Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the role of nostalgia in the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, focusing on how Donald Trump and Joe Biden are framing the contest around voters’ recollections of the past. Professor Sarat argues that while Biden wants voters to remember Trump’s poor handling of the early COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Trump benefits more from nostalgia as voters tend to remember the pre-pandemic economy positively, suggesting that, to prevail, Biden must shift focus to his vision for the future.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone coment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson holding that states cannot enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar former President Donald Trump from primary election ballots due to his alleged role in the January 6 Capitol breach. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the Court’s reasoning, primarily based on concerns about nationwide ballot uniformity in presidential elections, is flawed because it fails to properly consider the Constitution’s overall design, which grants states significant autonomy in running presidential elections and selecting electors.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Donald Trump’s long history of making false claims about election fraud and his current warnings about the 2024 presidential election being rigged. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s baseless allegations are damaging democracy, sowing distrust in the electoral process, and setting the stage for potential unrest if he loses in November.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s handling of the Texas v. United States case involving a controversial Texas immigration law, using it as an example of the broader issue of increased polarization and chaos in the federal court system due to the courts’ expanding “shadow docket.” Professor Dorf argues that while both political parties bear some responsibility for this polarization, Republicans have moved much further from centrism, contributing more to the acute political divide that has spread to the courts and is exemplified by the Texas Republicans’ extreme stance on immigration in this case.

Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the conventional wisdom that delays in Donald Trump’s legal cases benefit him politically, as Trump hopes to win the 2024 election before facing legal consequences. However, Professor Buchanan argues that these delays actually help President Joe Biden and the Democrats, and that convictions prior to the election would not significantly harm Trump’s political chances, making the delays the best realistic outcome for those who oppose Trump.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Georgia’s plan to execute Willie James Pye on March 20, 2023, and the state’s efforts to restrict press access and impose secrecy around the execution process. Professor Sarat argues that Georgia’s lethal injection protocol, which severely limits what the press can witness and the public can know about executions, is unlawful and arbitrary, serving no legitimate state interest, and that the court should grant the request to stop executions until the restrictions on press access are removed.

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.