UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the scope and original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, particularly in response to a recent executive order issued by President Trump that seeks to limit birthright citizenship. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the executive order (and the few legal scholars who endorse its legal basis) misinterprets the Constitution by imposing parental status requirements that are not present in the text, and they explain that both historical and legal precedent overwhelmingly support the conventional interpretation that all persons born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws are citizens.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams and the legal and ethical implications of potentially using criminal charges as leverage to influence local government policy decisions. Professor Amar argues that if the DOJ dismissed charges as part of a quid pro quo to gain Adams’s cooperation with federal immigration policies, this would constitute an unconstitutional violation of federalism principles by improperly pressuring local officials to act against their constituents’ interests, similar to prohibited practices outlined in Supreme Court cases like New York v. United States and Spallone v. United States.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the surge in federal lawsuits challenging the new Trump administration’s extensive assertions of executive power. Emphasizing the critical role of the judiciary in these times, Professor Amar explains the significance of court rulings, particularly preliminary injunctions, as temporarily halting executive actions to prevent irreparable harm while the legal merits are fully adjudicated, and he highlights the immense pressure on judges to navigate these complex and politically charged constitutional issues.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Supreme Court case FCC v. Consumers’ Research et al., which challenges the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of authority under the nondelegation doctrine. Professor Amar argues that while the nondelegation doctrine has been historically dormant, the case highlights important constitutional considerations about the delegation of legislative authority, specifically the ability to reclaim delegated power, and he urges the Court to address these broader issues if it examines the nondelegation questions in this case.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines Idaho’s proposed legislative “Memorial” rejecting the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage, using it as a lens to explore broader questions about states’ rights to challenge federal authority and Supreme Court decisions. Professor Amar argues that while states have the constitutional right to declare their disagreement with federal actions, attempts to enforce laws contradicting Supreme Court precedent are permissible when the argument for overturning is not frivolous (as with Obergefell), but would be impermissible when such arguments are completely frivolous (as with trying to overturn Brown v. Board of Education).

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision ordering counties not to count undated/misdated mail-in ballots for the November 2024 election, specifically examining the broader implications of courts claiming exclusive authority to interpret constitutionality. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the court’s position that only judges can determine constitutional matters is problematic, as executive officials throughout American history have demonstrated the capacity to make sound constitutional judgments, and a decentralized system of constitutional review by multiple government actors can better protect individual rights.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines whether recent changes to public university campus policies regarding protests and speech, which were largely prompted by Gaza-Israel related demonstrations, can be considered unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Professor Amar argues that while such policy changes may disproportionately affect certain viewpoints in the short term, they are generally legally permissible as long as they are facially neutral, since proving discriminatory intent in free speech cases is particularly challenging and courts have historically upheld similar reactive but neutral regulations in various contexts.

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in Republican National Committee (RNC) v. Wetzel holding invalid, as conflicting with and thus preempted by federal law governing federal elections, a Mississippi statute that permits the counting of ballots that arrive at election offices by mail after Election Day—up…

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allows voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to technical errors to cast provisional ballots in person, and examines the Republican National Committee's subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to block this ruling. Professor Amar argues that the RNC’s appeal lacks merit because it misapplies both the Purcell doctrine (which constrains federal, not state, courts from making last-minute election changes) and the Supreme Court’s Moore v. Harper decision, which actually supports states’ authority to interpret their own election laws through various governmental processes, including state courts.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze a recent election-related lawsuit filed in Michigan federal court, critiquing the legal arguments and the court’s handling of the case in the context of federal jurisdiction principles. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the lawsuit clearly lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction and should have been promptly dismissed, highlighting this case as an example of poor lawyering and judicial oversight that is unnecessarily complicating the legal landscape ahead of the upcoming election.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the legal arguments surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s attempt to remain on some state ballots for the 2024 presidential election, particularly focusing on the applicability to presidential elections of the Supreme Court’s U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton ruling. Professor Amar argues that invoking the Term Limits case in the context of presidential elections is logically flawed and historically inaccurate, as Article II of the Constitution grants states broad powers in selecting presidential electors, unlike the more restricted state powers in congressional elections addressed in Term Limits.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss a legal challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing the counting of absentee ballots that arrive up to five business days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the law is consistent with federal election statutes and constitutional principles, and that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of “Election Day” is overly narrow and inconsistent with other accepted election practices.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss age-based discrimination in absentee voting laws across eight U.S. states, examining their compatibility with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that these laws, which favor older voters, violate the Amendment's clear prohibition of age discrimination in voting rights and should be challenged in court, criticizing recent circuit court decisions that have failed to properly interpret the Amendment's equality mandate.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Eighth Circuit ruling on Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which seeks to protect gun rights by limiting state cooperation with federal firearm laws. Professor Amar argues that while parts of SAPA are unconstitutional, the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed, particularly in its assertion that a state cannot withdraw enforcement support for federal laws based on its belief that those laws are unconstitutional, and suggests that the case may warrant Supreme Court review.

UC Davis Law professors Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat analyze the antitrust lawsuit filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) against the World Federation of Advertisers and other corporations, examining potential legal barriers to the suit under antitrust law and the First Amendment. Professors Amar and Bhagwat argue that X’s lawsuit faces significant challenges, primarily because the alleged boycott likely falls under First Amendment protection similar to that granted in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, and because forcing advertisers to advertise on X would constitute compelled speech, which is generally prohibited under recent Supreme Court precedents.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States regarding presidential immunity, drawing parallels to the Court’s interpretation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that in both cases, the Court has ignored the original public meaning of the Constitution, compromising the rule of law by allowing government officials to escape accountability for unlawful acts, while noting that the vagueness in the Trump decision may leave room for future refinement of the immunity framework.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of the improper-documents-handling indictment against former President Donald Trump, focusing on Judge Cannon’s interpretation of the Appointments Clause and its implications for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. In this second in a series of columns, Professor Amar argues that Judge Cannon’s ruling is flawed because it fails to consider the broader constitutional context and ignores that the current arrangement with Smith does not meaningfully differ from alternative setups that would be unquestionably constitutional, thus suggesting a need for a more flexible interpretation of the relevant statutes.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago document handling indictment against former President Donald Trump, focusing on the judge’s reasoning regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. Professor Amar argues that Judge Cannon’s ruling is flawed due to her failure to respect the proper role of a district court judge in relation to higher court precedents, particularly the Supreme Court’s Nixon tapes case, and her misunderstanding of the larger constitutional context surrounding special counsel appointments.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the media's coverage of Supreme Court decisions, particularly focusing on the end-of-term rulings and their interpretation by journalists. Professor Amar argues that many prominent media organizations consistently misrepresent the Court’s actions by drawing incorrect conclusions from decisions not to review cases or dismissals, misinterpreting jurisdictional rulings as judgments on the merits, and making unfounded predictions about case outcomes, thus failing to meet basic standards of accuracy in legal reporting.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing common criticisms that the Court has become a partisan, far-right institution aggressively pushing a conservative agenda. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that, contrary to these criticisms, the Court’s decisions in the 2023-24 term have not been consistently conservative or partisan, and that many of the high-profile cases were essentially thrust upon the Court rather than actively sought out, suggesting a more nuanced and less ideologically driven approach than critics claim.