Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses King Charles’s recent posthumous conditional pardon of Ruth Ellis—the last woman hanged in the UK—situating it within the history of British royal posthumous clemency, including the cases of Timothy Evans, Alan Turing, and Derek Bentley. Professor Sarat argues that while Ellis’s pardon rightly acknowledges the injustice of her trial and sentence (given the domestic abuse she suffered), it falls short of true mercy because, unlike Evans and Turing who received full pardons, Ellis was merely left with a commuted “life sentence” that offers no meaningful redress beyond recognizing what she already deserved.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Pennsylvania’s anomalous status as the only Northeastern state retaining the death penalty despite a de facto execution moratorium, examining the system’s documented flaws—wrongful convictions, racial disparities, geographic inconsistency, and inadequate indigent defense—alongside Governor Josh Shapiro’s public shift toward abolition. Professor Sarat argues that Pennsylvania should abolish capital punishment and that Shapiro, having already refused to sign execution warrants, should use his remaining time in office to press the legislature toward abolition and pursue commutations for those on death row, despite the steep procedural and political obstacles to both paths.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses three unexpected aspects of the Supreme Court’s end-of-term decisions from its 2025-26 term, focusing on the late-arriving ballots ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court's departure from constitutional avoidance in three separate cases, and its mootness ruling in Little v. Hecox. Professor Amar argues that the Watson outcome was correctly decided despite media mispredictions based on oral argument, that bypassing narrower statutory grounds was justified in the birthright citizenship and Federal Reserve cases given their pressing national importance, but that the Court’s refusal to dismiss Hecox as moot—despite the plaintiff's dismissal with prejudice—was legally unjustified and appeared driven by suspicion of strategic litigant behavior rather than sound doctrine.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision to leave in place an injunction blocking Alabama’s execution of Jeffery Lee by nitrogen hypoxia—the first time the Court has ever obstructed a state’s chosen execution method—and places that decision in the broader context of the Court’s strong pro-capital-punishment record. Professor Sarat argues that while the ruling did not resolve the underlying Eighth Amendment question, it is nonetheless historically significant, as it signals a potential crack in the Court’s near-uniform deference to states on execution methods, particularly given disturbing evidence that nitrogen hypoxia causes severe suffering rather than the painless death its proponents claimed.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine the federal district court’s rulings on Judge James R. Brown’s lawsuit against Illinois Supreme Court Justices who terminated his recall appointment allegedly in retaliation for partisan public statements. While Professors Amar and Mazzone find the court’s bottom-line decisions to abstain and deny a preliminary injunction defensible, they argue the court’s reasoning was seriously flawed—particularly its cursory abstention analysis, its logically inverted First Amendment irreparable-harm rationale, and its mistaken treatment of a stay as functionally equivalent to a dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the case of Gisèle Pelicot, who was drugged and raped by her husband and dozens of other men over a decade, as chronicled in Pelicot’s memoir Shame Has to Change Sides. Professor Griffin argues that Pelicot’s demand for an open trial serves as a vital challenge to patriarchal structures and underscores the necessity of shifting the burden of shame from victims to the perpetrators of sexual violence.
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.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” in light of recent criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the release of historical internal memos regarding the 2016 EPA Clean Power Plan. Professor Amar argues that while some common criticisms of the Court’s emergency-relief practices are inconsistent or misguided, the Court should enhance its legitimacy by adopting more robust procedures, such as requiring expedited briefing and providing transparent, reasoned explanations for its decisions.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s notorious dissent in Olympus Spa v. Andretti—a Ninth Circuit case involving the constitutionality of applying Washington State’s transgender-inclusive public accommodations law to a women-only spa. Dorf argues that VanDyke’s opening phrase “swinging dicks” was not merely gratuitous and attention-seeking (in contrast to cases like Cohen v. California, where the use of profanity was justified), but reflected genuine anti-transgender bigotry that disqualifies it as legitimate judicial discourse and vindicates the ABA’s earlier finding that VanDyke was unfit for the bench.
Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb discusses how the civil legal system’s procedural requirements often inflict secondary trauma on survivors of childhood sexual abuse while shielding defendants and institutions. Ms. Robb argues that the law must balance due process for defendants with “due care” for victims by dismantling structural barriers—such as restrictive statutes of limitations and bankruptcy maneuvers—that prioritize institutional protection over accountability and child safety.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron —along with fellow civil procedure professors Laura Dooley, Deseriee Kennedy, and John Quinn—discusses the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Berk v. Choy, which addressed whether Delaware’s affidavit-of-merit requirement in medical malpractice cases yields to federal pleading rules under the Erie doctrine. The professors analyze the majority’s conclusion that Federal Rule 8 displaces the state requirement under the Hanna v. Plumer framework, while also exploring Justice Jackson’s alternative framing, potential critiques of the majority’s reasoning, and the decision’s implications for access to federal courts and the ongoing challenge of distinguishing substance from procedure.
Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen discusses the Trump administration’s aggressive verbal attacks and social media rhetoric directed at the federal judiciary following the Supreme Court’s adverse ruling against his global tariffs. Ms. Rikleen argues that such hostile language from the executive branch incites threats against jurists and their families, ultimately endangering the physical safety of judges and undermining the foundational principle of judicial independence.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses widespread speculation that Justice Samuel Alito may retire from the Supreme Court soon, examining both the evidence (particularly his book’s release date and strategic timing before the 2026 midterms) and the broader institutional problems this speculation reveals. Professor Dorf argues that the real issue is not the Supreme Court’s lack of transparency, but the combination of life tenure and ideological polarization, which creates an unhealthy obsession with Justices’ retirement timing and makes Supreme Court appointments depend on accidents of health and political calculations rather than a sensible democratic process.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax information by former IRS employee Charles Littlejohn, examining the legal basis and problems with the case. Professor Dorf argues that while the lawsuit has some factual merit, it should be dismissed because the damages claim of $10 billion is fantastical and implausible, Trump himself was responsible for IRS management during the breach, the case likely falls outside the two-year statute of limitations, and it represents an unprecedented and improper attempt by a sitting president to sue his own government for monetary damages.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains why the Trump administration’s highly successful record before the Supreme Court in 2025 is unlikely to be replicated in 2026. Professor Amar argues that the 2025 success was due to the Solicitor General cherry-picking cases where lower courts had overreached, whereas the 2026 docket consists of institutionally necessary, high-stakes cases in which the Administration’s legal arguments are substantively much weaker.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron reviews retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2025 memoir Life, Law & Liberty, examining his life, career, and legacy as the pivotal “swing vote” on the Court from 1987 to 2018. While Professor Citron expresses admiration for Kennedy as a person and finds the memoir gracefully written, he argues that Kennedy fails to adequately account for his role in shaping the current political and legal landscape and erosion of democracy. Further, Professor Citron suggests that Kennedy’s moderate influence has become irrelevant as his successors have moved the Court sharply rightward, overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade that Kennedy himself helped preserve.
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.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2025 Year End Report, which, though seemingly apolitical on the surface, reflects on the American Revolution and the Constitution to emphasize the value of judicial independence and the evolving meaning of constitutional principles. Professor Dorf argues that while Roberts’s rhetoric aligns with a progressive, non-originalist view of constitutional interpretation akin to that of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court’s recent rulings—including those Roberts has joined—fall short of embodying those ideals, making his words ring hollow without corresponding judicial action.
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.
Leonard Shambon examines whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President broad authority to impose tariffs, with a focus on congressional intent and legislative history as interpreted through the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine. Mr. Shambon argues that both the content and procedural handling of the 1977 bill that became IEEPA show Congress never intended to delegate sweeping tariff powers to the President, as evidenced by the lack of involvement from committees with explicit tariff jurisdiction and the absence of any mention of tariffs in legislative documents and discussions.
