UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on expedited “shadow docket” cases and preliminary injunction appeals that bypass normal procedural safeguards, focusing particularly on the 2024-25 Term. Professor Amar argues that the Court’s rushed handling of emergency cases produces weaker opinions and undermines judicial legitimacy, and he critically observes that the Court is selectively choosing when to definitively resolve merits in cases with incomplete factual records, as demonstrated by contrasting approaches in cases like United States v. Skrmetti, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Trump v. CASA.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar comments on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court restricted the use of “universal injunctions” by federal district courts, which have been used to prevent enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional laws against all people rather than just the specific plaintiffs in a case. Professor Amar argues that initial reactions characterizing this as a major threat to civil rights were overstated, because courts retain alternative tools like class action certification and traditional injunctive relief that can still provide broad protection when necessary to fully protect plaintiffs.

Illinois Law professor Steven D. Schwinn critiques the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, despite a legal challenge from states arguing that the move violates federal law and the Constitution. Professor Schwinn asserts that the Court’s approval of such broad executive action—without addressing its legality—contrasts sharply with its earlier rejection of President Joe Biden’s more modest student debt relief plan, revealing a troubling inconsistency and potential partisan bias in the Court’s reasoning.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton responds to Francis X. Maier’s proposal to remove child sex abuse victims from the legal system and place them in “autonomous reparations programs,” examining the implications for institutions like the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, and state entities facing billion-dollar settlements. Professor Hamilton argues that Maier’s approach would prioritize cost reduction and institutional secrecy over justice and truth, contending that civil litigation is essential for uncovering institutional cover-ups, validating victims’ experiences, and preventing future abuse through transparency and accountability.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron discusses the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., in which the Court limited federal district courts’ authority to issue universal injunctions that block enforcement of executive orders nationwide. Professor Citron describes the various opinions written by the justices and argues that the Court’s formalist approach, which restricts courts’ ability to check illegal executive actions while creating a two-track system where only active litigants receive constitutional protections, represents a dangerous refusal to consider the real-world consequences during a period of unprecedented assertions of executive power.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the most recent Supreme Court term, arguing that while it lacked the blockbuster decisions of previous years, it revealed the Roberts Court’s deeply conservative nature and troubling approach to the Trump administration. Professor Dorf argues that the conservative supermajority either fails to recognize or actively shares Trump’s authoritarian goals, treating him like a normal president and facilitating his attacks on the rule of law rather than confronting the unprecedented threat he poses to constitutional democracy.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines the evolving relationship between President Donald Trump and the federal judiciary, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, focusing on initial conflicts over executive orders and judicial authority followed by recent accommodation through Supreme Court emergency docket rulings. Professor Citron argues that while a temporary détente has emerged with the Supreme Court largely supporting Trump’s initiatives through emergency orders, this fragile peace masks an ongoing institutional challenge that could threaten the Court’s legitimacy if it fails to check executive overreach in future cases.

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.

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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the nomination of Edward Martin as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, examining how his conduct exemplifies what critics call the “weaponization” of the Justice Department under President Trump. Professor Sarat argues that Martin has misused his prosecutorial power for political ends—especially by pursuing partisan investigations of President Joe Biden and his family—and urges the Senate to reject his confirmation.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines recent calls by President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and their allies in Congress to remove or sideline federal judges who have blocked Trump administration policies, either through impeachment or by eliminating the courts themselves. Professor Dorf argues that such tactics are constitutionally dubious and dangerously undermine judicial independence, warning that the real threat to the republic comes not from the judges, but from efforts to evade legal checks on presidential power.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses a bankruptcy court decision in In re: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, in which Judge Christopher Klein ruled that survivors of clergy sexual abuse could address the court despite objections from the church’s insurers. Professor Griffin argues that while bankruptcy is often used to delay and minimize liability for abuse claims, Judge Klein’s ruling affirms that all courts can and should provide survivors with a platform to be heard, acknowledging the profound human and psychological impact of their experiences.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May critiques Professor Alan Dershowitz’s defense of the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss criminal charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams and argues that the deal is unlike typical plea bargains in federal criminal cases. Mr. May contends that Adams’s agreement, which involves no criminal penalty, dangerously expands the scope of prosecutorial discretion and could lead to a system where defendants barter extrajudicial favors to avoid prosecution, undermining principles of justice.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the surge in federal lawsuits challenging the new Trump administration’s extensive assertions of executive power. Emphasizing the critical role of the judiciary in these times, Professor Amar explains the significance of court rulings, particularly preliminary injunctions, as temporarily halting executive actions to prevent irreparable harm while the legal merits are fully adjudicated, and he highlights the immense pressure on judges to navigate these complex and politically charged constitutional issues.

Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen and Amherst professor Austin Sarat analyze Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2024 Year-End Report and examine his pattern of using historical references in his annual reports from 2021 to 2024. Ms. Rikleen and Professor Sarat argue that Roberts uses selective historical examples and appeals to judicial independence as rhetorical devices to deflect attention from ethical concerns within the Supreme Court, particularly regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’s alleged ethical lapses and Roberts’s own refusal to enforce stronger ethical standards for the Court.

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.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone analyze a recent election-related lawsuit filed in Michigan federal court, critiquing the legal arguments and the court’s handling of the case in the context of federal jurisdiction principles. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the lawsuit clearly lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction and should have been promptly dismissed, highlighting this case as an example of poor lawyering and judicial oversight that is unnecessarily complicating the legal landscape ahead of the upcoming election.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the current Supreme Court term and its potential implications for the 2024 presidential election. Professor Dorf argues that while the current docket seems relatively quiet, the Court’s history of partisan decisions favoring Republicans, combined with the possibility of election-related cases being added later, raises concerns about how the Court might handle potential challenges to the 2024 election results, particularly if Trump loses and uses his loyalists in state legislatures or other organs of government to declare him the winner anyway.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case that could expand the use of DNA evidence in capital punishment cases, focusing on Ruben Gutierrez’s appeal in Texas. Professor Sarat argues that the Court should allow Gutierrez to challenge Texas’s restrictions on post-conviction DNA testing, asserting that such limitations in death penalty cases across the country hinder the pursuit of justice and should be reconsidered.