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.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, focusing not just on the order’s constitutionality but also on the procedural question of whether “universal” injunctions or nationwide class actions are the better tool for challenging federal policies. Professors Amar and Mazzone contend that class actions offer a fairer and more practical alternative, providing enforceable relief, reducing strategic litigation abuse, and avoiding the legal uncertainties that surround non-party protection under universal injunctions.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument on whether lower federal courts can issue universal injunctions, using as context the Trump administration’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants. Professor Dorf argues that while the Court may focus on the procedural issue of universal injunctions, it has a duty to strongly reject the Trump administration’s constitutionally unfounded attack on the Fourteenth Amendment and safeguard effective judicial remedies against executive overreach.

Guest columnist Gary J. Simson—Macon Chair in Law at Mercer Law School and Professor Emeritus at Cornell Law School—critiques executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that punish specific law firms for their clients or past actions, arguing that these orders resemble historically condemned legislative punishments known as bills of attainder. Professor Simson contends that these orders are fundamentally unconstitutional assaults on the legal system and should be challenged under the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause, which was designed to prevent exactly such abuses of power.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines the judicial legacy of Justice David Souter, focusing on how his intellectually rigorous and nuanced approach in key Supreme Court cases—particularly Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and United States v. Mead Corp.—has had lasting but complex effects. Professor Citron argues that while Souter’s brilliance and detailed reasoning reflected a high-minded commitment to the common law tradition, his tendency to write narrowly yet extensively may have unintentionally undermined the clarity and durability of his rulings.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the judicial philosophy and legacy of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, contrasting him with ideologically driven judges and situating his approach within the traditional conservative lineage of Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan. Professor Dorf argues that, despite being criticized by conservatives, Souter embodied a principled, restrained, and thoughtful conservatism that emphasized judicial humility and methodological integrity—qualities lacking in today’s ideologically rigid judiciary.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher critiques President Trump’s Executive Order 14,215, which mandates that all administrative agencies adopt the legal interpretations of the President or Attorney General as the official position of the U.S. government. Professor Estreicher argues that this directive dangerously undermines the independence of federal agencies and the constitutional separation of powers, and should therefore be rescinded or struck down by the courts.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the public distrust of lawyers in the United States and the recent political attacks on the law firm Perkins Coie by President Trump, focusing on the legal and constitutional implications of those actions. Professor Sarat argues that Judge Beryl Howell’s decision to strike down Trump’s executive order targeting the firm is a critical defense of the legal profession’s independence and a reminder that protecting lawyers’ ability to represent clients without political interference is essential to upholding democracy and the rule of law.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the legal and constitutional issues surrounding President Donald Trump’s Executive Order aimed at denying birthright citizenship to certain U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents, with a particular focus on upcoming Supreme Court arguments about the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions blocking the Order. Professor Amar argues that the Order is flagrantly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s clear text and historical context and expresses concern that resolving procedural questions about injunctions in this unusual and highly politicized case may lead to inadequate judicial guidance on an important issue.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat addresses the Trump administration’s investigation into the Harvard Law Review, contextualizing it within broader conservative attacks on institutions promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Professor Sarat argues that the administration’s use of civil rights laws to challenge the Law Review’s diversity policies represents a disturbing abuse of power and an erosion of First Amendment protections, driven by authoritarian impulses and partisan retaliation.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge’s federal lawsuit seeking protection from disciplinary action for refusing to perform same-sex marriages based on religious beliefs. In this second of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors argue that judges who perform marriages act as state actors and therefore must adhere to the constitutional mandates of equality and due process. They further explain that allowing religious-based discrimination in such roles undermines the core principles established in Obergefell v. Hodges and related equal protection jurisprudence.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin analyzes a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State of Oklahoma is challenging the approval of a publicly funded Catholic charter school, arguing that it violates both state and federal constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion. Professor Griffin contends that allowing a religious school to operate as a public charter institution would erode the Establishment Clause, disproportionately empower a single faith, and undermine the neutrality and inclusivity foundational to public education.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf evaluates the constitutional and legal abuses committed by Donald Trump during his second term as president, based on a New York Times survey of 35 legal scholars. Professor Dorf argues that Trump’s actions, which include undermining judicial authority, dismantling federal institutions, and enforcing loyalty over law, threaten to transform the United States from a flawed constitutional democracy into an autocratic kleptocracy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses concerns about constitutional violations by the Trump administration and examines claims that the arrest of Wisconsin state judge Hannah Dugan fits into a broader pattern of undermining judicial independence. Professor Amar argues that Dugan’s arrest, unlike attacks on judges for their legal rulings, appropriately addresses unlawful interference with federal law enforcement and thus upholds, rather than threatens, constitutional principles like federal supremacy and the rule of law.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s recent Fourth Circuit ruling in the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, situating it within Bruce Ackerman’s theory of dualist democracy and the concept of “higher lawmaking” in times of constitutional transformation. Professor Citron argues that Judge Wilkinson’s unusually candid and philosophically grounded opinion reflects a judiciary consciously responding to President Trump’s far-reaching efforts to reshape the constitutional balance of powers, signaling that we may be living through another transformative moment in American constitutional law.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, professor emeritus Alan Brownstein, and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Umphress v. Hall, a case involving a Texas judge who challenged potential disciplinary action for conducting only opposite-sex weddings based on religious beliefs. In this first of a two-part series of columns on that case, the authors focus on the threshold justiciability matters presented in the case, arguing that it serves as a valuable teaching tool for understanding overlapping legal doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and abstention. The authors critique the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning on enforcement threat assessments and point out doctrinal confusion surrounding facial versus as-applied constitutional challenges.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the Trump administration’s April 11 demand letter to Harvard University, which requires sweeping changes to the university's hiring and admissions practices to eliminate identity-based preferences and to mandate viewpoint diversity. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that the letter is deeply incoherent and self-contradictory, as its rigid insistence on merit-based selection fundamentally conflicts with its simultaneous requirement for ideological and religious viewpoint diversity across all departments.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the legal and ethical implications of recent executive orders from the White House targeting law firms for their past work opposing the administration, and they discuss the resulting fragmentation within the legal profession over how to respond. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while individual law firms may face practical incentives to capitulate, coordinated resistance would be both more effective and legally protected under the First Amendment based on analogous Supreme Court precedents on collective political action and petitioning the government.

In this second of a two-part series, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the broader implications of the Trump administration’s attempt to ban transgender individuals from military service, focusing on the chilling effects on service members’ mental health care and how recent litigation (specifically Talbott and Shilling) may shape future legal challenges to executive control over the military. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the administration's policy undermines trust in mental health confidentiality and threatens military readiness, while also suggesting that recent court decisions could provide a legal framework for challenging discriminatory or overreaching uses of military power in the future.