Verdict

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the societal tendency toward punitive rigidity in the face of criminal conduct, contrasting our current “unforgiving society” with the need for a more compassionate approach. Professor Margulies argues that by shifting our focus from merely asking what a person did to understanding the complex life circumstances that led to their actions, we can move toward a more humanizing justice system that recognizes the potential for atonement and shared humanity.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the federal lawsuit brought by former Illinois judge James Brown against the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court following his removal from a temporary recall appointment. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while judicial immunity likely bars the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages, the case presents complex, unresolved questions regarding the application of First Amendment speech protections to judicial appointments and the extent to which states may manage their own judiciaries.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the California legislature’s attempt to salvage its law restricting federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks by introducing SB 1004 to achieve legal parity between state and federal agents. Professor Amar argues that this effort is performative and legally futile because the statute constitutes an unconstitutional direct regulation of federal operations under the Supremacy Clause, regardless of whether it is applied evenhandedly.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines Donald Trump’s public projection of himself as a messianic figure, contextualizing this behavior within his interactions with other global leaders and religious authorities. Professor Hamilton argues that the American religious right is responsible for fostering Trump’s dangerous messiah complex and urges them to reckon with the authoritarian monster they have helped create.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which applied strict scrutiny to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban as applied to a licensed talk therapist, including the strategic reasoning that led Justices Kagan and Sotomayor to join the conservative majority. Professor Dorf argues that neither the limiting principles the Court articulated nor Justice Kagan's concurrence provide coherent guidance, leaving professional regulation—especially of lawyers—dangerously exposed to First Amendment challenges.

Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan recounts his three-year experience emigrating through the Netherlands, Canada, and Ireland before returning to the United States. Professor Buchanan suggests that while the impulse to leave the US is understandable, expatriation is far more logistically grueling, expensive, and isolating than most people anticipate—and explains that these practical realities, rather than any resolution of the political concerns that drove him abroad, were central to his decision to return.

Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb discusses the sanctioning of attorney Richard Trahant for allegedly violating a protective order in the Archdiocese of New Orleans bankruptcy case, examining the tension between litigation confidentiality rules and child safety in institutional sexual abuse cases. Ms. Robb argues that broadly interpreted protective orders in such cases can function as instruments of institutional secrecy that endanger children, and she calls for narrowly tailored exceptions that prioritize child safety and align with mandatory reporting policies.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Israel’s newly passed death penalty law for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis, situating it within broader historical, ethical, and international legal contexts. Professor Sarat argues that the law is a serious mistake—unnecessary, discriminatory, inconsistent with Israel’s own founding principles, and contrary to the country's potential to serve as a democratic and moral example in the region.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the legal challenges facing President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order directing federal agencies and states to cross-check voter lists against a federal citizenship registry to prevent non-citizen mail-in voting. Professor Amar argues the order rests on shaky constitutional footing because the Constitution assigns voter qualification authority to states rather than the President, the executive order’s primary statutory basis (18 U.S.C. § 611) has never been closely scrutinized and may not survive it, and several provisions exceed federal power even under the most favorable reading of existing law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Trump administration’s legal battle against several prominent law firms targeted by executive orders, following the administration’s erratic appellate strategy through the D.C. Circuit. Professor Sarat argues that the executive orders constitute clear First Amendment retaliation, that the administration’s legal claims are meritless, and that its portrayal of the president as a free-speech victim is both legally untenable and absurd.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent surge of anti-Semitic violence in the United States, using the March 2026 attack on a Michigan synagogue as a launching point for a broader historical and political argument. Professor Sarat contends that attacks on Jews threaten America’s democratic foundations—not just its Jewish community—and that the Trump administration has failed to respond meaningfully while cynically weaponizing anti-Semitism concerns for political ends.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the constitutional and policy dimensions of Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, examining both the legal merits and the broader arguments for and against jus soli citizenship. Professor Dorf argues that the executive order is clearly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, that the policy case for restricting birthright citizenship is empirically weak and practically disruptive, and that the real motivation driving the effort is racist “replacement” ideology rather than any legitimate demographic or governance concern.

