Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to administer the oath of office to Adelita Grijalva, a duly elected representative from Arizona, and examines the constitutional and legal implications, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack. Professor Dorf argues that Johnson’s actions appear to be a politically motivated and constitutionally baseless effort to block Grijalva from voting—potentially on the Epstein files discharge petition—and reflects a broader disregard for democratic norms and the rule of law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Donald Trump’s repeated denial of any connection to Project 2025 during his campaign, despite extensive evidence that its policy goals are being actively implemented now in his second term. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s deception about Project 2025 was deliberate and consequential, revealing his broader authoritarian ambitions and marking one of the most impactful political lies in modern American history.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines President Donald Trump’s current efforts to pressure major law firms and corporations, including Microsoft, to punish individuals he considers personal enemies—often through actions resembling unconstitutional “bills of attainder” that impose penalties without due process. Professor Sarat argues that while big businesses and their leaders possess the influence to resist these authoritarian tactics, they have largely remained silent out of fear, self-interest, or moral weakness, thereby failing to uphold democratic values.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the shift in American political culture, focusing on a moment at Charlie Kirk’s memorial where President Trump publicly embraced hatred for his opponents, contrasting it with calls for forgiveness and unity. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s unapologetic hatred not only erodes the moral and democratic foundations of the presidency but also threatens to make animosity and division the norm in American society.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf explores whether law firms that settled with the Trump administration by agreeing to provide free services to the government violated the Antideficiency Act, which bars unauthorized voluntary services to federal agencies. Professor Dorf argues that these services are not truly voluntary, as they were made under coercive executive orders, and thus the law firms did not violate the Act—but instead, it is President Trump who broke the law by issuing unconstitutional orders targeting political enemies.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat and attorney Steve Kramer reflect on the national implications of the public reaction to activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, examining how his death underscores deep social and political divisions, especially in the age of social media. The authors argue that widespread online polarization and knee-jerk reactions are threatening democratic norms, and they urge Americans to pause, reflect, and reclaim empathy and civic responsibility to prevent further societal decline.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton draws parallels between her experience clerking at the U.S. Supreme Court during efforts to undermine Roe v. Wade and the Trump administration’s implementation of its secretive Project 2025 policy agenda. Professor Hamilton argues that, much like the conservative clerk “cabal,” the administration operates through covert, coordinated strategies to impose unpopular ideology without public debate, using authoritarian means to bypass democratic norms.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Trump’s efforts to unilaterally alter federal election rules through executive orders, including mandates on voter ID and restrictions on mail-in voting, despite constitutional limits on presidential authority. Professor Sarat argues that these actions not only violate the Constitution’s allocation of election oversight to Congress and the states but also reflect a partisan attempt by Trump to influence the outcome of the 2026 congressional elections.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron discusses the evolving state of administrative law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023–24 term, which significantly curtailed agency power by overturning Chevron deference and bolstering the Major Questions doctrine—referred to by scholars as the “Roberts Court Revolution” (RCR). Professor Citron, a co-author of a new administrative law textbook, reflects on the challenges of capturing these rapid legal changes in academic materials, ultimately presenting a critical stance toward the Court’s recent decisions and expressing concern about the ongoing weakening of the administrative state, especially under President Trump’s second term.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone examine President Trump’s executive order instructing the Department of Justice to prioritize prosecuting flag burning under existing content-neutral laws and considers the constitutional implications under First Amendment jurisprudence. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that while the executive order nominally adheres to constitutional constraints, it potentially raises serious free speech concerns by targeting specific expressive conduct—flag desecration—for prosecution based on its political message, and exposes the lack of clarity and consistency in the Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrine.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the enduring presence and normalization of violence in American culture, using the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence and the recent mass stabbing in Traverse City, Michigan, as entry points to examine broader societal trends. Professor Sarat argues that while violence has long been part of America's foundation, former President Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric and dehumanizing language have dangerously amplified a culture of cruelty and retribution, making it more urgent than ever to resist these influences.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explains why he chooses not to follow the daily outrages of the Trump administration, instead focusing on understanding the broader narrative and underlying forces that explain our current political moment, including economic shifts, demographic changes, and the decline of white hegemony. Professor Margulies points out that, for him, obsessing over individual scandals and daily news is less important than crafting a comprehensive meta-narrative that explains the complex, interconnected factors driving Trumpism and American politics, even though this task is extraordinarily difficult and remains incomplete.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the Social Security Administration’s politically-charged email praising Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and its supposed tax relief for seniors—a departure from the agency’s traditional independence. Professor Sarat argues that the SSA’s misleading email represents a betrayal of public trust and the agency’s mission, serving Trump’s personal branding agenda while failing to address Social Security’s actual funding crisis or accurately describe the legislation’s limited benefits.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Jennifer Robbennolt examine how President Donald Trump reverses the traditional role of public apologies by refusing to apologize for state wrongdoing while demanding apologies from lawful actors like media outlets, universities, and government officials. Professors Wexler and Robbennolt argue that this pattern reflects authoritarian logic that undermines truth, accountability, and democratic values, and they urge non-wrongdoing actors to resist these coerced apology demands to preserve the rule of law and democratic institutions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Vice President JD Vance’s brief June 20 visit to Los Angeles, which lasted just 4.5 hours and included minimal time at federal operations centers but ample time for media appearances and political events. Professor Sarat argues that Vance has abandoned the traditional role of political leadership in promoting the public good and unity, instead embracing divisive rhetoric, racist provocations, and inflammatory attacks on political opponents that exemplify the Trump administration’s politics of provocation rather than serious governance.

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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Vance Boelter, who allegedly murdered Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and attempted to murder Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in politically motivated attacks targeting elected Democrats. Professor Sarat argues that despite the horrific nature of these crimes, federal prosecutors should not seek the death penalty in Minnesota, which abolished capital punishment over a century ago and whose citizens would likely reject it.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and professor emeritus Alan E. Brownstein discuss the importance of applying constitutional principles consistently across different political contexts, using examples from free speech, federalism, and equal protection cases. Professors Amar and Brownstein argue that constitutional interpretation should follow a “Golden Rule” principle—applying the same legal standards regardless of whether the outcome favors one’s own political preferences—though they acknowledge this is difficult because it requires people to subordinate their substantive desires for the sake of even-handed constitutional application.

Illinois Law professor Matthew W. Finkin draws a detailed historical comparison between Donald Trump’s 2025 actions as U.S. president and key elements of the Nazi regime’s early consolidation of power, highlighting parallels in civil service purges, governmental structure, legal subordination, and ideological control. Professor Finkin argues that Trump’s efforts to reshape American institutions through loyalty tests, executive overreach, and propaganda echo dangerous authoritarian patterns, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and the potential for a similar “seizure of power” unless checked by the judiciary and public resistance.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf evaluates the constitutional and legal abuses committed by Donald Trump during his second term as president, based on a New York Times survey of 35 legal scholars. Professor Dorf argues that Trump’s actions, which include undermining judicial authority, dismantling federal institutions, and enforcing loyalty over law, threaten to transform the United States from a flawed constitutional democracy into an autocratic kleptocracy.