UC Davis Law professor emeritus Alan Brownstein and professor Vikram David Amar survey recent examples of overt government religious speech—at both the federal and state levels—to examine the constitutional principles underlying Establishment Clause limits on such speech. Professors Brownstein and Amar argue that government religious speech is constitutionally impermissible because it usurps individuals’ authority over their own faith, coerces religious conformity, favors some religions over others, and distorts the marketplace of ideas in ways only a robust Establishment Clause can offset.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Virginia Attorney General’s emergency application for the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a state supreme court ruling that invalidated a redistricting-related constitutional amendment. Professor Amar argues that the challenge will fail because the state court’s decision rests on an independent interpretation of the Virginia Constitution and constitutes a routine exercise of judicial review that warrants deference under Moore v. Harper.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” in light of recent criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the release of historical internal memos regarding the 2016 EPA Clean Power Plan. Professor Amar argues that while some common criticisms of the Court’s emergency-relief practices are inconsistent or misguided, the Court should enhance its legitimacy by adopting more robust procedures, such as requiring expedited briefing and providing transparent, reasoned explanations for its decisions.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the federal lawsuit brought by former Illinois judge James Brown against the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court following his removal from a temporary recall appointment. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while judicial immunity likely bars the plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages, the case presents complex, unresolved questions regarding the application of First Amendment speech protections to judicial appointments and the extent to which states may manage their own judiciaries.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the California legislature’s attempt to salvage its law restricting federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks by introducing SB 1004 to achieve legal parity between state and federal agents. Professor Amar argues that this effort is performative and legally futile because the statute constitutes an unconstitutional direct regulation of federal operations under the Supremacy Clause, regardless of whether it is applied evenhandedly.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the legal challenges facing President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order directing federal agencies and states to cross-check voter lists against a federal citizenship registry to prevent non-citizen mail-in voting. Professor Amar argues the order rests on shaky constitutional footing because the Constitution assigns voter qualification authority to states rather than the President, the executive order’s primary statutory basis (18 U.S.C. § 611) has never been closely scrutinized and may not survive it, and several provisions exceed federal power even under the most favorable reading of existing law.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Ninth Circuit oral argument in United States v. California regarding SB 805, a state statute requiring all law enforcement officers—including federal agents—to wear identification on their uniforms. Professor Amar argues that the law violates the Supremacy Clause as an unauthorized direct regulation of federal sovereign functions and asserts that courts should focus on the lack of federal assent rather than the perceived burden or generality of the state mandate.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the future of the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, particularly focusing on debates among the Justices about its constitutional basis and scope for limiting executive power. Professor Amar and Mazzone argue in favor of Justice Gorsuch’s robust, constitutionally grounded approach to the MQD as an essential safeguard against the unchecked accumulation of presidential authority, and urge the Court to more firmly adopt this interpretation to preserve the balance of powers.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a federal district court ruling that preliminarily upheld California’s SB 805, which requires ICE officers to display visible identification, while blocking a related masking prohibition law (SB 627). Professor Amar argues that Judge Christina Snyder’s decision fundamentally misunderstands the constitutional distinction between “direct” and “indirect” state regulation of federal activities, contending that both California laws directly regulate federal employees performing their job duties and should therefore be invalidated under the Supremacy Clause absent explicit federal consent, regardless of any “functional” analysis of actual harm to federal operations.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen, non-permanent resident parents, and the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara challenging its validity. Professor Amar and Mazzone argue the executive order is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and also unlawful under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which explicitly codifies birthright citizenship based on birth within U.S. territory, regardless of parents’ immigration status.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Illinois Bivens Act, a new state law aiming to provide state-law remedies for constitutional violations by federal officials, particularly in civil immigration enforcement, and situates it as an innovative experiment within the broader tradition of federalism and converse-1983 legal theory. While Professors Amar and Mazzone commend the law as a promising and necessary response to the erosion of federal remedies like Bivens actions, they argue that the Act is flawed in its scope—both too narrow (retaining qualified immunity and limited to immigration) and too broad (imposing liability under the Illinois Constitution and authorizing punitive damages)—and ultimately hope it sparks more refined versions in other states.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Orr, which granted the federal government a stay to allow the use of birth-assigned sex on passports during ongoing litigation, and critiques the broader procedural and substantive patterns the Court exhibits in such interim-relief (“shadow docket”) cases. Professor Amar argues that while the Court majority should provide fuller explanations even in emergency rulings, the liberal dissenters are strategically and analytically misguided in avoiding arguments about the constitutional merits, which are increasingly central to determining outcomes in these cases.