David S. Kemp analyzes the first federal court ruling on AI and attorney-client privilege, United States v. Heppner, examining the court’s reasoning across each element of the privilege test and the work product doctrine. Mr. Kemp argues that while the court reached the correct result on two independent and sufficient grounds, its unnecessary confidentiality analysis was methodologically flawed—treating Anthropic’s broadest contractual reserved rights as dispositive without examining the specific terms, product tier, or training preferences that actually governed Heppner’s use. He warns that this overbroad reasoning, rather than the uncontroversial holdings, is what future courts will most likely cite, with potentially damaging consequences for privilege claims in any professional context involving third-party platforms.

Samuel Estreicher discusses the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Brown-Forman Corp. v. NLRB, which declined to enforce a Board bargaining order because the order rested on the NLRB’s 2023 Cemex ruling rather than the established Gissel standard, raising questions about the lawful use of adjudication to create new agency policy. Professor Estreicher argues that while the Sixth Circuit was right to flag procedural concerns about Cemex, its reasoning is flawed and insufficiently engages with the substantive merits of the Cemex standard—though he also notes that Cemex itself went too far by failing to adequately account for employees’ interest in deciding union representation through secret-ballot elections.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines the Trump administration’s promotion of Christian Nationalism across multiple domains—the White House, the military, and Congress—and its corresponding erosion of church-state separation, particularly in the context of Trump’s war with Iran. Professor Hamilton argues that this government alignment with a specific evangelical Christian agenda violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, distorts American religious history, and has created a political permission structure for unconstitutional attacks on Muslims and other religious minorities.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s notorious dissent in Olympus Spa v. Andretti—a Ninth Circuit case involving the constitutionality of applying Washington State’s transgender-inclusive public accommodations law to a women-only spa. Dorf argues that VanDyke’s opening phrase “swinging dicks” was not merely gratuitous and attention-seeking (in contrast to cases like Cohen v. California, where the use of profanity was justified), but reflected genuine anti-transgender bigotry that disqualifies it as legitimate judicial discourse and vindicates the ABA’s earlier finding that VanDyke was unfit for the bench.

UC Davis Law professor Irene Joe and restorative justice specialist Jeremiah Mungo examine how ABA advertising restrictions and the absence of meaningful credentialing standards leave criminal defendants—particularly those who can afford private counsel—with little reliable information for choosing a defense attorney, forcing them to rely almost entirely on informal word of mouth. Drawing on Mr. Mungo’s personal experience hiring a private attorney who was later disbarred, Professor Joe and Mr. Mungo argue that modest reforms such as voluntary specialist certification programs, tiered qualification requirements, and publicly available attorney experience data could establish a quality floor in the criminal defense market without dismantling legitimate concerns about lawyer advertising.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses California’s ongoing practice of forced prison labor, examining its legal foundations, recent failed efforts to abolish it through ballot measure and legislation, and the low wages and lack of workplace protections afforded to incarcerated workers. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Gavin Newsom should use his executive authority to direct the Department of Corrections to stop punishing inmates who refuse to work, as a meaningful step toward ending what is best characterized as a constitutionally sanctioned form of slavery incompatible with California’s self-described progressive values.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin examines the Rhode Island Attorney General’s sweeping report on clergy sexual abuse within the Diocese of Providence, including the diocese’s history of concealment and the AG’s reform recommendations. Professor Griffin argues that the report confirms decades of institutional cover-up and endorses the AG’s calls for stronger laws, expanded statutes of limitations, and greater diocesan accountability.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Ninth Circuit oral argument in United States v. California regarding SB 805, a state statute requiring all law enforcement officers—including federal agents—to wear identification on their uniforms. Professor Amar argues that the law violates the Supremacy Clause as an unauthorized direct regulation of federal sovereign functions and asserts that courts should focus on the lack of federal assent rather than the perceived burden or generality of the state mandate.