UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the federal district court’s rulings on Judge James R. Brown’s lawsuit against Illinois Supreme Court Justices who terminated his recall appointment allegedly in retaliation for partisan public statements. While Professors Amar and Mazzone find the court’s bottom-line decisions to abstain and deny a preliminary injunction defensible, they argue the court’s reasoning was seriously flawed—particularly its cursory abstention analysis, its logically inverted First Amendment irreparable-harm rationale, and its mistaken treatment of a stay as functionally equivalent to a dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

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 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 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 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 and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the procedural and constitutional issues surrounding mootness in the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law barring transgender women from participating in women’s collegiate sports. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, to voluntarily dismiss her case after she ceased athletic participation, and they contend that the case is clearly moot under Article III, urging higher courts to recognize this and vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision accordingly.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Supreme Court case Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which addresses whether a candidate has Article III standing to challenge state laws on ballot counting. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that a candidate likely has standing to challenge election regulations because they have an inherent interest in the clarity of election rules, even if they cannot prove the regulation would change the election's outcome, and they emphasize that resolving these issues is crucial for electoral legitimacy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine whether the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law restricting women’s sports teams to biological females, has become moot after plaintiff Lindsay Hecox withdrew from sports participation and sought to dismiss her case with prejudice. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that despite defendants’ claims of litigation gamesmanship, the Court should find the case moot and vacate the lower court’s decision under the Munsingwear doctrine, because Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement cannot be overridden by concerns about strategic behavior when vacatur adequately addresses the risk of an unreviewable precedent remaining in effect.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine President Trump’s executive order instructing the Department of Justice to prioritize prosecuting flag burning under existing content-neutral laws and considers the constitutional implications under First Amendment jurisprudence. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while the executive order nominally adheres to constitutional constraints, it potentially raises serious free speech concerns by targeting specific expressive conduct—flag desecration—for prosecution based on its political message, and exposes the lack of clarity and consistency in the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrine.

As most folks paying attention this year appreciate, President Donald Trump has been issuing Executive Orders that, taken as a whole, seem unprecedented in their number, scope, and constitutional aggressiveness. Federal courts, in which the lion’s share of the legal challenges to these Orders have been filed, have been playing catch up in this regulatory-blitzkrieg…

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the constitutional principles governing federal-state relations in the context of recent immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, specifically addressing what states can and cannot do regarding federal immigration operations, and what powers the federal government retains. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while states cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement (following the anti-commandeering doctrine), they also cannot discriminate against or obstruct federal operations, and the President has inherent constitutional authority to deploy federal forces to protect federal personnel and property without requiring state permission.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Wilcox regarding presidential authority to remove federal agency officials, focusing particularly on Justice Kagan’s dissent that criticized President Trump for “taking the law into his own hands” by attempting to fire NLRB and MSPB members despite existing legal protections. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that Justice Kagan’s criticism is misplaced because presidents, as coordinate branch officials rather than subordinate courts, should be permitted to act contrary to statutes they believe unconstitutionally constrain executive power—especially since such presidential “disobedience” is sometimes necessary to bring constitutional questions before the Supreme Court for resolution. They point out that Justice Kagan herself has previously supported executive defiance of congressional statutes in other separation-of-powers cases.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, focusing not just on the order’s constitutionality but also on the procedural question of whether “universal” injunctions or nationwide class actions are the better tool for challenging federal policies. Professors Amar and Mazzone contend that class actions offer a fairer and more practical alternative, providing enforceable relief, reducing strategic litigation abuse, and avoiding the legal uncertainties that surround non-party protection under universal injunctions.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge’s federal lawsuit seeking protection from disciplinary action for refusing to perform same-sex marriages based on religious beliefs. In this second of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors argue that judges who perform marriages act as state actors and therefore must adhere to the constitutional mandates of equality and due process. They further explain that allowing religious-based discrimination in such roles undermines the core principles established in Obergefell v. Hodges and related equal protection jurisprudence.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge who challenged potential disciplinary action for conducting only opposite-sex weddings based on religious beliefs. In this first of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors focus on the threshold justiciability matters presented in the case, arguing that it serves as a valuable teaching tool for understanding overlapping legal doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and abstention. The authors critique the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning on enforcement threat assessments and point out doctrinal confusion surrounding facial versus as-applied constitutional challenges.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the legal and ethical implications of recent executive orders from the White House targeting law firms for their past work opposing the administration, and they discuss the resulting fragmentation within the legal profession over how to respond. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while individual law firms may face practical incentives to capitulate, coordinated resistance would be both more effective and legally protected under the First Amendment based on analogous Supreme Court precedents on collective political action and petitioning the government.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone address the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to rehear a case challenging a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days. Professors Amar and Mazzone explore the broader implications of that decision—especially in light of a recent Executive Order by President Donald Trump that adopts a strict interpretation of federal “Election Day” laws. The authors argue the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed, that longstanding state practices allowing some flexibility in ballot receipt are legally and constitutionally sound, and that both the court’s ruling and the Executive Order reflect an overly rigid and potentially partisan approach that should ultimately be reviewed and corrected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

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 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.

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…