Verdict

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the constitutional, political, and practical implications of President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Republicans should federally “take over” voting in approximately 15 states for congressional elections. Professor Amar argues that while Congress does have constitutional authority under Article I, Section 4 to regulate federal elections (contrary to many media commentators’ claims), any geographically selective federal takeover would likely violate the Supreme Court’s “equal sovereignty” principle among states, and regardless, such a plan is extremely unlikely to pass Congress due to slim Republican majorities, lack of bipartisan support, and potential hypocrisy given Republican states’ rights principles.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax information by former IRS employee Charles Littlejohn, examining the legal basis and problems with the case. Professor Dorf argues that while the lawsuit has some factual merit, it should be dismissed because the damages claim of $10 billion is fantastical and implausible, Trump himself was responsible for IRS management during the breach, the case likely falls outside the two-year statute of limitations, and it represents an unprecedented and improper attempt by a sitting president to sue his own government for monetary damages.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes a groundbreaking ruling by Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea that redefines executions as part of the judicial process that includes all preparatory steps leading to death, not just the final moment. Professor Sarat argues that this interpretation could reshape how the Fifth and Eighth Amendments apply to capital punishment cases, particularly in situations where botched execution attempts cause prolonged suffering or where states seek to execute someone a second time after a failed attempt.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains why the Trump administration’s highly successful record before the Supreme Court in 2025 is unlikely to be replicated in 2026. Professor Amar argues that the 2025 success was due to the Solicitor General cherry-picking cases where lower courts had overreached, whereas the 2026 docket consists of institutionally necessary, high-stakes cases in which the Administration’s legal arguments are substantively much weaker.

This opinion piece by policing experts Seth W. Stoughton, Ian T. Adams, Geoffrey P. Alpert, Gil Kerlikowske, Maureen Q. McGough, and Jeffrey J. Noble addresses federal immigration enforcement tactics under the Trump administration. The authors argue that the conduct of agencies like ICE and CBP has departed from established norms in policing in a way that has undermined public safety, particularly through fatal shootings. They contend that these actions—marked by poor planning, aggressive field tactics, and a disregard for accountability—are not just unprofessional but dangerously authoritarian, threatening public safety and the legitimacy of policing itself.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May examines systemic ethical misconduct within the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration, focusing on how DOJ leadership has undermined the rule of law and judicial independence. Mr. May argues that federal courts should use their existing authority to issue formal ethical conduct orders at the outset of litigation to enforce accountability and deter misconduct by both government attorneys and their supervisors.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Stanford Law professor emeritus Lawrence M. Friedman discuss a lawsuit filed in North Carolina by Heather Ammel against former U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, invoking the rarely-used tort of “alienation of affections”—a legal claim that allows a spouse to sue a third party for destroying their marriage, which remains valid in only six states. Professors Grossman and Friedman argue that while these “heartbalm” actions were historically designed to protect women from male misbehavior, they have become outdated relics based on antiquated views of marriage, yet the contrast between the traditional plaintiff and the powerful, unconventional defendant highlights ongoing tensions between old legal doctrines and modern social realities, with the outcome potentially signaling whether North Carolina will finally abolish this controversial cause of action.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan Brownstein discuss three recent university cases—involving students and professors at the University of Florida, University of Washington, and UC Davis—where speakers were punished for allegedly “disruptive” speech, focusing on how courts and administrators should evaluate such claims under First Amendment doctrine. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that while concerns about “heckler’s vetoes” are valid, the proper legal standard should focus on whether listeners’ reactions to speech are objectively reasonable. The authors point out that under the relevant precedents, speech that causes reasonable disruption or reasonable perceptions of threat can be regulated, while speech provoking only unreasonable reactions should remain protected.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron reviews retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2025 memoir Life, Law & Liberty, examining his life, career, and legacy as the pivotal “swing vote” on the Court from 1987 to 2018. While Professor Citron expresses admiration for Kennedy as a person and finds the memoir gracefully written, he argues that Kennedy fails to adequately account for his role in shaping the current political and legal landscape and erosion of democracy. Further, Professor Citron suggests that Kennedy’s moderate influence has become irrelevant as his successors have moved the Court sharply rightward, overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade that Kennedy himself helped preserve.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses two Supreme Court cases challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that exclude transgender female athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, focusing on whether such laws constitute unlawful sex or transgender status discrimination. Professor Dorf argues that the states’ defense—claiming the laws don’t discriminate against transgender individuals because the exclusions are based on “biological sex”—is a formalistic maneuver that hides clear discrimination and aims to sidestep substantive legal scrutiny rather than engage with the underlying scientific and constitutional issues.

