Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Israel's recently passed legislation creating a dedicated military tribunal to prosecute approximately 400 Hamas militants for their roles in the October 7, 2023 attacks, examining the law through the lens of philosophers Hannah Arendt and Martha Minow. Professor Sarat argues that the tribunal risks becoming a politically motivated show trial that undermines fair trial guarantees and, rather than advancing justice or security, pulls Israel away from the difficult but necessary path between vengeance and reconciliation.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the Trump administration’s proposed $1.776 billion “victims of lawfare” compensation fund, its likely beneficiaries, and the legal and political opposition it has generated. Professor Margulies argues that while the fund is a corrupt sham designed to enrich Trump allies—including January 6th rioters who were justly prosecuted—the underlying concept of compensating people genuinely wronged by federal power is sound, and the true victims deserving redress are those like unlawfully detained immigrants and targets of vindictive prosecutions.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s recent statements calling Somalis “garbage” and expressing his desire to remove them from the United States, situating these remarks within the context of ethnic cleansing as defined by international human rights frameworks. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s rhetoric—combined with concrete actions like deploying ICE agents to target Somalis in Minnesota—comes dangerously close to advocating ethnic cleansing, fundamentally contradicts America’s founding ideals as a nation defined by shared political values rather than ethnicity, and represents an attack on American identity itself.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the memoir Nobody’s Girl by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, which chronicles her life of repeated sexual abuse—beginning in childhood and continuing through her exploitation by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their powerful associates—and highlights the systemic failures that allowed her abuse to go unchecked. Professor Griffin emphasizes that Giuffre’s story demands accountability from enablers and abusers alike, calling for greater empathy for survivors, the abolition of statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, and long-overdue legal justice in cases of systemic exploitation and cover-up.
University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines whether President Donald Trump could face legal consequences—either domestically or internationally—for ordering the U.S. military to kill at least 64 suspected drug traffickers on the high seas without trial, purportedly as part of a broader anti-cartel strategy. Professor Alschuler argues that these killings constitute unlawful acts that violate U.S. and international law, likening them to extrajudicial executions, and concludes that while prosecution is theoretically possible, political and legal obstacles, including questionable legal justifications and potential presidential immunity, make accountability unlikely.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the Trump administration’s policy of conducting lethal maritime strikes on boats suspected of drug smuggling, highlighting the legal and moral implications when survivors are taken into custody. Professor Margulies argues that the administration is circumventing both criminal law and established due process by labeling survivors “enemy combatants,” and that its ultimate incentive is to avoid legal accountability—an incentive that could lead to more killings to eliminate potential witnesses.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the massive funding increase for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities in the recently passed spending bill, which will triple detention funding and enable rapid expansion of immigrant detention centers across the country. Professor Sarat argues that given ICE’s documented history of abuse, inadequate medical care, and inhumane conditions in existing facilities, this dramatic expansion will likely lead to increased human suffering and cruelty for detainees, many of whom have never been charged with any crime.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Tennessee’s new policy of imposing a two-week isolation period and a 12-hour communication blackout on death row inmates prior to execution, framing it within broader concerns about the harsh conditions of death row in the U.S. Professor Sarat argues that these practices are unnecessarily cruel, serve no legitimate purpose, and should be ended either by state action or judicial intervention.
In this second of a two-part series of columns discussing Donald Trump and Republicans’ efforts to dismantle Social Security, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that despite public reassurances, Republican initiatives—especially those supported by figures like Elon Musk—are methodically weakening Social Security, threatening a vital, efficient, and historically successful program that prevents elder poverty and supports millions of Americans. Professor Buchanan contends that these efforts are based on false narratives, including misleading comparisons to Ponzi schemes and deceptive efficiency claims, all aimed at undermining public confidence in the system—particularly among younger generations—in order to justify harmful privatization schemes that would ultimately benefit Wall Street at the expense of working Americans.
