Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen critique Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, arguing that it fails to address the recent constitutional challenges and the Supreme Court’s role in enabling presidential overreach. The authors contend that Roberts’s report offers a misleadingly sanitized view of the judiciary’s actions, ignores historical lessons from figures like Thomas Paine, and ultimately gaslights the public by omitting the Supreme Court’s complicity in the erosion of democratic norms and the rule of law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the state of clemency in U.S. capital punishment cases during 2025, contrasting a wave of clemency actions in 2024 with a sharp decline the following year under the return of President Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s punitive stance and politicization of clemency discouraged governors from granting mercy and contends that executive leaders should actively use clemency powers to uphold justice and compassion in the face of growing cruelty.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat highlights the crucial role played by U.S. federal district judges in 2025 as defenders of constitutional government amid unprecedented political pressure and legal overreach by the executive branch. Professor Sarat argues that these judges have courageously resisted attempts to erode the rule of law, often at personal risk, and calls for greater respect, protection, and support for their judicial independence from both Congress and the Supreme Court.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Department of Justice’s failure to meet the legal deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, criticizing DOJ’s decision to release only a small fraction of the mandated materials and delay full compliance. Professor Sarat argues that this open defiance of congressional law undermines the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances, urging Congress to take assertive action—such as invoking inherent contempt—to preserve its authority and uphold democratic governance.

In this annual “worst legal decision,” column, Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the tenure of Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2025, arguing that her leadership has marked a dramatic erosion of the Justice Department’s independence and integrity by subjugating it to President Trump's political agenda. Professor Sarat argues that Bondi has transformed the DOJ into a partisan tool for retribution, abandoning constitutional principles and echoing the abuses of the pre-Watergate era, making her the year’s worst legal decision(maker).

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s recent statements calling Somalis “garbage” and expressing his desire to remove them from the United States, situating these remarks within the context of ethnic cleansing as defined by international human rights frameworks. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s rhetoric—combined with concrete actions like deploying ICE agents to target Somalis in Minnesota—comes dangerously close to advocating ethnic cleansing, fundamentally contradicts America’s founding ideals as a nation defined by shared political values rather than ethnicity, and represents an attack on American identity itself.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Steve Kramer critique the long-standing legal doctrine of “litigation privilege,” which protects lawyers from civil liability for statements made during legal proceedings, even if those statements are false or malicious. Professor Sarat and Mr. Kramer argue that in light of recent ethical breaches by attorneys involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it is time to eliminate this privilege to uphold integrity and truthfulness within the legal profession.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical and contemporary use of the firing squad as a method of execution in the United States, which is currently rare but authorized in a few states, including South Carolina, which recently executed Stephen Bryant using this method. Professor Sarat argues that execution by firing squad is a brutal, cold-blooded killing that is not a humane method of capital punishment and reflects a problematic, violent history, thus lessening society as a whole.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores how the pervasive presence of war, violence, and graphic content—especially through social media—has shaped the mental health and worldview of the current generation of college students. Professor Sarat argues that educators must acknowledge these traumatic influences and develop strategies to help young people navigate a world filled with conflict, despair, and cynicism in order to cultivate resilience, critical thinking, and hope.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat uses a controversial Little League legal case to explore the broader topic of justice, its role in democratic societies, and its limitations when pursued without balance. Professor Sarat argues that while seeking justice is vital, it must be guided by prudence and proportionality, cautioning against an overzealous, justice-obsessed culture that reacts to every wrong with litigation.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the use of nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution, particularly in Alabama, where it has resulted in prolonged, painful deaths that contradict claims of a humane alternative to previous execution methods. Professor Sarat argues that nitrogen hypoxia, like earlier methods, has failed to provide a foolproof or ethical solution and calls for the abolition of capital punishment altogether, emphasizing the psychological and physical torture it inflicts and questioning what such practices say about the values of American society.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to stay Robert Roberson’s execution and send his case back to trial court to reconsider the now-discredited shaken baby syndrome diagnosis that led to his conviction. Professor Sarat argues that while the court’s intervention is a positive step, it falls short by ignoring other critical issues in Roberson’s case—such as his undiagnosed autism, poor legal representation, and evidence pointing to his daughter’s death from natural causes—thus failing to address the full scope of the miscarriage of justice.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Donald Trump’s repeated denial of any connection to Project 2025 during his campaign, despite extensive evidence that its policy goals are being actively implemented now in his second term. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s deception about Project 2025 was deliberate and consequential, revealing his broader authoritarian ambitions and marking one of the most impactful political lies in modern American history.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s current efforts to pressure major law firms and corporations, including Microsoft, to punish individuals he considers personal enemies—often through actions resembling unconstitutional “bills of attainder” that impose penalties without due process. Professor Sarat argues that while big businesses and their leaders possess the influence to resist these authoritarian tactics, they have largely remained silent out of fear, self-interest, or moral weakness, thereby failing to uphold democratic values.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the shift in American political culture, focusing on a moment at Charlie Kirk’s memorial where President Trump publicly embraced hatred for his opponents, contrasting it with calls for forgiveness and unity. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s unapologetic hatred not only erodes the moral and democratic foundations of the presidency but also threatens to make animosity and division the norm in American society.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Steve Kramer reflect on the national implications of the public reaction to activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, examining how his death underscores deep social and political divisions, especially in the age of social media. The authors argue that widespread online polarization and knee-jerk reactions are threatening democratic norms, and they urge Americans to pause, reflect, and reclaim empathy and civic responsibility to prevent further societal decline.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Trump’s efforts to unilaterally alter federal election rules through executive orders, including mandates on voter ID and restrictions on mail-in voting, despite constitutional limits on presidential authority. Professor Sarat argues that these actions not only violate the Constitution’s allocation of election oversight to Congress and the states but also reflect a partisan attempt by Trump to influence the outcome of the 2026 congressional elections.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines a recent lawsuit in Arkansas challenging a new law, Act 302, which gives the state's Department of Corrections unchecked discretion to choose between execution by lethal injection or nitrogen hypoxia, without timely notice or legislative guidance. Professor Sarat argues that this vague delegation of power is unconstitutional, violates due process and separation of powers, and adds unnecessary psychological cruelty to death row inmates by keeping them uninformed about how they will be executed.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the importance of competency in death penalty cases, focusing on whether individuals like Ralph Menzies—who suffer from dementia and cannot comprehend their punishment—should be eligible for execution. Professor Sarat argues that executing cognitively impaired individuals violates the core purpose of punishment as a form of moral accountability, and calls for shifting the legal burden onto the state to prove competency in such cases to prevent unjust and inhumane executions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Delaware’s historic efforts to constitutionally ban the death penalty, positioning the state to become one of the few U.S. jurisdictions with an explicit constitutional prohibition against capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that to ensure lasting abolition, death penalty opponents across the country should pursue constitutional amendments rather than rely on statutes or court rulings, which are more susceptible to reversal.