In light of a recent trend of conservative voices opposing no-fault divorce laws, Stanford Law visiting professor Joanna L. Grossman and SMU Dedman School of Law professor Natalie Nanasi explain the history of fault-based divorce and no-fault divorce law in the United States. Professors Grossman and Nanasi point out that since the advent of the no-fault divorce the divorce rate is lower, the process is more efficient, and no-fault divorces provide an escape hatch for abused spouses who might otherwise have been stuck in an abusive marriage.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies comments on the text message from Fox News host Tucker Carlson that apparently crossed the line and led to his being fired. Professor Margulies explores the two most common reactions to that text message and explains why one reaction is silly and the other is dangerously naïve.

In a mix of humor and seriousness, Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf imagines how Tuesdays’ meeting between President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) could go. Professor Dorf explores one creative way the two sides might reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut comments on a recent development in the New York criminal case against Donald Trump—his filing of a notice to remove. Mr. Aftergut explains that this maneuver is simply a delay tactic and argues that Trump’s legal assertions are unlikely to succeed.

Illinois Law Dean Vikram David Amar comments on the latest developments in Moore v. Harper, the pending Supreme Court case involving the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory of Articles I and II of the Constitution. Dean Amar explains how we might interpret the Moore parties’ offer (and the Justices’ acceptance) of supplemental briefing on the effect of the ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court last week and explores the significance of newly reported information about Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s apparent abandonment of ISL theory during the deliberations in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies compares the costs of United States military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, with what that same amount of money could accomplish at home. Professor Margulies points out that necessary investments like cleaning up toxic waste, replacing lead pipes and service lines, and fixing “structurally deficient” bridges cost a fraction of what the country has spent (and will spend) on unnecessary military operations worldwide.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues forcefully that the U.S. Supreme Court should stay the execution of Richard Glossip, whom Oklahoma is planning to execute on May 18 despite serious doubts about the fairness and reliability of his conviction. Professor Sarat points out that the Oklahoma Attorney General supports Glossip’s application for a stay, recognizing that to carry out the execution would irreparably harm both the defendant and the integrity of Oklahoma’s justice system.

Penn professor Marci Hamilton and UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explain how six conservative Catholics were able to be on the U.S. Supreme Court at the same time. Professors Hamilton and Griffin describe how 1970s and 1980s laid the groundwork for today’s conservative Catholic Court and argue that this group is making extraordinary progress toward making the United States a Catholic theocracy.

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan and Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf provide yet another reason against the proposal that the government should mint a multi-trillion-dollar platinum coin to avoid the impending debt ceiling crisis. Professors Buchanan and Dorf point out that if trillion-dollar platinum coins are legal to avoid a debt-ceiling crisis, that would lead to the absurd result that they would always be legal as a means of substituting modern monetary theory (MMT) for the entire apparatus of public finance.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies explains that social forgiveness—that is, restoring membership to someone who has committed a wrong against society—is, in the words of one reader “being left alone, free of probation, registration, or record.” Professor Margulies points out that respect for the rules of the group and tolerance for others are essential components of membership in (and reentry into) society.

Illinois Law Dean Vikram David Amar and Professor Jason Mazzone argue that, in light of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s “switcheroo” regarding partisan gerrymandering, the U.S. Supreme Court should immediately grant certiorari in Huffman v. Neiman to resolve the question of “Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory. Dean Amar and Professor Mazzone point out that the intense litigation pressure of today’s presidential elections and the shaky stature of the present Supreme Court together strongly support the Court acting quickly to resolve this pressing issue.

Former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut comments on the 10-page letter from lawyers of former President Donald Trump to Rep. Mike Turner, chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Aftergut points out that Special Counsel Jack Smith has significant evidence that contradicts many of the claims in the letter, and the weakness of the letter suggests Trump has no viable defense against the likely obstruction charge.

Continuing his discussion of the incident at Stanford Law School, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan explains the essential difference between disagreeable speech and intimidation and threats of physical violence. Professor Buchanan reminds us that the consequences of being disfavored and vulnerable are not a matter being socially unpopular, but matters of life and death.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies describes a choice that Jack Teixeira—the 21-year-old former member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard accused of leaking classified documents on Discord servers—now faces: paint himself as a heroic truth-teller martyred by a war-mongering liberal political establishment, or as a chastened young man who made a terrible mistake but who loves his country and would never intentionally do her any harm. Professor Margulies points out this choice leads to the further question whether can society forgive Teixeira, or any wrongdoer, if they insist they have done no moral wrong.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes how Washington’s Democratic Governor Jay Inslee’s approach to the death penalty demonstrates the value of “strategic gradualism.” Professor Sarat points out that the careful use of a scalpel, particularly in the movement to abolish the death penalty, can be more effective than the use of a sledgehammer.

Barry Winograd comments on the recent New York grand jury indictment of Donald Trump, specifically noting key points that most political and legal commentary seems to overlook. Mr. Winograd points out seven things that the public should keep in mind as the case progresses.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the recent Supreme Court oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, which raises the question of what may constitute a “true threat,” which is outside the scope of First Amendment protection. Professor Dorf argues that, notwithstanding the present case about stalking, the Court’s rulings gutting the Voting Rights Act, greenlighting extreme political gerrymandering, and expanding the scope of the Second Amendment are the true threat to democracy.

In this second of a series of columns in response to a recent controversy at Stanford Law School, UF Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan considers how universities should respond to organized efforts to stir up politically useful controversy on campus. Professor Buchanan argues that it is a recipe for disaster to fail to see through the schemes of individuals or organizations who are acting in bad faith and that other universities should not play along.

Criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Jon May discusses the rules regarding televising high-profile trials and calls for the trials of former President Donald Trump to be televised in the interest of transparency. Mr. May argues that courts have adequate procedural controls to ensure jurors and the judicial process are sufficiently protected and that televising the trials will allow anyone, anywhere in the country or the world, to see the truth for themselves.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the Republican Party has embraced a kind of messianic politics, which divides the world into two categories: those who are “faithful” and those who are “heretics.” Professor Sarat explains why this dualistic division is dangerous and antithetical to democracy.