University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan addresses the Trump administration’s attacks on Social Security, particularly through cutting the budget to force the system to deteriorate, and he debunks the false claim—recently amplified by Elon Musk—that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Professor Buchanan argues that Social Security is a sustainable, pay-as-you-go system that functions similarly to private banking and retirement savings, and that calling it a Ponzi scheme reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both financial systems and economic sustainability.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the impact of Donald Trump’s executive orders during the first week of his second presidency, focusing on his reinstatement and expansion of the global gag rule that affects international sexual and reproductive health. Professor Grossman argues that these actions are reckless and harmful, causing severe setbacks in global reproductive health services, increasing unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and exacerbating challenges in countries heavily reliant on U.S. aid for family planning and HIV treatment.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher critiques the International Court of Justice’s decisions regarding provisional measures against Israel in the South Africa v. Israel case, focusing on the inadequacies and implications of labeling Israel’s actions as carrying a “risk of genocide” during the conflict in Gaza. Professor Estreicher argues that the ICJ’s low threshold for plausibility in its provisional measures jurisprudence and its failure to consider Israel’s humanitarian efforts have resulted in misleading accusations of genocide, exacerbating tensions and necessitating a more precise and coherent legal standard.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the systemic culture of brutality, secrecy, and dehumanization within the Marcy Correctional Facility, as exposed by the murder of Robert Brooks by correctional officers and the indifference of bystanders. Professor Margulies argues that such a culture is sustained by unwritten norms—normalization of violence, secrecy, silence, impunity, and dehumanization—which reflect deep failures of leadership, training, and accountability, calling for systemic reform to prevent future atrocities.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines two specific aspects of the allegations against Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth: how senators approach testimonial credibility in #MeToo cases and the risks faced by “upstanders” who intervene to protect potential victims. Professor Wexler argues that some senators show concerning bias in automatically believing Hegseth despite contrary evidence, while also highlighting how women who act as upstanders often face severe retaliation, suggesting a need for better safeguards and practices for those who intervene in potential sexual assault situations.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines recent U.S. policy shifts under the Biden administration regarding the authorization of cluster munitions (ATACMS) and anti-personnel landmines for use in Ukraine, along with their implications for international humanitarian law. Professor Wexler argues that these reversals, particularly the facilitation of Ukraine’s violation of the Landmine Ban Treaty, represent a concerning erosion of international humanitarian law norms and treaties, warning that such case-by-case justifications could lead to a broader collapse of civilian protection standards in warfare.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler analyzes the legality of Israel’s pager and walkie-talkie strikes against Hezbollah under international humanitarian law, focusing on the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and the prohibition on unnecessary suffering. Professor Wexler concludes that while the strikes likely fall under the CCW’s definitions of “booby-traps” and “other devices,” the question whether they violate the prohibition on unnecessary suffering remains open, pending more detailed information about the injuries caused and the military necessity of the tactics used.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines the legal implications of Israel’s alleged attacks on Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, focusing on how these actions may be interpreted under the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), particularly its provisions on booby-traps and other devices. Professor Wexler explores various interpretations of the CCW’s articles, questioning whether the attacks constitute booby-traps under the convention’s definition, whether they violate prohibitions on using apparently harmless objects as weapons, and whether they comply with restrictions on using such devices in civilian-populated areas. She suggests that while the attacks raise complex legal questions, their legality depends on specific interpretations of the CCW and broader principles of international humanitarian law.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent adoption of nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution in several U.S. states, focusing on Alabama’s recent executions and other states considering or implementing this method. Professor Sarat argues that, despite proponents’ claims, nitrogen hypoxia is not a humane or problem-free method of execution, but instead echoes the unfulfilled promises made about previous execution methods like electrocution, gas chambers, and lethal injection.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies comments on a pro-Palestinian encampment set up by student activists at Cornell University, which the author views as a peaceful protest in line with the university’s stated values. Professor Margulies shares an opinion piece he wrote in the student newspaper, The Cornell Daily Sun, in which he criticized the university administration’s cold response to the encampment, arguing that the students’ demands for divestment, acknowledgement, disclosure, and absolution are just, and that Cornell is failing to live up to its reformist ideals by deriding the protesters and remaining silent on the issues they raise.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler discusses Israel’s attack on a World Central Kitchen humanitarian aid convoy in Gaza, the subsequent investigation, and the limited accountability measures taken by Israel in response. Professor Wexler argues that Israel should pursue more serious criminal accountability and undertake a systematic review of its actions during the Israel-Hamas conflict to address concerns about transparency, neutrality, and compliance with the laws of war, particularly regarding the protection of civilians and aid workers.
