Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Biden’s recent recognition of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution and examines its potential legal implications across various contexts, including abortion rights, transgender rights, and broader sex discrimination cases. While Professor Dorf argues that the ERA’s inclusion in the Constitution may not significantly affect abortion rights due to existing Supreme Court precedent, he contends it could meaningfully influence transgender rights cases, serve as a safeguard against future rollbacks of sex discrimination protections, and hold important symbolic value in repudiating historical patriarchal assumptions in the Constitution.

Touro Law professor Rodger D. Citron examines five different aspects of presidential pardon power in the context of recent actions by Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump, including traditional uses (family pardons, crony pardons, and criminal justice policy) as well as two novel developments: Trump’s campaign-related pardons for January 6 defendants and Biden’s preemptive pardons to protect individuals from potential political retribution. Professor Citron argues that Trump’s use of pardons as campaign promises and Biden’s responsive use of preemptive pardons represent significant departures from historical norms, highlighting how the pardon power has become increasingly weaponized in contemporary politics.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Joe Biden’s issuance of preemptive pardons to various public figures including January 6 Committee members, General Mark Milley, and Dr. Anthony Fauci in anticipation of potential persecution under Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Professor Sarat argues that while these pardons are unprecedented in being used as protection against a successor president, they are legally sound and represent a justified response to genuine threats of political persecution rather than, as some critics suggest, an undermining of democratic norms.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines two influential articles by recently deceased Columbia Law professor Henry P. Monaghan, focusing on Monaghan’s work regarding constitutional precedent versus originalism and his critique of viewing the Constitution as “perfect.” Professor Dorf argues that while today’s conservative Supreme Court supermajority might appear to align with Monaghan’s views, they actually contradict his core principles by selectively overturning precedents and finding constitutional justification for their preferred policies, demonstrating precisely the kind of constitutional interpretation that Monaghan criticized.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines recent death penalty statistics and trends in the United States, drawing from the Death Penalty Information Center’s 2024 Annual Report and Death Penalty Census, as well as academic research spanning several decades. Professor Sarat argues that capital punishment should be abolished nationwide, citing the dramatic decline in death sentences since the 1990s, the extremely low rate of sentences actually resulting in executions (15.7%), and the high rate of reversals due to serious errors, all of which suggest the system is ineffective and not worth maintaining.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses various contenders for the “worst legal decision of 2024,” including Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity and controversial death penalty cases, before ultimately focusing on Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. Professor Sarat argues that the Gaetz nomination was the year’s worst legal decision because it demonstrated Trump’s contempt for the rule of law and signaled his intention to transform the Justice Department into a personal defense operation based on loyalty rather than legal principles, even after Gaetz’s withdrawal and replacement by Pam Bondi.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the evolving stance on capital punishment in the United States, specifically critiquing President Joe Biden’s decision to commute the sentences of some federal death row inmates but exclude high-profile offenders like Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and Robert Bowers. Professor Sarat argues that this exclusion missed an opportunity to catalyze a national conversation on abolishing the death penalty entirely, asserting that current societal and legal trends make it feasible to advocate for clemency even in extreme cases without jeopardizing abolitionist progress.

University of Chicago Law School professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter Biden, analyzing three aspects of the pardon: preventing future prosecution, setting aside convictions, and eliminating potential prison sentences. Professor Alschuler argues that while blocking future prosecution was justified given the threat of political persecution, and limiting Hunter’s sentence could be defended despite breaking a promise, completely erasing his convictions was unjustifiable.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the upcoming execution of Joseph Corcoran in Indiana, who has voluntarily dropped his appeals, and examines the broader phenomenon of death row “volunteers” in the American justice system. Professor Sarat argues that courts should never allow inmates to volunteer for execution, not only due to questions of mental competency but also because it violates fundamental principles of natural law and inalienable rights as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, making it fundamentally un-American.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses emergency powers in various constitutional systems, including South Korea, India, and the United States. Professor Dorf argues that while emergency powers can serve legitimate purposes during genuine crises, they risk abuse by leaders, and ultimately constitutional provisions alone cannot prevent such abuse—rather, the protection of democracy depends on the commitment of people and institutions to uphold the rule of law.

