbucks Corp., in which the court vacated a district court’s approval of broad subpoenas served by Starbucks on its employees in a proceeding for temporary injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Professor Estreicher and Mr. Rawlings argue that the Second Circuit’s emphasis on the need for discovery requests to be proportional to the limited inquiry in 10(j) proceedings, as well as its recognition of employees’ confidentiality interests in union organizing activities, may influence how courts evaluate such employer requests in future 10(j) litigation, particularly if the Supreme Court adopts a more stringent standard for granting 10(j) relief in the pending Starbucks v. McKinney case.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May discusses the importance of zealous advocacy in the legal profession, examining what it means to be a zealous advocate, the motivations behind lawyers’ practices, and why zealous advocacy is essential to the justice system. Mr. May argues that while zealous advocacy does not justify unethical conduct, it is a critical component of lawyers’ professional identity and obligations to their clients, and that efforts to eliminate references to zealous advocacy in ethical codes or to prioritize the “public good” over clients’ interests in legal education are misguided.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how California’s Rule of Court 2.1008, which allows individuals aged 70 and older to be excused from jury service due to disability without requiring documentation, may violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights. Professor Amar argues that since jury service is a form of political participation akin to voting, singling out those 70 and older in a way that reduces their jury participation based on assumptions about age and disability is constitutionally problematic, just as it would be to excuse women from juries based on assumptions about their domestic responsibilities.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut discusses Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s refusal to recuse himself from a case involving Donald Trump’s claim of immunity related to the January 6th Capitol riot, despite flags associated with the insurrection being flown at Alito’s properties. Mr. Aftergut argues that Alito’s non-denial denials and failure to condemn the violence on January 6th raise serious questions about the appearance of impropriety and the Court’s legitimacy, suggesting that Alito should recuse himself to maintain public trust in the institution.