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.

Lauren Stiller Rikleen examines Project 2025’s proposals for presidential power in light of Senator Whitehouse’s report “Unworthy of Reliance,” which details how the Trump administration constrained the FBI’s 2018 supplemental investigation into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ms. Rikleen argues that the Kavanaugh confirmation process, where the White House secretly limited the FBI’s investigation while publicly claiming it had “free rein,” serves as a real-world example of how Project 2025’s vision of presidential control over independent agencies has already been implemented and threatens American democracy.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allows voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to technical errors to cast provisional ballots in person, and examines the Republican National Committee's subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to block this ruling. Professor Amar argues that the RNC’s appeal lacks merit because it misapplies both the Purcell doctrine (which constrains federal, not state, courts from making last-minute election changes) and the Supreme Court’s Moore v. Harper decision, which actually supports states’ authority to interpret their own election laws through various governmental processes, including state courts.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut discusses the potential economic and institutional dangers of a second Trump presidency, drawing parallels between authoritarian kleptocracies throughout history and Trump's demonstrated patterns of behavior. Mr. Aftergut argues that Trump’s return to power would threaten not only democratic freedoms (as warned by former officials like General John Kelly) but also Americans’ financial well-being through systemic corruption and self-enrichment, with no remaining “guardrails” of principled advisors to constrain such behavior.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses a constitutional interpretation regarding the requirements for winning the U.S. presidency through the Electoral College, specifically addressing scenarios where some state electors are not appointed. Following up on an argument he has made with Professors Michael Dorf and Laurence Tribe, Professor Buchanan argues that, contrary to popular belief (the “House-decides error”), under the Twelfth Amendment, a candidate does not need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency but only a majority of actually appointed electors. Professor Buchanan points out this means that successfully blocking some state electors, as Donald Trump likely will try to do, would not automatically force the decision to the House of Representatives unless there is an actual tie or a third-party candidate prevents either major candidate from achieving a majority of appointed electors.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman commemorates the life and legacy of Lilly Ledbetter, who passed away on October 12, 2024, and details her fight against pay discrimination at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., her subsequent Supreme Court case, and the landmark legislation that bears her name. Professor Grossman emphasizes how Ledbetter's perseverance led to meaningful change through the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which removed significant legal barriers for women seeking to challenge pay discrimination, even though she never personally received compensation for the discrimination she endured.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the history of free speech in America and recent controversies surrounding it, particularly on college campuses. Professor Dorf argues that while there was once a bipartisan consensus supporting free speech, recent events have led to inconsistent stances on both sides of the political spectrum, with many people supporting free speech only when it aligns with their views.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the legal arguments surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s attempt to remain on some state ballots for the 2024 presidential election, particularly focusing on the applicability to presidential elections of the Supreme Court’s U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton ruling. Professor Amar argues that invoking the Term Limits case in the context of presidential elections is logically flawed and historically inaccurate, as Article II of the Constitution grants states broad powers in selecting presidential electors, unlike the more restricted state powers in congressional elections addressed in Term Limits.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the state of capital punishment in the United States, reflecting on the recent milestone of 1,600 executions since 1976 and examining trends in public opinion, exonerations, and execution practices. Professor Sarat argues that while the country has made progress toward abolition, persistent issues such as false convictions, racial bias, and botched executions highlight the fundamental flaws in the death penalty system.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and researcher Ethan Yan discuss age-based discrimination in absentee voting laws across eight U.S. states, examining their compatibility with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Professor Amar and Mr. Yan argue that these laws, which favor older voters, violate the Amendment's clear prohibition of age discrimination in voting rights and should be challenged in court, criticizing recent circuit court decisions that have failed to properly interpret the Amendment's equality mandate.

Retired UC Berkeley Law professor Jan Vetter discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a regulation classifying bump stocks as machine guns, and examines the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation. Professor Vetter argues that the Court’s majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, took an overly narrow and literal interpretation of the statute, neglecting to consider legislative intent and the broader purpose of the law, and he suggests that judges should act more as partners with the legislature in interpreting statutes to achieve their intended policy goals.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the adoption of “expressive activity policies” by colleges and universities in response to recent campus protests, examining the legal and practical implications of such policies. Professor Dorf argues that it is a mistake for educational institutions to frame their regulations as targeting expressive activities specifically, suggesting instead that they should focus on content-neutral conduct regulations that apply equally to expressive and non-expressive activities.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate whose conviction has been challenged by the state’s attorney general, and the broader constitutional question of executing innocent people. Professor Sarat argues that the Supreme Court should use Glossip’s case to explicitly state that the Constitution forbids punishing innocent people, overturning previous jurisprudence that prioritized legal technicalities over justice.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Eighth Circuit ruling on Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which seeks to protect gun rights by limiting state cooperation with federal firearm laws. Professor Amar argues that while parts of SAPA are unconstitutional, the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed, particularly in its assertion that a state cannot withdraw enforcement support for federal laws based on its belief that those laws are unconstitutional, and suggests that the case may warrant Supreme Court review.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a federal judge’s ruling that enjoins New York’s attorney general from enforcing state laws against crisis pregnancy centers promoting “abortion pill reversal” (APR) on First Amendment grounds. Professor Dorf argues that the ruling misunderstands the state’s interest in protecting citizens’ health and safety, asserting that the government should be able to regulate potentially false or dangerous medical claims even when they are made without commercial motive.

UC Davis Law professors Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat analyze the antitrust lawsuit filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) against the World Federation of Advertisers and other corporations, examining potential legal barriers to the suit under antitrust law and the First Amendment. Professors Amar and Bhagwat argue that X’s lawsuit faces significant challenges, primarily because the alleged boycott likely falls under First Amendment protection similar to that granted in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, and because forcing advertisers to advertise on X would constitute compelled speech, which is generally prohibited under recent Supreme Court precedents.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the use of life without parole (LWOP) sentences in the United States, examining upcoming state supreme court cases challenging these sentences and the historical role of death penalty abolitionists in promoting LWOP as an alternative to capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that death penalty abolitionists should now reconsider their support for LWOP, recognizing it as another form of “death penalty” and joining efforts to scale back its use, especially given its disproportionate impact on young offenders and people of color.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses recent court decisions blocking President Biden’s student debt forgiveness programs, including the Supreme Court’s invalidation of his initial plan and the Eighth Circuit’s ruling against the subsequent SAVE plan. Professor Dorf argues that these decisions reflect a broader assault on administrative power by Republican-appointed judges, leveraging doctrines like the major questions doctrine to hamstring effective regulation, and suggests that the Republican-packed judiciary, rather than the Biden administration, is the true culprit behind the failure of student debt relief efforts.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the case of Marcellus Williams, a death row inmate in Missouri, and the broader issue of false convictions in capital cases due to unreliable informant testimony. Professor Sarat argues that Williams’s case exemplifies the urgent need for reform in the use of informant testimony in criminal trials, proposing several measures to improve the reliability and transparency of such evidence in order to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the South Carolina Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing the state to carry out executions using the electric chair, firing squad, or lethal injection. Professor Sarat criticizes the ruling, arguing that it effectively nullifies constitutional protections against cruel punishment by permitting inhumane methods of execution under the guise of providing inmates with a choice, thus failing the citizens of South Carolina.