Leading experts at an NYU webinar discussed three major constitutional challenges to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in light of recent Supreme Court decisions: restrictions on presidential removal of Board members, the status of administrative law judges, and potential jury trial requirements. While panelists predicted the Supreme Court may be reluctant to completely invalidate the NLRB's structure, they acknowledged growing judicial skepticism toward administrative agency independence, with potential implications for labor relations and administrative governance more broadly.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines Christian Nationalism and the Napa Legal Institute's Faith and Freedom Index, exploring how they relate to religious liberty, extreme religious liberty, and theocracy in America. Professor Hamilton argues that Christian Nationalism and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) represent dangerous departures from traditional First Amendment religious liberty protections, as they enable religious groups to discriminate against others and violate neutral laws while potentially paving the way for an intolerant Christian theocracy.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler analyzes potential changes to military inclusion policies under an imminent Trump administration, specifically examining proposed rollbacks of “woke” policies regarding women in combat roles and LGBTQIA+ service members, while exploring the legal and constitutional framework around such changes. Professor Wexler argues that while there are few legal barriers to reversing current inclusive policies, alternative approaches like gender-neutral fitness testing could address stated operational concerns without requiring complete exclusion of these groups.

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.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent federal case in which a court struck down Louisiana’s law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms based on the 1980 Supreme Court precedent Stone v. Graham, and the subsequent partial stay of that ruling by the Fifth Circuit. Professor Dorf argues that while the district judge correctly followed the still-binding Stone precedent, the disagreement among lower courts reflects broader uncertainty in an era where the current Supreme Court is willing to overturn long-standing precedents, making it increasingly difficult for lower courts to determine which precedents remain controlling law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines how the 22nd Amendment’s presidential term limits, originally passed to prevent another FDR-style extended presidency, affects second-term Presidents in general and Donald Trump’s anticipated second term in particular. Professor Sarat argues that term limits can paradoxically enable presidential overreach by freeing second-term Presidents from electoral accountability, suggesting this could be especially concerning in Trump's case given his stated plans to expand executive power.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses how progressives should reconsider their traditional opposition to states’ rights (federalism) and the Senate filibuster in light of Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory. Professor Sarat argues that despite progressives’ historical criticism of these mechanisms, they should now embrace both federalism and the filibuster as valuable tools to resist and limit Trump’s agenda, just as they did during his first administration.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines whether recent changes to public university campus policies regarding protests and speech, which were largely prompted by Gaza-Israel related demonstrations, can be considered unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Professor Amar argues that while such policy changes may disproportionately affect certain viewpoints in the short term, they are generally legally permissible as long as they are facially neutral, since proving discriminatory intent in free speech cases is particularly challenging and courts have historically upheld similar reactive but neutral regulations in various contexts.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf analyzes the eight possible outcomes of today’s U.S. federal elections (based on whether Democrats or Republicans win control of the presidency, Senate, and House) and their implications for governance. Professor Dorf contrasts how unified government enables major legislation with how divided government limits policy changes, while emphasizing an asymmetric risk: Republican control of even one chamber could enable them to challenge a Harris victory or force a debt ceiling crisis, making Democratic control of at least one chamber essential for a potential Harris presidency to function.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines various government efforts since 2010 to address the harms suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) service members who were discharged from the U.S. military due to their sexual orientation between the 1950s and 2010, including discharge upgrades, VA benefit eligibility changes, and presidential pardons. Professor Wexler argues that while recent reforms are positive steps, they remain insufficient due to their limited scope, and advocates for three key changes: a proactive Pentagon review of all discharges back to the 1950s, broader discharge upgrade eligibility for anyone discharged due to sexual orientation (except those with unrelated misconduct), and VA benefits access for those who could not complete their service terms due to discriminatory policies.