Articles Posted in Constitutional Law

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s ongoing de facto moratorium on executions and the broader implications for the future of the death penalty in both Ohio and the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Ohio’s inability to procure lethal injection drugs, combined with public opposition, racial disparities, financial inefficiencies, and declining crime rates, demonstrates that the state—and potentially the nation—can function without capital punishment, signaling a possible shift toward abolition.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the surge in federal lawsuits challenging the new Trump administration’s extensive assertions of executive power. Emphasizing the critical role of the judiciary in these times, Professor Amar explains the significance of court rulings, particularly preliminary injunctions, as temporarily halting executive actions to prevent irreparable harm while the legal merits are fully adjudicated, and he highlights the immense pressure on judges to navigate these complex and politically charged constitutional issues.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent execution of Marion Bowman in South Carolina, focusing on his case and the broader cruelties inherent in the American capital punishment system. Professor Sarat argues that Bowman’s case exemplifies multiple systemic issues in death penalty cases, including the treatment of those claiming innocence, the coercive nature of plea deals, inadequate legal defense, and the psychological torture of death row conditions, particularly during the final months before execution.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the paradoxical status of the death penalty in California, highlighting its high number of death row inmates and new sentences despite a moratorium on executions and a progressive stance. Professor Sarat contrasts this with Texas’s declining death penalty numbers, emphasizing the complex political landscape in California where local prosecutors and public opinion continue to support capital punishment, creating challenges for abolitionists trying to effect change.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines Idaho’s proposed legislative “Memorial” rejecting the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage, using it as a lens to explore broader questions about states’ rights to challenge federal authority and Supreme Court decisions. Professor Amar argues that while states have the constitutional right to declare their disagreement with federal actions, attempts to enforce laws contradicting Supreme Court precedent are permissible when the argument for overturning is not frivolous (as with Obergefell), but would be impermissible when such arguments are completely frivolous (as with trying to overturn Brown v. Board of Education).

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Biden’s recent recognition of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and examines its potential legal implications across various contexts, including abortion rights, transgender rights, and broader sex discrimination cases. While Professor Dorf argues that the ERA’s inclusion in the Constitution may not significantly affect abortion rights due to existing Supreme Court precedent, he contends it could meaningfully influence transgender rights cases, serve as a safeguard against future rollbacks of sex discrimination protections, and hold important symbolic value in repudiating historical patriarchal assumptions in the Constitution.

Touro Law professor Rodger D. Citron examines five different aspects of presidential pardon power in the context of recent actions by Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump, including traditional uses (family pardons, crony pardons, and criminal justice policy) as well as two novel developments: Trump’s campaign-related pardons for January 6 defendants and Biden’s preemptive pardons to protect individuals from potential political retribution. Professor Citron argues that Trump’s use of pardons as campaign promises and Biden’s responsive use of preemptive pardons represent significant departures from historical norms, highlighting how the pardon power has become increasingly weaponized in contemporary politics.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Joe Biden’s issuance of preemptive pardons to various public figures including January 6 Committee members, General Mark Milley, and Dr. Anthony Fauci in anticipation of potential persecution under Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Professor Sarat argues that while these pardons are unprecedented in being used as protection against a successor president, they are legally sound and represent a justified response to genuine threats of political persecution rather than, as some critics suggest, an undermining of democratic norms.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines two influential articles by recently deceased Columbia Law professor Henry P. Monaghan, focusing on Monaghan’s work regarding constitutional precedent versus originalism and his critique of viewing the Constitution as “perfect.” Professor Dorf argues that while today’s conservative Supreme Court supermajority might appear to align with Monaghan’s views, they actually contradict his core principles by selectively overturning precedents and finding constitutional justification for their preferred policies, demonstrating precisely the kind of constitutional interpretation that Monaghan criticized.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines recent death penalty statistics and trends in the United States, drawing from the Death Penalty Information Center’s 2024 Annual Report and Death Penalty Census, as well as academic research spanning several decades. Professor Sarat argues that capital punishment should be abolished nationwide, citing the dramatic decline in death sentences since the 1990s, the extremely low rate of sentences actually resulting in executions (15.7%), and the high rate of reversals due to serious errors, all of which suggest the system is ineffective and not worth maintaining.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses various contenders for the “worst legal decision of 2024,” including Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity and controversial death penalty cases, before ultimately focusing on Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. Professor Sarat argues that the Gaetz nomination was the year’s worst legal decision because it demonstrated Trump’s contempt for the rule of law and signaled his intention to transform the Justice Department into a personal defense operation based on loyalty rather than legal principles, even after Gaetz’s withdrawal and replacement by Pam Bondi.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the evolving stance on capital punishment in the United States, specifically critiquing President Joe Biden’s decision to commute the sentences of some federal death row inmates but exclude high-profile offenders like Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and Robert Bowers. Professor Sarat argues that this exclusion missed an opportunity to catalyze a national conversation on abolishing the death penalty entirely, asserting that current societal and legal trends make it feasible to advocate for clemency even in extreme cases without jeopardizing abolitionist progress.

University of Chicago Law School professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden, analyzing three aspects of the pardon: preventing future prosecution, setting aside convictions, and eliminating potential prison sentences. Professor Alschuler argues that while blocking future prosecution was justified given the threat of political persecution, and limiting Hunter’s sentence could be defended despite breaking a promise, completely erasing his convictions was unjustifiable.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the upcoming execution of Joseph Corcoran in Indiana, who has voluntarily dropped his appeals, and examines the broader phenomenon of death row “volunteers” in the American justice system. Professor Sarat argues that courts should never allow inmates to volunteer for execution, not only due to questions of mental competency but also because it violates fundamental principles of natural law and inalienable rights as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, making it fundamentally un-American.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses emergency powers in various constitutional systems, including South Korea, India, and the United States. Professor Dorf argues that while emergency powers can serve legitimate purposes during genuine crises, they risk abuse by leaders, and ultimately constitutional provisions alone cannot prevent such abuse—rather, the protection of democracy depends on the commitment of people and institutions to uphold the rule of law.

Leading experts at an NYU webinar discussed three major constitutional challenges to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in light of recent Supreme Court decisions: restrictions on presidential removal of Board members, the status of administrative law judges, and potential jury trial requirements. While panelists predicted the Supreme Court may be reluctant to completely invalidate the NLRB's structure, they acknowledged growing judicial skepticism toward administrative agency independence, with potential implications for labor relations and administrative governance more broadly.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines Christian Nationalism and the Napa Legal Institute's Faith and Freedom Index, exploring how they relate to religious liberty, extreme religious liberty, and theocracy in America. Professor Hamilton argues that Christian Nationalism and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) represent dangerous departures from traditional First Amendment religious liberty protections, as they enable religious groups to discriminate against others and violate neutral laws while potentially paving the way for an intolerant Christian theocracy.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler analyzes potential changes to military inclusion policies under an imminent Trump administration, specifically examining proposed rollbacks of “woke” policies regarding women in combat roles and LGBTQIA+ service members, while exploring the legal and constitutional framework around such changes. Professor Wexler argues that while there are few legal barriers to reversing current inclusive policies, alternative approaches like gender-neutral fitness testing could address stated operational concerns without requiring complete exclusion of these groups.

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.