Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Board of Immigration Appeals’ request for amicus briefs on whether it must follow U.S. Supreme Court and circuit precedent on constitutional questions even when doing so would require finding a statute or regulation unconstitutional, a power agencies otherwise lack. Professor Dorf argues that while the two obligations can often be reconciled through careful distinctions (such as those between facial and as-applied challenges), he warns that a BIA now dominated by Trump appointees may exploit this tension in bad faith to consistently rule against immigrants, leaving the courts to correct any opportunistic or inconsistent application of these principles.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines the Democratic Senate primary in Maine, where progressive candidate Graham Platner—despite a compelling populist platform—has faced mounting scrutiny over a series of personal controversies including offensive social media posts, a controversial tattoo, and allegations of infidelity and abusive behavior. Professor Dorf argues that, while Platner’s character flaws are genuine cause for concern, Democratic voters can rationally support him in the general election against incumbent Susan Collins, because his flaws—more akin to Bill Clinton’s than Donald Trump’s—do not threaten constitutional democracy and should yield to the practical calculus of a binary electoral choice.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the settlement of a lawsuit between Donald Trump and the Department of Justice, which established a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and granted the Trump family permanent immunity from various tax claims. Professor Dorf argues that this arrangement constitutes a corrupt exploitation of the Federal Judgment Fund and urges Congress to implement structural reforms to prevent future presidents from bypassing the constitutional power of the purse through collusive litigation.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent surge of anti-Semitic violence in the United States, using the March 2026 attack on a Michigan synagogue as a launching point for a broader historical and political argument. Professor Sarat contends that attacks on Jews threaten America’s democratic foundations—not just its Jewish community—and that the Trump administration has failed to respond meaningfully while cynically weaponizing anti-Semitism concerns for political ends.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Harvard University, which seeks to compel the production of detailed, individual-level admissions and student performance data. Professor Sarat argues that the administration uses this litigation as a pretext for a “racial shaming campaign” intended to stigmatize people of color and weaponize data to serve a divisive political agenda.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal court ruling blocking the Trump administration’s transfer of Biden-commuted death row inmates to a federal supermax prison, examining the constitutional and procedural issues surrounding that action. Professor Sarat argues that the court was right to intervene, because the administration violated due process by bypassing individualized assessment procedures to pursue a predetermined punitive outcome, and that upholding constitutional protections for even the most heinous offenders is essential to preserving the rule of law and human dignity.

Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen discusses the Trump administration’s aggressive verbal attacks and social media rhetoric directed at the federal judiciary following the Supreme Court’s adverse ruling against his global tariffs. Ms. Rikleen argues that such hostile language from the executive branch incites threats against jurists and their families, ultimately endangering the physical safety of judges and undermining the foundational principle of judicial independence.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses widespread speculation that Justice Samuel Alito may retire from the Supreme Court soon, examining both the evidence (particularly his book’s release date and strategic timing before the 2026 midterms) and the broader institutional problems this speculation reveals. Professor Dorf argues that the real issue is not the Supreme Court’s lack of transparency, but the combination of life tenure and ideological polarization, which creates an unhealthy obsession with Justices’ retirement timing and makes Supreme Court appointments depend on accidents of health and political calculations rather than a sensible democratic process.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files, criticizing the selective release of documents and attempts to minimize their importance to the public. Professor Hamilton argues that none of the powerful men in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit acted with moral decency by reporting the obvious abuse of young girls they witnessed, and she calls for complete transparency rather than allowing officials to suppress information and avoid accountability.

Amherst professors Ruxandra Paul and Austin Sarat discuss the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization and its push to make vaccinations optional, arguing these actions undermine public health infrastructure both domestically and globally. Professors Paul and Sarat contend that the administration’s “America First” approach, which prioritizes individual autonomy over collective health measures and uses U.S. withdrawal as leverage for political aims, will leave Americans and the world more vulnerable to disease outbreaks and reverse decades of public health progress.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses how the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies led to violence in Minneapolis, examining the gap between campaign promises to deport violent criminals and the reality of mass deportation tactics targeting peaceful undocumented immigrants in Democratic cities. Professor Margulies argues that the administration’s use of immigration enforcement as political retaliation, combined with performative authoritarian tactics designed to appeal to Trump's base, made the violent clashes and killings by federal agents inevitable.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax information by former IRS employee Charles Littlejohn, examining the legal basis and problems with the case. Professor Dorf argues that while the lawsuit has some factual merit, it should be dismissed because the damages claim of $10 billion is fantastical and implausible, Trump himself was responsible for IRS management during the breach, the case likely falls outside the two-year statute of limitations, and it represents an unprecedented and improper attempt by a sitting president to sue his own government for monetary damages.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron reviews retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2025 memoir Life, Law & Liberty, examining his life, career, and legacy as the pivotal “swing vote” on the Court from 1987 to 2018. While Professor Citron expresses admiration for Kennedy as a person and finds the memoir gracefully written, he argues that Kennedy fails to adequately account for his role in shaping the current political and legal landscape and erosion of democracy. Further, Professor Citron suggests that Kennedy’s moderate influence has become irrelevant as his successors have moved the Court sharply rightward, overturning precedents like Roe v. Wade that Kennedy himself helped preserve.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen critique Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, arguing that it fails to address the recent constitutional challenges and the Supreme Court’s role in enabling presidential overreach. The authors contend that Roberts’s report offers a misleadingly sanitized view of the judiciary’s actions, ignores historical lessons from figures like Thomas Paine, and ultimately gaslights the public by omitting the Supreme Court’s complicity in the erosion of democratic norms and the rule of law.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2025 Year End Report, which, though seemingly apolitical on the surface, reflects on the American Revolution and the Constitution to emphasize the value of judicial independence and the evolving meaning of constitutional principles. Professor Dorf argues that while Roberts’s rhetoric aligns with a progressive, non-originalist view of constitutional interpretation akin to that of Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court’s recent rulings—including those Roberts has joined—fall short of embodying those ideals, making his words ring hollow without corresponding judicial action.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat highlights the crucial role played by U.S. federal district judges in 2025 as defenders of constitutional government amid unprecedented political pressure and legal overreach by the executive branch. Professor Sarat argues that these judges have courageously resisted attempts to erode the rule of law, often at personal risk, and calls for greater respect, protection, and support for their judicial independence from both Congress and the Supreme Court.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton addresses the Trump administration’s handling of public health, particularly its promotion of anti-vaccine rhetoric and policy decisions that have led to a resurgence of preventable childhood diseases and deaths. Professor Hamilton argues that by empowering figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and prioritizing parental “rights” over established science, the administration has fostered a reckless and deadly culture that endangers children’s lives.

In this annual “worst legal decision,” column, Amherst professor Austin Sarat critiques the tenure of Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2025, arguing that her leadership has marked a dramatic erosion of the Justice Department’s independence and integrity by subjugating it to President Trump's political agenda. Professor Sarat argues that Bondi has transformed the DOJ into a partisan tool for retribution, abandoning constitutional principles and echoing the abuses of the pre-Watergate era, making her the year’s worst legal decision(maker).

Akshai Vikram, a JD candidate at Columbia Law School, examines how President Donald Trump’s second administration has expanded executive power in controversial ways, prompting growing bipartisan concern and calls for Congress to reclaim authority and protect civil liberties. Mr. Vikram argues that Congress must not only roll back specific statutes that enable executive overreach but also strengthen judicial remedies for rights violations and reform doctrines like qualified immunity, state secrets, and judicial injunctions to restore constitutional balance.

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.