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.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan Brownstein explore the long-standing and increasingly pressing conflict within First Amendment jurisprudence between the Free Exercise Clause, which often justifies special accommodation for religious expression, and the Free Speech Clause, which prohibits viewpoint discrimination by the government. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that recent federal policies privileging religious expression—particularly in political and workplace contexts—risk violating core free speech principles by distorting democratic processes and creating inequities between religious and secular voices, a dilemma the Supreme Court can no longer avoid addressing.
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…
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.
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.
Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent emergency-docket rulings that, without explanation, allow the Trump administration to remove independent agency officials, potentially dismantling key regulatory bodies, while disregarding a foundational 1935 precedent supporting the autonomy of such agencies. Professor Schwinn argues that by acting without transparency or justification, the Court undermines the constitutional balance of powers, weakens congressional authority, and damages its own legitimacy and credibility.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards, focusing particularly on the 2024-25 Term. Professor Amar argues that the Court’s rushed handling of emergency cases produces weaker opinions and undermines judicial legitimacy, and he critically observes that the Court is selectively choosing when to definitively resolve merits in cases with incomplete factual records, as demonstrated by contrasting approaches in cases like United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Trump v. CASA.
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.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron examines whether Americans should be concerned about the prospect of secession in today’s politically polarized climate, compiling perspectives from several law professors on the viability and implications of states or regions leaving the United States. While most experts agree that traditional state secession is practically impossible due to political divisions existing within rather than between states, the discussion of secession remains valuable for understanding political theory, and some forms of “soft secession” (like sanctuary cities and nullification movements) may already be occurring. Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions have fundamentally altered the constitutional order in ways that could theoretically enable secession.
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.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the importance of applying constitutional principles consistently across different political contexts, using examples from free speech, federalism, and equal protection cases. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that constitutional interpretation should follow a “Golden Rule” principle—applying the same legal standards regardless of whether the outcome favors one’s own political preferences—though they acknowledge this is difficult because it requires people to subordinate their substantive desires for the sake of even-handed constitutional application.
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.
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.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Tennessee’s new policy of imposing a two-week isolation period and a 12-hour communication blackout on death row inmates prior to execution, framing it within broader concerns about the harsh conditions of death row in the U.S. Professor Sarat argues that these practices are unnecessarily cruel, serve no legitimate purpose, and should be ended either by state action or judicial intervention.
Illinois Law professor Matthew W. Finkin draws a detailed historical comparison between Donald Trump’s 2025 actions as U.S. president and key elements of the Nazi regime’s early consolidation of power, highlighting parallels in civil service purges, governmental structure, legal subordination, and ideological control. Professor Finkin argues that Trump’s efforts to reshape American institutions through loyalty tests, executive overreach, and propaganda echo dangerous authoritarian patterns, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for a similar “seizure of power” unless checked by the judiciary and public resistance.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate efforts to end a parole program for migrants from four countries, focusing on legal standards for granting a stay and the broader constitutional and policy implications of executive immigration authority. Professor Amar argues that the federal government does indeed suffer irreparable harm when prevented from enforcing duly enacted laws and policies, and criticizes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent for undervaluing these harms and overlooking legal precedent and practical consequences.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent comments dismissing the judiciary’s role in checking executive power, situating the discussion within the broader context of constitutional law education at Yale Law School. Professor Sarat argues that Vance’s remarks reflect not legal ignorance but a deliberate rejection of established constitutional principles, particularly judicial oversight, in favor of a nationalist ideology concerned with limiting immigration based on cultural and racial preferences.
UC Davis professor emeritus Alan Brownstein discusses America’s historical embrace of diversity, especially in the military, through the lens of Woody Guthrie’s song honoring the multiethnic sailors lost on the U.S.S. Reuben James in 1941. Professor Brownstein argues that America’s diverse heritage has long been a source of strength and unity, and warns against dismissing this legacy as merely “woke” ideology, urging continued recognition and respect for the nation’s pluralism.
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.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat calls for an end to the longstanding ritual of collecting and publicizing the final statements of death row inmates, spotlighting the recent execution of Glen Rogers in Florida and his unusual last words referencing Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that these last words are often performative, feed public morbid curiosity, and serve to legitimize the death penalty by giving the illusion of dignity and humanity to an inherently inhumane practice.
