The opinion piece discusses a recent Indiana appeals court ruling that granted religious exemptions to the state's restrictive abortion law based on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The author argues that this ruling could have broader implications, potentially providing a basis in federal constitutional law to challenge abortion restrictions nationwide on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent unprecedented request by Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen to resentence all death row inmates from his county, highlighting the critical role prosecutors play as gatekeepers in the death penalty system. Professor Sarat argues that Rosen’s actions, driven by concerns about racial bias and changing attitudes towards capital punishment, serve as an important example for other prosecutors to follow in order to right past wrongs and ensure justice is upheld, regardless of how much time has passed.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the issue of bias in the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and the need for research into public trust in the IC, particularly in the current “post-truth” era. Professor Margulies argues that while existing research suggests broad public support for the IC, more comprehensive and nuanced research is needed to understand how the current partisan and “post-truth” environment may be eroding trust in the intelligence function, and that the Department of Defense should commission such research to inform its understanding of and response to this issue.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines the legality of Israel’s military operation at the al-Shifa hospital complex in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war, focusing on specific allegations such as attacks on the hospital, the killing of Faiq Mabhouh, civilian protections, and treatment of journalists and medical staff. Professor Wexler argues that while the legality depends on contested facts that warrant further investigation, hospitals can lose protection if used for military purposes, and the treatment of protected persons like journalists and medical staff raises serious legal concerns under international humanitarian law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Donald Trump’s recent attacks on Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump’s New York hush money trial, as well as on the prosecutor and the judge’s daughter. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s contemptuous remarks and efforts to intimidate and discredit the judiciary should be met with contempt orders and appropriate penalties by the courts, as silence or acquiescence in the face of such behavior is far worse and threatens the integrity and independence of the judicial system.

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.