Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professor Rodger D. Citron reviews Gary Stein’s biography “Justice for Sale: Graft, Greed, and a Crooked Federal Judge in 1930s Gotham,” which tells the story of Martin Manton, a once-prominent federal judge who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit but resigned in disgrace in 1939 after being indicted on corruption charges for selling his office. Professor Citron explains that while Manton was a product of the corrupt Tammany Hall political machine era in New York, his misconduct was exceptional in extending to the federal judiciary, and his story serves as an important reminder that federal judges are human and not immune to temptations, underscoring the need for appropriate financial disclosures and oversight to maintain the integrity and authority of the courts.
Guest columnist Gary J. Simson—Macon Chair in Law at Mercer Law School and Professor Emeritus at Cornell Law School—addresses the potential conflict of interest if Justice Clarence Thomas participates in the Trump v. United States case, given his wife’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Professor Simson argues that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the case to avoid further damaging public confidence in the Supreme Court, and if he refuses to do so, the other Justices should publicly disassociate themselves from his decision to prioritize the Court’s and the nation’s best interests.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Donald Trump’s recent attacks on Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump’s New York hush money trial, as well as on the prosecutor and the judge’s daughter. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s contemptuous remarks and efforts to intimidate and discredit the judiciary should be met with contempt orders and appropriate penalties by the courts, as silence or acquiescence in the face of such behavior is far worse and threatens the integrity and independence of the judicial system.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone coment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson holding that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar former President Donald Trump from primary election ballots due to his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol breach. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the Court’s reasoning, primarily based on concerns about nationwide ballot uniformity in presidential elections, is flawed because it fails to properly consider the Constitution’s overall design, which grants states significant autonomy in running presidential elections and selecting electors.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s handling of the Texas v. United States case involving a controversial Texas immigration law, using it as an example of the broader issue of increased polarization and chaos in the federal court system due to the courts’ expanding “shadow docket.” Professor Dorf argues that while both political parties bear some responsibility for this polarization, Republicans have moved much further from centrism, contributing more to the acute political divide that has spread to the courts and is exemplified by the Texas Republicans’ extreme stance on immigration in this case.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professors Meredith R. Miller and Laura A. Dooley discuss the complexities of federal jurisdiction in cases involving limited liability companies (LLCs), suggesting an amendment to the diversity statute to simplify determining an LLC’s citizenship based on its state of creation and principal place of business. Professors Miller and Dooley evaluate the strategic implications of such a change from both procedural and business law perspectives, considering the impact on litigants’ access to federal courts, the influence of recent legislative efforts on ownership transparency, and the balance between offering fair legal proceedings and maintaining the advantages of state versus federal litigation.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar defends the University of Illinois’ reinstatement of standout basketball player Terrence Shannon Jr. following a court injunction against his suspension due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Professor Amar argues that the University’s compliance with the court order, which recognized Shannon’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, was legally sound, and emphasizes that the decision to play Shannon was not influenced by the unproven allegations but rather by a legal obligation to treat him as any other team member in good standing. Professor Amar criticizes commentary by sports journalists like Gary Parrish for misunderstanding the legal nuances and the University’s obligation to adhere to the court’s ruling, noting that the decision to play Shannon is a matter of legal compliance, not a disregard for the seriousness of the allegations.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that in Tuesday’s oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, contorted the Constitution’s language to claim presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, despite Trump’s impeachment lawyers previously stating presidents could face prosecution once leaving office. Professor Sarat points out that the appeals court judges appeared unconvinced by Sauer’s arguments, questioning how his broad immunity claim aligns with constitutional checks on presidential power.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin recounts her experience reading At the ALTAR of the Appellate Gods: Arguing before the US Supreme Court by Lisa Sarnoff Gochman. Amidst a tragic backdrop of recent violence at UNLV, Professor Griffin reflects on Gochman’s book, which provides a human perspective on appellate law through her experience arguing in the notable Supreme Court case, Apprendi v. New Jersey. As Professor Griffin describes, Gochman’s narrative highlights the challenges and intricacies of presenting a case before the Supreme Court, offering insights into the legal process and the personal journey of an appellate lawyer.
