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.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss North Dakota’s recently passed Initiated Measure 1, which prohibits anyone over the age of 81 from serving in or being on the ballot for the U.S. House or Senate. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that Measure 1 violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights, which they contend includes the right to be voted for and hold office, making the measure unconstitutional even if the Supreme Court were to overturn its precedent barring states from adding congressional qualifications beyond those in the Constitution.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent Illinois state court ruling in Colazzo v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which dealt with the complex issue of ballot access and the application of a new state law that would have prevented certain Republican candidates from appearing on the November 2024 general election ballot. Professor Amar argues that while the court reached the correct result in this case, the reasoning behind the decision raises interesting questions about the independence of state law grounds, the constraints on altering election rules close to an election, and the need to balance fairness and notice concerns with the importance of each election in maintaining democratic integrity.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how California’s Rule of Court 2.1008, which allows individuals aged 70 and older to be excused from jury service due to disability without requiring documentation, may violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights. Professor Amar argues that since jury service is a form of political participation akin to voting, singling out those 70 and older in a way that reduces their jury participation based on assumptions about age and disability is constitutionally problematic, just as it would be to excuse women from juries based on assumptions about their domestic responsibilities.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., which upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding scheme, and examines the role of “history and tradition” in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. Professor Amar argues that while relying on post-enactment traditions to interpret the Constitution raises complex questions, especially in the context of originalism, such traditions may be more defensible when determining the scope of individual rights as opposed to structural provisions like separation of powers and federalism.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) funding mechanism, which draws money from the Federal Reserve System rather than yearly congressional appropriations, does not violate the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. Professor Amar argues against the view expressed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that this ruling could turn into a “stunning defeat” for the CFPB due to the Fed’s recent operating deficits, asserting that the Court’s decision merely rejects the Appropriations Clause as a basis to challenge the CFPB’s funding and does not affirmatively rely on that Clause to justify the Bureau’s operations.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the regulation of student protests and encampments on college campuses, particularly focusing on the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring the safety and functioning of the university. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that while peaceful protests should generally be permitted, universities have significant interests—such as preventing physical obstruction, noise pollution, unsanitary conditions, and liability issues—that can justify content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on encampments, even if evenly enforcing such restrictions during tense situations presents challenges.

In this second of a two-part series of columns discussing a recent incident at a North Carolina high school where a student was suspended for using the term “illegal alien” in class, UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone explore how the dispute might be analyzed applying only the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while schools have some authority to regulate disruptive student speech under Tinker and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the student’s suspension here likely violated due process because he lacked clear prior notice that using this term, which appears in Supreme Court opinions and federal statutes, was prohibited.

In this first of a two-part series of columns discussing a recent incident at a North Carolina high school where a student was suspended for using the term “illegal alien” in class, UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone explain the relevant First Amendment case law surrounding student speech in public K-12 schools. Professors Amar and Mazzone suggest that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which allows schools broad authority to regulate student speech that occurs within the curriculum, the school may have been justified in disciplining the student, but they note that there are still some unresolved questions and complexities that they will address in Part II of their analysis.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar offers advice to law students on how to perform well on law school exams. Professor Amar’s main points include the importance of outlining before writing, addressing all major course topics, answering the specific questions asked, allocating time and space wisely, showing one's work, anticipating counterarguments, writing clearly, differentiating between settled and debatable issues, being concise, and proofreading responses.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses two recent incidents at Stanford Law School and the University of Maryland where student protesters disrupted invited speakers, and he explores the legal and constitutional implications of such disruptions. Professor Amar argues that while protesters have a right to express their dissent, they do not have a constitutional right to “shout down” speakers in a way that prevents the speakers from being heard, and that universities can and should adopt content-neutral policies to prevent such disruptions without violating free speech principles.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how the decentralized nature of the U.S. presidential election system allows individual states to have varying rules that can significantly impact the overall outcome, as illustrated by recent examples from Ohio, Nebraska, and the Supreme Court case Texas v. Pennsylvania. Professor Amar argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, which emphasized the need for uniformity in presidential candidate ballot access across states, was not adequately defended by the Justices, as it failed to address why the Constitution permits such consequential disuniformity in election administration among states.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone coment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson holding that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar former President Donald Trump from primary election ballots due to his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol breach. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the Court’s reasoning, primarily based on concerns about nationwide ballot uniformity in presidential elections, is flawed because it fails to properly consider the Constitution’s overall design, which grants states significant autonomy in running presidential elections and selecting electors.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone, and Illinois Law’s First Amendment Clinic director Lena Shapiro examine the legal intricacies and constitutional debates surrounding a federal district court’s dismissal of the Disney Corporation’s lawsuit against Florida officials, in which Disney alleges retaliatory action for Disney’s criticism of Florida laws by changing the governance of the land regulating Disney World. The authors highlight the complexity of First Amendment issues involved, the precedent set by prior cases, and the broader implications for speech regulation and governmental retaliation, suggesting areas for deeper academic exploration.