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.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the practical realities and challenges of Americans considering emigration in response to concerning political developments, particularly following recent election results. Professor Buchanan, who himself emigrated, argues that while the desire to leave may be legitimate, actually relocating abroad is a realistic option for very few people due to the expensive and complex immigration process, increasingly restrictive immigration policies worldwide (even in traditionally welcoming countries like Canada), and practical limitations in destination countries’ abilities to absorb large numbers of immigrants.

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.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent legal battle over Texas’s placement of buoys and barriers in the Rio Grande River to deter migrants, a move ruled likely unlawful by Federal District Judge David Ezra. Professor Dorf criticizes Texas’s subsequent emergency stay appeal, argues that the state’s legal justifications are implausible and undermine federal supremacy, and suggests that the state is improperly attempting to sidestep federal authority on issues of national security and immigration.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether the Biden administration’s announcement that it would end the COVID states of emergency in May affect pending Supreme Court cases involving immigration policy and student debt forgiveness. Professor Dorf explains why the news is unlikely to affect the outcome of the immigration case and, conversely, why it might affect the student debt forgiveness case.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his exploration of options available to Americans who are considering emigrating, considering whether the anti-government protests in Canada affect his calculus. Professor Buchanan argues that the recent news from Canada does not come close to tipping the balance toward staying the United States.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his consideration of where Americans privileged enough to be able to move might be able to go to escape an increasingly authoritarian United States. Professor Buchanan offers some additional thoughts about the United Kingdom (the focus of his last Verdict column) and explores the possibility of Canada. He points out that the problem of expatriation in response to political instability and violence directly or indirectly affects both those who move and those who remain behind.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf responds to claims that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term invalidating the Trump administration’s effort to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program license President Trump to take actions that will be difficult for a future Democratic administration to undo. Dorf argues that characterizing the ruling as a win for Trump and his executive power is far-fetched, and we should instead be concerned with the long-lasting damage to the environment and our nation’s foreign policy caused by the Trump administration.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Amar argues that while the Second Circuit may have arrived at the correct conclusion of law, it also misunderstood the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the Court struck down the “Medicare expansion” provision of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutionally coercive. Amar points out that in Sebelius, the Court found the fact that the Medicare expansion provision of the ACA vitiated the terms of a preexisting deal was sufficient to hold that provision coercive.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a lawsuit in which New York State and other plaintiffs are suing the federal government over an immigration policy of arresting undocumented immigrants when they appear in state court on unrelated matters. Dorf explains why the federal judge hearing the case should reject the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler discusses signs of a possible reversal of the global trend toward nationalism and European rejection of migrants. Wexler explains how a broad regional immigration agreement emerged and what a migration distribution proposal might look like, as well as the important questions such a proposal raises.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf argues that the Trump administration’s new rule that would bar asylum applications from asylum-seekers who did not apply for asylum in at least one country en route to the United States is illegal, cruel, and counterproductive. Dorf explains why federal statutory law precludes such a rule and points out that while the Trump administration is not entirely responsible for the current immigration crisis, it has taken various steps to exacerbate the problem.

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar contrasts Florida’s recent enactment of one of the strictest measures in the country to prohibit state and local entities from becoming “sanctuary” jurisdictions with California’s pro-sanctuary state laws. Amar explains this autonomy of states to enact such different laws with respect to federal laws as a product of the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine the Supreme Court has applied in three major cases over the past quarter century.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why President Trump’s threat to escalate tariffs on all Mexican goods if Mexico had not stopped the flow of Central American Migrants erroneously presumes a win-lose situation where none exists. Dorf also explains the fallacy of the criticism that immigration and trade ought to be always kept separate in negotiations.

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why President Trump’s proposal that detained immigrants be relocated to sanctuary cities violates the Supreme Court’s precedent interpreting relevant constitutional provisions. Amar argues that even a conservative Supreme Court that defers to the Executive branch in matters of foreign affairs would likely not permit such action.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments or a recent controversy arising from immigration rules that place an undue emphasis on biology in determining when a US-citizen-parent can transmit citizenship to a child born abroad. Grossman calls upon the US State Department to revise its Foreign Affairs Manual to align with the statutory scheme it purports to apply.

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on the tenuous situation in Europe as to how the member states will deal with migrants seeking asylum. Wexler describes the background of the controversy, and discusses some of the developments and decisions of individual states that may affect whether Europe can reach a mutually agreed upon solution.

Illinois law professor Lesley Wexler comments on last week’s EU summit, in which the heads of state sought to address the immigration crisis affecting various countries in the European Union. Wexler describes the highlights of the resulting agreement and while cautiously optimistic, expresses concerns for what some of the longer term implications may be.

In anticipation of the heads of state meeting tomorrow and Friday, Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler discusses the immigration issues that threaten to break apart the European migration system. Wexler describes the nature of the issues facing the European Union and the various perspective different nations are bringing to the table.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf condemns the Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision upholding President Trump’s travel ban but describes a few silver linings that the ruling contains. Specifically, Dorf points out that the majority left open the possibility of future litigation challenging allegedly unlawful border policies, explicitly overruled its decision in Korematsu v. United States (which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II), denounced President Trump’s anti-Muslim statements, and served as a clear reminder that We The People can and should hold our elected official accountable for enacting or supporting abominable policies.