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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent surge of anti-Semitic violence in the United States, using the March 2026 attack on a Michigan synagogue as a launching point for a broader historical and political argument. Professor Sarat contends that attacks on Jews threaten America’s democratic foundations—not just its Jewish community—and that the Trump administration has failed to respond meaningfully while cynically weaponizing anti-Semitism concerns for political ends.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses California’s ongoing practice of forced prison labor, examining its legal foundations, recent failed efforts to abolish it through ballot measure and legislation, and the low wages and lack of workplace protections afforded to incarcerated workers. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Gavin Newsom should use his executive authority to direct the Department of Corrections to stop punishing inmates who refuse to work, as a meaningful step toward ending what is best characterized as a constitutionally sanctioned form of slavery incompatible with California’s self-described progressive values.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Harvard University, which seeks to compel the production of detailed, individual-level admissions and student performance data. Professor Sarat argues that the administration uses this litigation as a pretext for a “racial shaming campaign” intended to stigmatize people of color and weaponize data to serve a divisive political agenda.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal court ruling blocking the Trump administration’s transfer of Biden-commuted death row inmates to a federal supermax prison, examining the constitutional and procedural issues surrounding that action. Professor Sarat argues that the court was right to intervene, because the administration violated due process by bypassing individualized assessment procedures to pursue a predetermined punitive outcome, and that upholding constitutional protections for even the most heinous offenders is essential to preserving the rule of law and human dignity.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explains how a federal judge’s decision in the Luigi Mangione case exemplifies the Trump administration’s broader failures to reinstate and pursue the federal death penalty. Professor Sarat argues that political motivations, procedural missteps, and disregard for legal standards have caused multiple courts to block capital prosecutions, undermining the administration’s aggressive death penalty agenda.

Amherst professors Ruxandra Paul and Austin Sarat discuss the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization and its push to make vaccinations optional, arguing these actions undermine public health infrastructure both domestically and globally. Professors Paul and Sarat contend that the administration’s “America First” approach, which prioritizes individual autonomy over collective health measures and uses U.S. withdrawal as leverage for political aims, will leave Americans and the world more vulnerable to disease outbreaks and reverse decades of public health progress.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes a groundbreaking ruling by Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea that redefines executions as part of the judicial process that includes all preparatory steps leading to death, not just the final moment. Professor Sarat argues that this interpretation could reshape how the Fifth and Eighth Amendments apply to capital punishment cases, particularly in situations where botched execution attempts cause prolonged suffering or where states seek to execute someone a second time after a failed attempt.

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.