University of Kentucky, Rosenberg College of Law professor emeritus Alvin Goldman discusses the legality and implications of U.S. actions toward Venezuelan oil assets, especially in light of President Trump’s claims that justify military intervention based on Venezuela’s past nationalization of U.S.-linked oil properties. Professor Goldman argues that Venezuela’s expropriation was legal under international law and did not constitute theft, whereas the U.S.’s threatened military control over Venezuelan oil could itself be considered illegal and potentially an act of theft.

University of South Carolina, Joseph F. Rice School of Law professor Seth W. Stoughton discusses the legal standards and critical factual questions surrounding the use of deadly force by a federal ICE agent in the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, emphasizing the need for a careful and evidence-based evaluation under both constitutional and state law. Professor Stoughton argues that responsible analysis must focus on whether the agent’s conduct created or avoided unnecessary danger, whether a reasonable officer would have perceived an imminent threat, and whether the threat could have been mitigated without resorting to deadly force.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen critique Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, arguing that it fails to address the recent constitutional challenges and the Supreme Court’s role in enabling presidential overreach. The authors contend that Roberts’s report offers a misleadingly sanitized view of the judiciary’s actions, ignores historical lessons from figures like Thomas Paine, and ultimately gaslights the public by omitting the Supreme Court’s complicity in the erosion of democratic norms and the rule of law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the state of clemency in U.S. capital punishment cases during 2025, contrasting a wave of clemency actions in 2024 with a sharp decline the following year under the return of President Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s punitive stance and politicization of clemency discouraged governors from granting mercy and contends that executive leaders should actively use clemency powers to uphold justice and compassion in the face of growing cruelty.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2025 Year End Report, which, though seemingly apolitical on the surface, reflects on the American Revolution and the Constitution to emphasize the value of judicial independence and the evolving meaning of constitutional principles. Professor Dorf argues that while Roberts’s rhetoric aligns with a progressive, non-originalist view of constitutional interpretation akin to that of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court’s recent rulings—including those Roberts has joined—fall short of embodying those ideals, making his words ring hollow without corresponding judicial action.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes California’s new law (SB 627) that bans ICE and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks while interacting with the public, focusing on its legal challenges and broader constitutional implications. Professor Amar argues that SB 627—and a related proposal by gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell to deny driver’s licenses to masked ICE agents—violates well-established constitutional principles protecting federal officers from state interference in the performance of their duties.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat highlights the crucial role played by U.S. federal district judges in 2025 as defenders of constitutional government amid unprecedented political pressure and legal overreach by the executive branch. Professor Sarat argues that these judges have courageously resisted attempts to erode the rule of law, often at personal risk, and calls for greater respect, protection, and support for their judicial independence from both Congress and the Supreme Court.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton addresses the Trump administration’s handling of public health, particularly its promotion of anti-vaccine rhetoric and policy decisions that have led to a resurgence of preventable childhood diseases and deaths. Professor Hamilton argues that by empowering figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and prioritizing parental “rights” over established science, the administration has fostered a reckless and deadly culture that endangers children’s lives.

Leonard Shambon examines whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President broad authority to impose tariffs, with a focus on congressional intent and legislative history as interpreted through the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine. Mr. Shambon argues that both the content and procedural handling of the 1977 bill that became IEEPA show Congress never intended to delegate sweeping tariff powers to the President, as evidenced by the lack of involvement from committees with explicit tariff jurisdiction and the absence of any mention of tariffs in legislative documents and discussions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Department of Justice’s failure to meet the legal deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, criticizing DOJ’s decision to release only a small fraction of the mandated materials and delay full compliance. Professor Sarat argues that this open defiance of congressional law undermines the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances, urging Congress to take assertive action—such as invoking inherent contempt—to preserve its authority and uphold democratic governance.