Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to administer the oath of office to Adelita Grijalva, a duly elected representative from Arizona, and examines the constitutional and legal implications, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack. Professor Dorf argues that Johnson’s actions appear to be a politically motivated and constitutionally baseless effort to block Grijalva from voting—potentially on the Epstein files discharge petition—and reflects a broader disregard for democratic norms and the rule of law.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Bowe v. United States, which raises the question of whether limits on successive habeas petitions for state prisoners also apply to federal prisoners and whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear such a case. Professor Dorf argues that while some legal scholars invoke the theory that certain review functions are essential to the Supreme Court’s constitutional role, that argument has limitations, and the Court may instead use the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to uphold its jurisdiction without definitively resolving the scope of its essential functions.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explores whether law firms that settled with the Trump administration by agreeing to provide free services to the government violated the Antideficiency Act, which bars unauthorized voluntary services to federal agencies. Professor Dorf argues that these services are not truly voluntary, as they were made under coercive executive orders, and thus the law firms did not violate the Act—but instead, it is President Trump who broke the law by issuing unconstitutional orders targeting political enemies.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines recent interviews with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor, focusing primarily on Barrett’s CBS interview and both Justices’ comments on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the concept of constitutional crisis. Professor Dorf argues that while both Justices attempted to assure the public of the Court’s collegiality and transparency, Justice Barrett in particular revealed troubling contradictions, confusion about fundamental rights, and a lack of urgency in confronting the authoritarian threats posed by the Trump administration.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the FDA’s new limited approval of reformulated COVID-19 vaccines under the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which restricts access mainly to vulnerable populations and requires off-label prescriptions for others. Professor Dorf argues that this policy reflects RFK Jr.’s selective and anti-establishment brand of libertarianism that distrusts scientific expertise, ultimately resulting in dangerous public health outcomes by prioritizing unproven treatments like Ivermectin over evidence-based vaccines.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the legality of the Trump administration’s deals with Nvidia and AMD, which require the companies to pay 15% of AI chip sales made to China to the U.S. government, evaluating whether these payments constitute unconstitutional export taxes. Professor Dorf argues that although the payments function as export taxes—which are barred by the Constitution—the companies are unlikely to challenge them due to fears of political retaliation and economic consequences from the administration.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Alan Dershowitz’s threat to sue a pierogi vendor who refused to serve him over political disagreements, using the incident to explore whether laws should prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on political affiliation. Professor Dorf argues that while such discrimination is currently legal in most jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, and rarely occurs, creating laws against it could be both unnecessary and costly, and might conflict with First Amendment protections.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines President Trump’s threats to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over Powell’s refusal to lower interest rates amid economic uncertainty from Trump’s own policies, including tax cuts, immigration enforcement, and tariffs. Professor Dorf argues that Powell’s cautious approach is justified given the unpredictable economic impacts of Trump's policies, and explores the legal ambiguity around whether Trump can lawfully remove Powell, ultimately suggesting that market forces rather than legal constraints may be the main deterrent to such action.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the most recent Supreme Court term, arguing that while it lacked the blockbuster decisions of previous years, it revealed the Roberts Court’s deeply conservative nature and troubling approach to the Trump administration. Professor Dorf argues that the conservative supermajority either fails to recognize or actively shares Trump’s authoritarian goals, treating him like a normal president and facilitating his attacks on the rule of law rather than confronting the unprecedented threat he poses to constitutional democracy.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti upholding Tennessee’s SB1 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Professor Dorf analyzes the Court’s rejection of arguments that the law discriminates based on sex or transgender status and argues that while the Court’s opinion avoided overtly offensive rhetoric, it problematically sanitized anti-transgender legislation by treating it as legitimate medical regulation rather than acknowledging the discriminatory animus behind laws that explicitly aim to make minors “appreciate their sex” assigned at birth.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques President Donald Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system, positioning it as a modern sequel to Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” initiative, and evaluates its flaws in light of current technological and geopolitical realities. Professor Dorf argues that despite advancements since the 1980s, missile defense remains ineffective and dangerous, as it cannot reliably prevent nuclear catastrophe and may actually increase the risk of nuclear war by encouraging adversaries to consider first strikes.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument on whether lower federal courts can issue universal injunctions, using as context the Trump administration’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants. Professor Dorf argues that while the Court may focus on the procedural issue of universal injunctions, it has a duty to strongly reject the Trump administration’s constitutionally unfounded attack on the Fourteenth Amendment and safeguard effective judicial remedies against executive overreach.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the judicial philosophy and legacy of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, contrasting him with ideologically driven judges and situating his approach within the traditional conservative lineage of Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan. Professor Dorf argues that, despite being criticized by conservatives, Souter embodied a principled, restrained, and thoughtful conservatism that emphasized judicial humility and methodological integrity—qualities lacking in today’s ideologically rigid judiciary.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf evaluates the constitutional and legal abuses committed by Donald Trump during his second term as president, based on a New York Times survey of 35 legal scholars. Professor Dorf argues that Trump’s actions, which include undermining judicial authority, dismantling federal institutions, and enforcing loyalty over law, threaten to transform the United States from a flawed constitutional democracy into an autocratic kleptocracy.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf critiques the Trump administration’s tariff policies and broader economic strategy, arguing that they are misguided in the face of rapidly advancing technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). Professor Dorf contends that instead of clinging to outdated protectionist policies, U.S. leadership should focus on preparing for the disruptive impact of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial super intelligence (ASI) on employment and productivity, a challenge for which Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines recent calls by President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and their allies in Congress to remove or sideline federal judges who have blocked Trump administration policies, either through impeachment or by eliminating the courts themselves. Professor Dorf argues that such tactics are constitutionally dubious and dangerously undermine judicial independence, warning that the real threat to the republic comes not from the judges, but from efforts to evade legal checks on presidential power.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Trump administration’s apparent disregard for judicial authority, focusing on its defiance of a court order prohibiting the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations and its broader pattern of legal manipulation. Professor Dorf argues that even if technical compliance with court rulings is maintained, the administration’s deceptive tactics and overt hostility toward judicial oversight severely undermine the rule of law and pose a grave threat to American constitutional democracy.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent symposium on constitutional law casebooks, highlighting the challenges of teaching constitutional law at a time when the Trump administration and the Supreme Court are reshaping legal precedents. Professor Dorf argues that while these changes present difficulties, it remains essential to teach established legal principles and encourage students to critically engage with unresolved legal questions, including, in some cases, through the use of rhetorical questions in casebooks.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf compares the Trump administration’s recent efforts to interfere in a federal corruption case to Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” highlighting the resignations of principled conservative prosecutors who refused to comply. Professor Dorf argues that while Trump’s actions align with the unitary executive theory favored by some conservatives, the real issue is his disregard for longstanding legal norms that prosecutors should act based on law and facts rather than political influence.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the actions taken by Donald Trump shortly after his inauguration, focusing on his disregard for democratic norms and the potential legal violations involved, particularly highlighting the removal of security details from political adversaries like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Anthony Fauci. Professor Dorf argues that these decisions reflect Trump’s vengeful and autocratic tendencies, likening his behavior to that of a dictator or crime boss, and warning of the broader implications for democratic governance and personal safety of those perceived as his enemies.
