Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Georgia’s planned execution of Stacey Humphreys and the related lawsuit by Appen Media Group challenging the state’s secrecy rules for lethal-injection procedures, while placing that dispute in the broader national fight over execution secrecy. Professor Sarat argues that Georgia’s restrictions are constitutionally and normatively unjustified because they give the state too much unchecked control over what the press can observe, and that the court should grant access to ensure transparency and accountability.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent resurgence of capital punishment in the United States, examining rising execution numbers, shifting public opinion, and the pro-death-penalty influence of the Trump administration. Professor Sarat argues that abolitionists must urgently adapt their messaging and political strategies to counter these developments and prevent further erosion of the movement's progress.

Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s refusal to appeal a federal court decision striking down National Firearms Act regulations, framing the move as part of a broader pattern of selective non-enforcement. Professor Sarat argues that routinely abandoning and refusing to defend disfavored laws violates the executive’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law and fundamentally threatens the separation of powers.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California staying a lower court injunction against an executive order that involves the Postal Service in regulating mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Professor Sarat contends that the ruling abandons the Court’s established Purcell principle, needlessly injecting chaos into the upcoming election and undermining democratic integrity by favoring executive overreach.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s expanding use of arrest threats and criminal prosecutions against state and local officials to enforce federal immigration and election policies. Professor Sarat argues that this strategy marks a dangerous shift toward autocracy, weaponizing federal law enforcement to intimidate political opponents and coerce compliance when judicial avenues fail.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a lawsuit by two Idaho death row inmates challenging the secretive, unexplained process behind the state’s newly adopted execution protocol, which grants officials broad discretion to deviate from procedures at will. Professor Sarat argues that such vague protocols undermine accountability when executions go wrong, and urges Idaho courts to resist the troubling trend of relaxing administrative law norms whenever the death penalty is at stake.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the parallels between Iran’s aggressive use of capital punishment—including record execution numbers, hangings, and executions for drug offenses—and President Trump’s own enthusiasm for expanding and intensifying the death penalty in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s fixation on capital punishment reflects an authoritarian impulse akin to Iran’s use of executions as a tool of control and intimidation, and warns that while global trends favor abolition, the U.S. under Trump risks moving in the opposite, regressive direction.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses King Charles’s recent posthumous conditional pardon of Ruth Ellis—the last woman hanged in the UK—situating it within the history of British royal posthumous clemency, including the cases of Timothy Evans, Alan Turing, and Derek Bentley. Professor Sarat argues that while Ellis’s pardon rightly acknowledges the injustice of her trial and sentence (given the domestic abuse she suffered), it falls short of true mercy because, unlike Evans and Turing who received full pardons, Ellis was merely left with a commuted “life sentence” that offers no meaningful redress beyond recognizing what she already deserved.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Pennsylvania’s anomalous status as the only Northeastern state retaining the death penalty despite a de facto execution moratorium, examining the system’s documented flaws—wrongful convictions, racial disparities, geographic inconsistency, and inadequate indigent defense—alongside Governor Josh Shapiro’s public shift toward abolition. Professor Sarat argues that Pennsylvania should abolish capital punishment and that Shapiro, having already refused to sign execution warrants, should use his remaining time in office to press the legislature toward abolition and pursue commutations for those on death row, despite the steep procedural and political obstacles to both paths.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump on capital punishment, set against the backdrop of the Justice Department’s April 2026 announcement to restart and expand federal executions. Professor Sarat argues that the Pope’s moral condemnation of the death penalty as an affront to human dignity—offered without anger or political calculation—exposes the cruelty underlying the Trump administration’s embrace of capital punishment and should reinvigorate the abolition movement in the United States.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision to leave in place an injunction blocking Alabama’s execution of Jeffery Lee by nitrogen hypoxia—the first time the Court has ever obstructed a state’s chosen execution method—and places that decision in the broader context of the Court’s strong pro-capital-punishment record. Professor Sarat argues that while the ruling did not resolve the underlying Eighth Amendment question, it is nonetheless historically significant, as it signals a potential crack in the Court’s near-uniform deference to states on execution methods, particularly given disturbing evidence that nitrogen hypoxia causes severe suffering rather than the painless death its proponents claimed.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal district court ruling permitting Alabama to execute Jeffrey Lee via nitrogen hypoxia despite the judge’s own findings that the method causes severe suffering, examining the decision’s constitutional implications and the broader erosion of Eighth Amendment protections. Professor Sarat argues that Judge Marks’s originalist interpretation effectively nullifies the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by limiting its scope to methods the Founders would have recognized as barbaric, rather than applying the “evolving standards of decency” framework the clause requires to remain meaningful.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Israel's recently passed legislation creating a dedicated military tribunal to prosecute approximately 400 Hamas militants for their roles in the October 7, 2023 attacks, examining the law through the lens of philosophers Hannah Arendt and Martha Minow. Professor Sarat argues that the tribunal risks becoming a politically motivated show trial that undermines fair trial guarantees and, rather than advancing justice or security, pulls Israel away from the difficult but necessary path between vengeance and reconciliation.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines two recent Trump administration actions—the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and a DOJ settlement granting the president and his family immunity from tax enforcement—arguing that both are unconstitutional and morally indefensible. Professor Sarat argues that the tax immunity arrangement amounts to an unconstitutional self-pardon by proxy, while the Anti-Weaponization Fund violates the First Amendment, equal protection, separation of powers, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit prohibition on compensating insurrectionists. He further argues that courts and the public must resist both actions before Trump normalizes using governmental power for personal benefit.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Department of Justice’s decision to seek the death penalty for Elias Rodriguez following his 2025 antisemitic murders at the Capital Jewish Museum. Professor Sarat argues that American Jews should oppose the execution because capital punishment contradicts the Jewish values of “repairing the world,” violates long-standing rabbinical skepticism toward state-sanctioned killing, and denies the fundamental human right to make moral amends.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical prominence and systemic flaws of capital punishment in Texas as the state nears its 600th execution since 1977. Professor Sarat argues that Texas’s continued practice of executing intellectually disabled and mentally ill individuals defies constitutional standards and highlights an urgent need for political leaders to abolish the death penalty.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a Justice Department motion to lift an injunction against the construction of Donald Trump’s White House ballroom, noting that the filing adopts the inflammatory and legally irrelevant rhetoric of President Trump’s social media posts. Professor Sarat argues that the lawyers involved violated their ethical obligations and federal procedural rules by submitting such a frivolous document and urges the court to impose sanctions to protect the rule of law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Tony Carruthers, a Tennessee death row inmate scheduled for execution despite significant evidence of innocence and severe procedural failures at trial. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Bill Lee should exercise his clemency power to spare Carruthers’ life, contending that the case exemplifies the systemic failings that make executive clemency a critical but underused safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Israel’s newly passed death penalty law for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis, situating it within broader historical, ethical, and international legal contexts. Professor Sarat argues that the law is a serious mistake—unnecessary, discriminatory, inconsistent with Israel’s own founding principles, and contrary to the country's potential to serve as a democratic and moral example in the region.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Trump administration’s legal battle against several prominent law firms targeted by executive orders, following the administration’s erratic appellate strategy through the D.C. Circuit. Professor Sarat argues that the executive orders constitute clear First Amendment retaliation, that the administration’s legal claims are meritless, and that its portrayal of the president as a free-speech victim is both legally untenable and absurd.