University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler discusses the federal government's obstruction of Minnesota state investigations into the fatal shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE and CBP officers during Operation Metro Surge. Professor Alschuler examines the legal, jurisdictional, and political dimensions of the conflict and argues that Congress should mandate evidence-sharing and state-federal investigative cooperation—specifically by enacting the Democrats’ demand to “require that evidence is preserved and shared with jurisdictions.” He explains why the Trump administration's refusal to share evidence constitutes a deliberate coverup that, if unchecked, will prevent accountability for what video evidence strongly suggests were unjustified killings.
University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines whether President Donald Trump could face legal consequences—either domestically or internationally—for ordering the U.S. military to kill at least 64 suspected drug traffickers on the high seas without trial, purportedly as part of a broader anti-cartel strategy. Professor Alschuler argues that these killings constitute unlawful acts that violate U.S. and international law, likening them to extrajudicial executions, and concludes that while prosecution is theoretically possible, political and legal obstacles, including questionable legal justifications and potential presidential immunity, make accountability unlikely.
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.
University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler discusses the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in United States v. Rahimi and New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, focusing on their approach to interpreting the Second Amendment through historical analogues. Professor Alschuler argues that the Court’s reliance on irrelevant historical examples while disregarding relevant history is flawed, and that the Bruen standard is neither originalist nor workable, predicting that it will eventually be abandoned in favor of a more flexible approach that allows for some degree of interest balancing in Second Amendment cases.
University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler comments on the split between the Third and Eighth Circuits on the question whether some convicted felons have a constitutional right to bear arms. Professor Alschuler describes the two courts’ decisions, as well as the contradictory language from the U.S. Supreme Court, and suggests that the Court is likely to resolve the question in the coming Term.
In light of Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., which would overrule Roe v. Wade and its progeny, UChicago Law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler and Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence H. Tribe ask six questions of the apparent five-Justice majority. Professors Alschuler and Tribe point out some of the inconsistencies and illogic of the opinion and call on the Justices to account for these issues.