Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the student backlash against outgoing Bard College president Leon Botstein over his fundraising relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, using the WilmerHale investigation’s findings to explore competing moral rationales Botstein offered for that relationship. Professor Margulies argues that while he strongly supports the principle that convicted sex offenders deserve a presumption of rehabilitation like any other offender, he condemns Botstein’s separate rationale—that money should be accepted regardless of its source or the donor’s conduct—because Epstein never showed contrition and instead tried to buy his way back into elite society without acknowledging wrongdoing or respecting society’s legitimate demand for accountability.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump on capital punishment, set against the backdrop of the Justice Department’s April 2026 announcement to restart and expand federal executions. Professor Sarat argues that the Pope’s moral condemnation of the death penalty as an affront to human dignity—offered without anger or political calculation—exposes the cruelty underlying the Trump administration’s embrace of capital punishment and should reinvigorate the abolition movement in the United States.
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 two recent Trump administration actions—the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund and a DOJ settlement granting the president and his family immunity from tax enforcement—arguing that both are unconstitutional and morally indefensible. Professor Sarat argues that the tax immunity arrangement amounts to an unconstitutional self-pardon by proxy, while the Anti-Weaponization Fund violates the First Amendment, equal protection, separation of powers, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit prohibition on compensating insurrectionists. He further argues that courts and the public must resist both actions before Trump normalizes using governmental power for personal benefit.
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.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the societal tendency toward punitive rigidity in the face of criminal conduct, contrasting our current “unforgiving society” with the need for a more compassionate approach. Professor Margulies argues that by shifting our focus from merely asking what a person did to understanding the complex life circumstances that led to their actions, we can move toward a more humanizing justice system that recognizes the potential for atonement and shared humanity.
David S. Kemp analyzes the first federal court ruling on AI and attorney-client privilege, United States v. Heppner, examining the court’s reasoning across each element of the privilege test and the work product doctrine. Mr. Kemp argues that while the court reached the correct result on two independent and sufficient grounds, its unnecessary confidentiality analysis was methodologically flawed—treating Anthropic’s broadest contractual reserved rights as dispositive without examining the specific terms, product tier, or training preferences that actually governed Heppner’s use. He warns that this overbroad reasoning, rather than the uncontroversial holdings, is what future courts will most likely cite, with potentially damaging consequences for privilege claims in any professional context involving third-party platforms.
Criminal defense attorney Jon May examines systemic ethical misconduct within the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration, focusing on how DOJ leadership has undermined the rule of law and judicial independence. Mr. May argues that federal courts should use their existing authority to issue formal ethical conduct orders at the outset of litigation to enforce accountability and deter misconduct by both government attorneys and their supervisors.
In a recent episode of the Touro Law Review podcast, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron speaks with attorney and debut novelist Victor Suthammanont about his journey from drama student to legal professional, and how both fields inform his exploration of truth. Their conversation delves into the themes of Suthammanont’s novel Hollow Spaces, the limits and purpose of the trial system, and the ongoing role of law in serving the public good.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Steve Kramer critique the long-standing legal doctrine of “litigation privilege,” which protects lawyers from civil liability for statements made during legal proceedings, even if those statements are false or malicious. Professor Sarat and Mr. Kramer argue that in light of recent ethical breaches by attorneys involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it is time to eliminate this privilege to uphold integrity and truthfulness within the legal profession.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat uses a controversial Little League legal case to explore the broader topic of justice, its role in democratic societies, and its limitations when pursued without balance. Professor Sarat argues that while seeking justice is vital, it must be guided by prudence and proportionality, cautioning against an overzealous, justice-obsessed culture that reacts to every wrong with litigation.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the recent mass stabbing in Michigan by Bradford James Gille and explores the deeper systemic and personal factors behind seemingly random acts of violence. Professor Margulies argues that before society can decide what justice or punishment looks like in such cases, we must first understand the humanity and complex stories behind individuals like Gille, rejecting questions that strip away their personhood.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the challenges and responsibilities of academic scholarship on the death penalty, particularly when such research offers nuanced or unpopular views within the abolitionist movement. Professor Sarat argues that scholars must pursue truthful and critical inquiry—even if it unsettles allies—because their ultimate contribution lies in illuminating the harsh realities of capital punishment, not in conforming to political or moral orthodoxy.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explores the idea that profound suffering, such as that experienced in Auschwitz or in high-security prisons, can serve as a powerful catalyst for personal growth and the realization of human potential. Professor Margulies reflects on Dr. Edith Eger’s belief that suffering can be a “greatest classroom,” concluding that while suffering alone does not guarantee human flourishing, it is the presence of unconditional love and support in response to suffering that enables individuals to achieve their fullest selves.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses his book project about society’s tendency to ostracize wrongdoers and explores the complex role of remorse in how society judges and responds to those who have committed serious transgressions. Professor Margulies grapples with a particular challenge in his research—how to address cases where individuals who have committed wrongful acts feel no remorse for their actions, using examples like January 6 rioters and abortion providers in different states—and invites such individuals to share their perspectives.
University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the disregard for legal and constitutional norms demonstrated by Donald Trump and supported by figures like Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as the co-opting of religious and patriotic ideals by the political right for partisan gain. Professor Buchanan argues that the defense of Trump’s actions undermines democratic principles and shared cultural values, and he highlights the disturbing alignment of some religious leaders with Trump’s divisive rhetoric despite their religion’s traditional teachings of compassion and unity.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses a writing exercise created by award-winning writer and teacher Rachel Kadish that asks students to write from the perspective of someone expressing views they find abhorrent, connecting this practice to broader issues of societal division and empathy. Professor Margulies argues that consciously attempting to understand others’ perspectives and behaviors before passing judgment—even when their actions are deplorable—is essential for reducing social polarization and recognizing our shared humanity.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses his growing alienation from American society due to its increasing cultural fixation on blame, ostracism, and divisive binary thinking, particularly in politics and public discourse. Professor Margulies argues for rejecting this culture of “othering” and demonization, instead advocating for thoughtful dialogue across ideological differences, even while holding and expressing strong opinions on controversial issues like capital punishment and Guantanamo Bay.
Attorneys Stephen Marcus and Bruce Kuhlik discuss the ethical responsibilities of lawyers in the context of predicted attempts by Donald Trump and his allies to undermine the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The authors argue that lawyers considering advocating unsubstantiated claims of election fraud should learn from the disciplinary actions taken against Trump’s 2020 election lawyers, adhere to their ethical duties, and follow the example of those who refused to violate their obligations to their profession and the Constitution after the 2020 election despite significant pressure to do so.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the recent political developments in the United States, contrasting the Democratic Party’s rapid unity behind Kamala Harris with Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric, and explores the implications of these different approaches for democracy. Professor Margulies argues that while short-term political unity can be beneficial in times of crisis, a healthy democracy should welcome policy disagreements without resorting to personal attacks, emphasizing the importance of focusing on issues rather than character judgments in political discourse.
