Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler discusses the lawsuit filed by Rachel Leviss against Tom Sandoval and Ariana Madix over allegations of revenge porn, stemming from a scandal on the reality TV show Vanderpump Rules, where intimate videos of Leviss were shared without her consent. Professor Wexler argues that this case serves as a crucial opportunity for the public to learn about the legal nuances of revenge porn, highlighting its significance beyond the realm of reality TV by exploring the implications for sexual privacy, the distinction between consensual and non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and the broader societal need to respect individual autonomy over sexual imagery, regardless of the individual’s perceived moral character or actions.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses President Joe Biden’s commentary on “shrinkflation” during his State of the Union address, particularly Biden’s call to pass legislation to combat this deceptive practice where companies reduce the product size while maintaining the price. Professor Dorf explains why he agrees with the need to address shrinkflation but critiques Biden’s focus on junk food examples, arguing that consuming fewer unhealthy products might not harm consumers. Additionally, Professor Dorf highlights a broader issue of consumerist populism and the inconsistency in addressing economic policies and environmental challenges.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Anderson, where the Court ruled that Donald Trump could not be disqualified from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, emphasizing the decision’s implications for the Court’s prestige and internal consensus. Professor Sarat argues that the decision, while appearing unanimous, reveals deep divisions within the Court and suggests a failure by Chief Justice John Roberts to foster genuine unanimity or to protect the Court’s reputation, further criticizing the decision’s approach and its broader implications for the Court’s impartiality.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the execution of Ivan Cantu in Texas, using it as a case study to explore the broader issue of innocent individuals being executed in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that the continued use of the death penalty inevitably leads to the execution of innocent people, underscoring the urgent need to abolish capital punishment to prevent such irreversible injustices.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the recent failed execution attempt of Thomas Eugene Creech in Idaho, highlighting lethal injection’s history of unreliability and the broader context of its use as an execution method in the United States. Professor Sarat argues that systemic issues and denial by state officials perpetuate the cruelty and inefficiency of lethal injections, urging an acknowledgment of its failures and a cessation of its use for capital punishment.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar, Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone, and Illinois Law’s First Amendment Clinic director Lena Shapiro examine the legal intricacies and constitutional debates surrounding a federal district court’s dismissal of the Disney Corporation’s lawsuit against Florida officials, in which Disney alleges retaliatory action for Disney’s criticism of Florida laws by changing the governance of the land regulating Disney World. The authors highlight the complexity of First Amendment issues involved, the precedent set by prior cases, and the broader implications for speech regulation and governmental retaliation, suggesting areas for deeper academic exploration.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision last week in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., in which it equates frozen embryos with “extraeuterine children,” thereby using fetal personhood rhetoric to jeopardize IVF practices. Professor Dorf argues that this reasoning not only undermines prospective parents’ freedoms but also reflects a flawed understanding of rights as zero-sum, contrasting sharply with instances where expanding rights can enhance societal well-being.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on a lawsuit filed by David Phillip Wilson, currently on Alabama’s death row for a 2004 murder, claiming that Alabama’s plan to execute him by nitrogen gas violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Professor Sarat notes the state’s problematic history with gas executions and the recent painful, 22-minute execution of Kenneth Smith by nitrogen gas, and argues that Wilson’s lawsuit makes a compelling case that nitrogen hypoxia presents a substantial risk of severe pain and suffering.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Klara Nedrelow argue that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) incorrectly imposed provisional measures on Israel regarding its actions in Gaza, as it failed to establish even a preliminary basis for genocide intent required under the Genocide Convention. Professor Estreicher and Ms. Nedrelow contend that South Africa’s allegations lacked plausibility due to the absence of specific intent to destroy the Gazan/Palestinian people, a critical element for genocide, in contrast to previous ICJ rulings that required a higher burden of proof for genocidal intent.
Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman and 3L Sarah F. Corning comment on the Alabama Supreme Court’s questionable ruling in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine that frozen embryos qualify as children under the state’s wrongful death statute, effectively granting embryos full personhood status, a decision aligned with anti-abortion efforts to establish fetal personhood legally. Professor Grossman and Ms. Corning point out that this ruling reflects broader national debates and legal challenges around fetal personhood and poses significant implications for reproductive rights, fertility treatments, and the legal recognition of embryos and fetuses. They suggest that it could even lead to the restriction or closure of fertility treatment centers in Alabama and influence future court interpretations related to abortion and reproductive technologies.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies describes his struggle with the polarized views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and expresses feeling alienated for holding nuanced positions on both sides’ rights and criticisms. Professor Margulies emphasizes the universal right to dignity and respect over territorial or partisan victories, advocating for a perspective that transcends traditional binaries and focuses on shared humanity and the equal right to thrive.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat reflects on the 100-year history of gas chamber executions in the United States, highlighting the method’s failure to provide a humane and reliable form of capital punishment despite initial claims, and marking the recent revival of its use in Alabama as a continuation of this problematic legacy. Professor Sarat details the origins and implementation of gas chambers, including the first execution of Gee Jon in Nevada and the various adaptations states made over the years, culminating in a critique of lethal gas as an inhumane method that has consistently resulted in torture and botched executions.
Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, in which the Justices seemed inclined to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that disqualified Donald Trump from the state’s Republican primary under the Fourteenth Amendment for “engaging in insurrection.” Professor Dorf points out that the Justices’ questioning revealed a spectrum of potential rationales, from concerns over political retribution and the historical interpretation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to structural arguments about federal versus state authority in determining a candidate’s eligibility for the presidency.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar expresses concern over the quality of the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Trump v. Anderson, suggesting that the Justices’ questions failed to adequately address the complexities of the case and the constitutional principles at stake, particularly regarding the electoral college and interstate federalism. Professor Amar critiques the Court’s understanding of the electoral college system, arguing that the Justices’ apprehensions about the potential consequences of their decision overlook the inherent flexibility states have in appointing electors—a flexibility underscored by originalist constitutional interpretations and past precedents.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the ageism evident in special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Joe Biden's handling of classified documents, highlighting its undue focus on the President’s age-related memory issues as irrelevant and prejudicial. Professor Sarat argues that such ageism, while pervasive and often ignored, undermines the valuable contributions of older individuals, emphasizing the importance of experience over age-related cognitive decline.
Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, professors Meredith R. Miller and Laura A. Dooley discuss the complexities of federal jurisdiction in cases involving limited liability companies (LLCs), suggesting an amendment to the diversity statute to simplify determining an LLC’s citizenship based on its state of creation and principal place of business. Professors Miller and Dooley evaluate the strategic implications of such a change from both procedural and business law perspectives, considering the impact on litigants’ access to federal courts, the influence of recent legislative efforts on ownership transparency, and the balance between offering fair legal proceedings and maintaining the advantages of state versus federal litigation.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the proposal by Oklahoma’s Attorney General and the Director of the Department of Corrections to execute execute six individuals with 90-day intervals between each, in a purported effort to address operational and mental health strains on execution team members. Professor Sarat points out that this plan fails to address deeper injustices within the death penalty system, not the least of which is the significant toll on those involved in executions, as well as the systemic issues of unfair trials and racial bias affecting death row inmates.
Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold the decisions of the Colorado and Maine courts that disqualified Donald Trump from running for President under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Falvy identifies several ways that the Court could rationalize putting Trump back on the ballot and explains the legal and consequential problems with each. In particular, Mr. Falvy criticizes the superficially appealing “let the people decide” line of thought, pointing out that it is actually highly undemocratic and dangerous; indeed, such dictators as Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte in France, Adolf Hitler in Germany, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, each launched a failed coup d’état, endured a short stint in jail, and returned to win power through elections.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the groundbreaking prosecution for involuntary manslaughter of Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of Ethan Crumbley, who killed four classmates in a school mass shooting. Professor Margulies highlights legal and moral complexities surrounding causation and parental responsibility, questioning whether the parents’ negligence in not foreseeing their son’s violent actions, despite clear warning signs, justifies holding them criminally liable for the murders. Professor Margulies also reflects on the broader implications for societal expectations of parental foresight and the limits of criminal law in addressing such tragic events.
UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone comment on a federal lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Mississippi, among others, challenging Mississippi’s law that counts mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within five business days thereafter for federal elections. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed due to the implausibility of its legal theory, highlighting the distinction between the act of voting and the counting of votes, and underscoring the constitutional and statutory framework that grants states broad leeway in election administration, including the acceptance of mail-in ballots.
