Verdict

Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb reflects on the moral and ethical demands Christmas places on American Christians, particularly in how its message of compassion, humility, and dignity applies to society’s treatment of the sick, migrants, political discourse, and children. Ms. Robb argues that truly honoring the spirit of Christ’s teachings requires rejecting cruelty and indifference and embracing a deeper, character-driven commitment to kindness and justice beyond political or religious affiliation.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques President Trump's proposal to issue rebate checks funded by tariff revenue, focusing on its legality, economic impact, and policy implications. Professor Dorf argues that while such payments could be legal if authorized by Congress, the plan is economically unsound and politically harmful because it risks increasing inflation, adds to the deficit, and reinforces damaging tariff policies.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the anticipated release of the Jeffrey Epstein files under the Epstein Transparency Act and the Trump administration’s expected efforts to limit disclosure, set against the broader context of society’s evolving response to child sex abuse cover-ups. Professor Hamilton argues that despite attempts to suppress the truth, a powerful cultural shift toward justice for survivors and public demand for accountability will ultimately defeat the efforts to protect powerful abusers and enablers.

University of Kentucky, Rosenberg College of Law professor emeritus Alvin Goldman examines the constitutional authority over the tenure and independence of federal administrative agency officials, arguing that it lies with Congress rather than the President, despite modern claims rooted in the unitary executive theory. Professor Goldman argues that the Constitution’s text, structure, and underlying principles support congressional control to prevent presidential overreach, and warns that a Supreme Court shift in favor of increased executive power could endanger the legitimacy and stability of the administrative state.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses two Supreme Court cases involving presidential authority—one concerning tariff powers under the IEEPA and the other regarding limits on the president’s ability to remove FTC commissioners—and highlights a shared constitutional issue: how the structure of presidential veto power creates an imbalance that makes it difficult for Congress to reclaim delegated authority. Professor Amar argues that because of this “retrieval problem,” courts should be wary of upholding broad statutory delegations of power to the president and should consider invalidating entire statutes, rather than only unconstitutional provisions, to preserve the constitutional balance between branches.

In this annual “worst legal decision,” column, Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the tenure of Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2025, arguing that her leadership has marked a dramatic erosion of the Justice Department’s independence and integrity by subjugating it to President Trump's political agenda. Professor Sarat argues that Bondi has transformed the DOJ into a partisan tool for retribution, abandoning constitutional principles and echoing the abuses of the pre-Watergate era, making her the year’s worst legal decision(maker).

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan Brownstein explore the constitutional complexities of enacting buffer zones around houses of worship to regulate expressive activity, particularly in light of recent events in New York and longstanding First Amendment jurisprudence. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that while such buffer zones may be lawful under specific, narrowly tailored conditions, their constitutionality ultimately depends on avoiding viewpoint discrimination and satisfying exacting legal scrutiny, especially given the distinct expressive role of religious institutions in public discourse.

In a recent episode of the Touro Law Review podcast, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron speaks with attorney and debut novelist Victor Suthammanont about his journey from drama student to legal professional, and how both fields inform his exploration of truth. Their conversation delves into the themes of Suthammanont’s novel Hollow Spaces, the limits and purpose of the trial system, and the ongoing role of law in serving the public good.

Akshai Vikram, a JD candidate at Columbia Law School, examines how President Donald Trump’s second administration has expanded executive power in controversial ways, prompting growing bipartisan concern and calls for Congress to reclaim authority and protect civil liberties. Mr. Vikram argues that Congress must not only roll back specific statutes that enable executive overreach but also strengthen judicial remedies for rights violations and reform doctrines like qualified immunity, state secrets, and judicial injunctions to restore constitutional balance.

