Verdict

Texas Law professor Jeffrey Abramson comments on the trial of disgraced mogul Harvey Weinstein, in which the jury has been deliberating since December 2 without reaching a verdict. Professor Abramson suggests that the jury may simply be working its way through the five weeks of testimony, and the only takeaway from the amount of time it is taking is that the justice system is working.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explains the options available to the U.S. Supreme Court as it considers 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which presents a clash between a Colorado law forbidding places of public accommodation from discriminating based on sexual orientation and a conservative Christian web designer’s objection to creating material that, she says, tacitly expresses approval of same-sex marriage. Professor Dorf points out that the Court could conclude that the case does not implicate free speech at all, but instead it will almost surely rule against Colorado, which could pose a potentially existential threat to anti-discrimination law.

Attorney Jon May discusses what offenses former President Donald Trump is likely to be charged with, and why the government may fail to convict him for any of those offenses. Specifically, Mr. May addresses the issues with each of the three statutes listed on the search warrant authorizing the search of Mar-a-Lago.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization American law’s worst moment of the year. Professor Sarat describes several other runners-up but explains why the Dobbs ultimately earns that distinction.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and California civil litigator Michael Schaps respond to the apparent view of a Georgia trial court judge that the current Supreme Court cannot retroactively affect the previous status (existence/non-existence) of a constitutional right found by a previous Court. Dean Amar and Mr. Schaps point out the flaws of this view and the absurd outcomes it would lead to if taken to its logical extension.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on a Missouri capital case in which both the defense lawyer and a special prosecutor appointed to review the case agree that unconstitutional racial bias played a crucial role in the handling of the case. Professor Sarat points out that such agreement is very unusual and that it thus falls to the Missouri Supreme Court to halt the execution so that the issues they have raised can be thoroughly investigated, or else allow the execution to go forward in a move that is perilously close to the state supreme court acquiescing in a lynching.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explains the scope and limits of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), which would codify a federal right to same-sex marriage. Professor Dorf argues that while the RMA cannot guarantee marriage equality for the long run, for now, it seems like a sensible hedge against an increasingly reactionary Supreme Court.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar continues his discussion of why the “Independent State Legislature” theory is incorrect and counter to the original understanding of the Constitution. Dean Amar points to four key errors the Petitioners in Moore v. Harper make in their filings with the Supreme Court and argues that some of their omissions demonstrate just how non-originalist their theory really is.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on a recent report by National Public Radio (NPR) that the more people know about the death penalty, the less they support its use. Professor Sarat points out that people closely involved with executions tend to change their opinions to oppose capital punishment due to a “profound sense of shame or guilt” that they experience.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut describes how unsuccessful Arizona governor candidate Kari Lake is following Donald Trump’s script for election denialism. Mr. Aftergut describes the four steps former President Trump followed in his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election and predicts that courts will reject Kari Lake’s attempts to do the same.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether the outcome of last week’s election should cause him to revise his description of the United States as a “dead democracy walking.” He argues that while things do look slightly better, the odds are still incredibly long against our survival as a constitutional republic.

Attorney Jon May predicts that within the next six months, former President Donald Trump will be indicted for violating the Espionage Act arising from his possession of classified documents after he left the White House. Mr. May describes some of the challenges that potentially classified evidence poses for both Trump’s defense and for the prosecution.

Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence H. Tribe comments on a decision by a federal judge in Texas vacating the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness program. Professor Tribe argues that Judge Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee, incorrectly concluded that the court had jurisdiction to review the challenge to the debt relief program and explains why judicial restraint is such a critical part of a constitutional republic.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explains how the Supreme Court that Donald Trump refashioned paradoxically prompted Americans to reassert the values of democracy. Professor Sarat points out that the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminating the constitutional right to abortion was one of the driving factors behind the large numbers of Americans voting in the midterm election.

In this first of a two-part series of columns about the reality and threat of political violence in the United States, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan assesses the current political situation and its implications for the immediate future. Professor Buchanan argues that, with respect to the long-term threat of political violence, the Republicans’ surprisingly narrow victory might not be the silver lining that liberals and progressives have been celebrating since Tuesday evening.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut describes three pieces of news from Tuesday’s elections that Americans who value the Constitution should celebrate. Specifically, Mr. Aftergut highlights the defeat of key state gubernatorial election deniers, the continued confirmation of federal court judges, and the affirmation by voters of their faith in the evidence-based work that courts do.

In this first of a two-part series of columns about the reality and threat of political violence in the United States, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explores the possibility that the US government will become an authoritarian, violent oppressor over the long term.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar explains what Moore v. Harper, the case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear in December involving the so-called “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory, tells us about principled originalism. Specifically, Dean Amar argues that to embrace ISL theory would mean flouting George Washington, the first Congress, and the makers of all the early post-ratification state constitutions (to say nothing of the Americans who adopted the Constitution against the backdrop of the Articles of Confederation’s apparent meaning)—indeed the very antithesis of originalism.

Touro Law professors Laura Dooley and Rodger Citron discuss a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a state statute authorizing the exercise of general personal jurisdiction over corporations registered to do business in the state. Professors Dooley and Citron argue that the Court will almost certainly declare the state statute violates the due process rights of the defendant corporation, and they explore why that outcome is such a foregone conclusion.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why voters should not expect Republicans to do a better job than Democrats handling inflation and the broader economy, and in fact will likely permanently weaken the U.S. economy and the U.S. as an actor on the world stage. Professor Dorf describes why the current Republicans are different from those in the past, and why they pose a unique threat of holding the entire global economy hostage unless Congress enacts and the President signs their radically conservative agenda into law.