Lauren Stiller Rikleen reflects on the legacy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, highlighting her respect for judicial restraint and precedent, particularly in cases regarding reproductive rights. Contrasting O’Connor’s approach with the current Supreme Court's inclination influenced by the Federalist Society, Ms. Rikleen suggests that the Court’s current Justices could benefit from O’Connor’s example of independence and commitment to precedent. She also discusses the shift in the Court’s composition and ideology following O’Connor's retirement, noting the increasing influence of the Federalist Society in shaping a judiciary more ideologically driven and less bound by precedent, as exemplified by recent decisions like the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the pending U.S. Supreme Court case SEC v. Jarkesy, which questions the constitutionality of administrative law judges (ALJs) in the SEC and their role in enforcing securities laws. While Professor Dorf believes the Court should reject all three constitutional challenges presented in the case, he suggests that if the Court does rule against the government, the least disruptive outcome would be based on the removal issue rather than the Seventh Amendment or nondelegation claims.
Kathryn Robb, executive director of Child USAdvocacy, argues that the attendance of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices at the Red Mass, a religious event seeking divine guidance in decision-making, presents a conflict of interest and blurs the lines between church and state, especially in light of pending cases involving the Church. Ms. Robb highlights the historical and symbolic significance of the color red, used in the Red Mass, as a universal signal for danger and warning, suggesting that this tradition, though time-worn, compromises the integrity of the judiciary and the separation of powers in government.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that former President Donald Trump’s approach in his legal battles mirrors the tactics used by the defendants in the Chicago Seven trial, aiming to turn his trials into political theater and mock the legal process. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s behavior, including his motion to televise proceedings and accusations against the legal system, are his attempt to subvert judicial proceedings and portray himself as a victim of political persecution, similar to the disruptive and publicity-focused strategies of the Chicago Seven.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf argues that the Supreme Court’s new Code of Conduct, despite being a step towards addressing ethical concerns, is insufficient due to its lack of enforcement mechanisms and the Court’s history of questionable conduct. Professor Dorf suggests that, despite Justice Alito’s assertion to the contrary, Congress has the authority to impose stricter ethical rules on the Supreme Court and could even explore innovative solutions like a “pinch-hitter” system using retired Justices or federal appeals court judges to address recusal challenges.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on a decision by a federal district court in Louisiana denying a preliminary injunction in a case involving death row inmates seeking clemency. Professor Sarat criticizes the court’s narrow interpretation of the governor’s directive regarding clemency hearings, arguing that it exemplifies a legalistic approach that disregards the broader context and intention of the governor’s actions.
Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut argues that former President Trump’s courtroom behavior in the civil fraud case in New York, marked by attacks on judicial figures and the legal process, indicates his anticipation of a lost case and a strategy focused on delay through appeals and political posturing to his base. Furthermore, Mr. Aftergut suggests that Trump’s tactics on the stand, which include deflecting blame and refusing to answer questions directly, aim to serve his political narrative rather than address the substantive legal claims against him.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat expresses deep concern about the current U.S. Supreme Court’s potential effects on the country, arguing that the Court appears to be moving in a decisively conservative direction on issues like religious freedom, abortion, and affirmative action. Professor Sarat also raises questions about the ethics and legitimacy of the Court, citing public approval ratings and noting upcoming cases on racial gerrymandering, gun regulation, and administrative authority that could have significant societal consequences.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the ongoing legal battle over congressional redistricting in New Mexico, where Republicans have filed a lawsuit claiming that new district maps favor Democrats and violate the state constitution. Professor Amar emphasizes the importance for the New Mexico state courts to clearly base their rulings on the state constitution rather than the federal Constitution, and to justify their decisions more explicitly so as to demonstrate greater legitimacy.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the controversy surrounding the potential impeachment of new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz for having expressed her views on gerrymandering during her campaign. Professor Amar argues that sharing one’s views on specific legal topics should not be grounds for impeachment, as it helps the public understand a candidate’s legal philosophy and does not necessarily mean the judge’s mind is fixed on an issue.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professors Rodger D. Citron and Laura A. Dooley discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s unexpectedly divided decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. case, which addressed whether a corporation can be sued in a state where it has registered to do business but is not a citizen. Professors Citron and Dooley argue that the case is notable for the alignment of ideologically diverse justices and its potential to significantly alter the landscape regarding where plaintiffs can sue corporations, shedding light on the current Court’s approach to originalism and federalism in the context of personal jurisdiction.