Hofstra Law professor James Sample examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions on partisan redistricting, particularly in Texas, and the broader implications of these rulings on representative democracy and election integrity across the country. Professor Sample argues that the Court’s inconsistent and politically skewed interventions—exemplified by its tolerance of racially discriminatory maps and its manipulation of timelines—have enabled partisan gerrymandering, undermined judicial credibility, and created structural chaos in American electoral processes.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) to reinstate Texas’s new redistricting map, despite a lower court’s finding that it was likely an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Professor Dorf argues that the Court unjustifiably presumed good faith on the part of Texas legislators, ignoring strong evidence of racial motivations, and thereby undermining judicial scrutiny of racially discriminatory practices under the guise of partisan neutrality.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s recent statements calling Somalis “garbage” and expressing his desire to remove them from the United States, situating these remarks within the context of ethnic cleansing as defined by international human rights frameworks. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s rhetoric—combined with concrete actions like deploying ICE agents to target Somalis in Minnesota—comes dangerously close to advocating ethnic cleansing, fundamentally contradicts America’s founding ideals as a nation defined by shared political values rather than ethnicity, and represents an attack on American identity itself.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the documentary Nuns vs. the Vatican, which exposes the systemic sexual and spiritual abuse of nuns by Catholic clergy, particularly focusing on Jesuit priest Marco Rupnik, and the Church’s longstanding failure to address such abuses. Professor Griffin argues that the Catholic Church has deliberately hidden and protected abusive priests, prioritizing its reputation over justice, and calls for legal intervention and public accountability in response to these crimes.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Steve Kramer critique the long-standing legal doctrine of “litigation privilege,” which protects lawyers from civil liability for statements made during legal proceedings, even if those statements are false or malicious. Professor Sarat and Mr. Kramer argue that in light of recent ethical breaches by attorneys involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it is time to eliminate this privilege to uphold integrity and truthfulness within the legal profession.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent federal court ruling that reinstated Preston Damsky, an openly antisemitic law student expelled from the University of Florida, in a case that raises complex legal questions about how public universities navigate First Amendment protections against disruptive or threatening student speech. Professor Amar argues that while Damsky’s speech may be constitutionally protected, the judge’s reasoning was flawed in both legal doctrine and logic, and that the university’s disciplinary decision may ultimately be upheld under free speech standards that take into account educational disruption and reasonable fears of violence.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical and contemporary use of the firing squad as a method of execution in the United States, which is currently rare but authorized in a few states, including South Carolina, which recently executed Stephen Bryant using this method. Professor Sarat argues that execution by firing squad is a brutal, cold-blooded killing that is not a humane method of capital punishment and reflects a problematic, violent history, thus lessening society as a whole.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the implementation of the Trump administration’s transgender military service ban, focusing on recent litigation, the Department of Defense’s discharge procedures, and the implications for equal protection claims. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the Pentagon’s unique and restrictive discharge process for transgender service members—particularly its denial of consideration of prior service and its uniform policies—reflects prejudice and animus, potentially strengthening constitutional challenges while also signaling a broader return to commander-centric military justice.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explores the legality and implications of prosecutors repeatedly presenting the same charges to multiple grand juries, in the context of the weak and potentially politically motivated prosecution of James Comey. Professor Dorf argues that the current legal framework undermines the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause by allowing endless prosecutorial attempts to secure an indictment, and urges the Supreme Court to limit such practices unless new evidence is discovered, in order to preserve the grand jury’s function as a safeguard against governmental abuse.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar critiques a federal district court ruling upholding New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA), which limits civil arrests by ICE near court proceedings, framing it as a significant constitutional conflict between state law and federal immigration enforcement. Professor Amar argues that Judge D’Agostino’s ruling misunderstands basic constitutional principles—especially the Supremacy Clause—and wrongly treats regulation of federal agents as a permissible exercise of state sovereignty, making the decision likely to be overturned on appeal.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the memoir Nobody’s Girl by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, which chronicles her life of repeated sexual abuse—beginning in childhood and continuing through her exploitation by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their powerful associates—and highlights the systemic failures that allowed her abuse to go unchecked. Professor Griffin emphasizes that Giuffre’s story demands accountability from enablers and abusers alike, calling for greater empathy for survivors, the abolition of statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, and long-overdue legal justice in cases of systemic exploitation and cover-up.