UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the long history of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church and the role of various popes in either ignoring or covering up allegations against clergy, drawing from investigative journalist Philip Shenon’s book on the topic. Professor Griffin argues that successive popes—Pius XII through Francis—failed to take meaningful action against abusers, instead prioritizing the protection of the Church’s reputation, and she suggests that the election of the next pope will determine whether real change ever occurs.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a recent symposium on constitutional law casebooks, highlighting the challenges of teaching constitutional law at a time when the Trump administration and the Supreme Court are reshaping legal precedents. Professor Dorf argues that while these changes present difficulties, it remains essential to teach established legal principles and encourage students to critically engage with unresolved legal questions, including, in some cases, through the use of rhetorical questions in casebooks.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton critiques President Donald Trump’s handling of foreign policy, particularly his recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and argues that Trump’s deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin stems from ideological alignment with the religious right rather than merely personal or financial motivations. Professor Hamilton argues that Trump’s pro-Russia stance reflects the religious right’s alignment with Putin’s anti-LGBTQ policies, and that evangelical leaders are willing to support autocrats who share their “family values” agenda while undermining democratic principles and the separation of church and state.

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto discuss the unprecedented removal of top military legal advisors (TJAGs) by the Trump administration and its potential consequences for military legal independence, the rule of law, and democratic governance. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that these firings undermine the TJAGs’ role as independent legal advisors, threaten adherence to military justice and international law, and could either facilitate unlawful actions or create a chilling effect on military lawyers, potentially threatening democracy and national defense.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Montana’s death penalty status, noting that capital punishment is legally permitted but rarely used in the deeply Republican state, with only three executions since 1976 and recent legislative rejection of a proposal to facilitate more executions. Professor Sarat argues that even as a symbolic punishment, maintaining capital punishment on the books causes harm to both the abolitionist cause and the entire country by making extreme prison sentences seem more humane by comparison, contributing to America’s high incarceration rates.

USF Law visiting professor Michele Neitz examines the emergence of DeepSeek R1, a low-cost open-source AI model from China, and its implications for the democratization of AI technology development beyond major tech companies. Professor Neitz argues that while this democratization offers benefits like increased innovation, affordability, and diverse participation, it also presents significant challenges around data privacy, security, and responsible development that require thoughtful regulatory responses rather than outright bans.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the potential end of the Musk-Trump administration and reasons for hope during their governance, examining historical parallels, current political dynamics, and public reaction to their policies. Professor Buchanan argues that despite the current pessimistic climate, there are several reasons for optimism, including an unstable political coalition, Trump’s cult of personality that may not survive his absence, historical precedents of positive change like the Civil Rights movement, and the administration’s self-undermining behavior through indefensible policies and poor argumentation.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses his book project about society’s tendency to ostracize wrongdoers and explores the complex role of remorse in how society judges and responds to those who have committed serious transgressions. Professor Margulies grapples with a particular challenge in his research—how to address cases where individuals who have committed wrongful acts feel no remorse for their actions, using examples like January 6 rioters and abortion providers in different states—and invites such individuals to share their perspectives.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar examines the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams and the legal and ethical implications of potentially using criminal charges as leverage to influence local government policy decisions. Professor Amar argues that if the DOJ dismissed charges as part of a quid pro quo to gain Adams’s cooperation with federal immigration policies, this would constitute an unconstitutional violation of federalism principles by improperly pressuring local officials to act against their constituents’ interests, similar to prohibited practices outlined in Supreme Court cases like New York v. United States and Spallone v. United States.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf compares the Trump administration’s recent efforts to interfere in a federal corruption case to Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” highlighting the resignations of principled conservative prosecutors who refused to comply. Professor Dorf argues that while Trump’s actions align with the unitary executive theory favored by some conservatives, the real issue is his disregard for longstanding legal norms that prosecutors should act based on law and facts rather than political influence.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s ongoing de facto moratorium on executions and the broader implications for the future of the death penalty in both Ohio and the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Ohio’s inability to procure lethal injection drugs, combined with public opposition, racial disparities, financial inefficiencies, and declining crime rates, demonstrates that the state—and potentially the nation—can function without capital punishment, signaling a possible shift toward abolition.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the current state of American democracy under Trump’s leadership and contemplates both immediate and long-term prospects for democratic restoration. Professor Buchanan argues that while the current situation is dire, there are reasons for hope, including Trump’s limited lifespan, the likely power struggle among his potential successors, and historical precedents of democratic renewal following periods of authoritarianism.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the surge in federal lawsuits challenging the new Trump administration’s extensive assertions of executive power. Emphasizing the critical role of the judiciary in these times, Professor Amar explains the significance of court rulings, particularly preliminary injunctions, as temporarily halting executive actions to prevent irreparable harm while the legal merits are fully adjudicated, and he highlights the immense pressure on judges to navigate these complex and politically charged constitutional issues.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent execution of Marion Bowman in South Carolina, focusing on his case and the broader cruelties inherent in the American capital punishment system. Professor Sarat argues that Bowman’s case exemplifies multiple systemic issues in death penalty cases, including the treatment of those claiming innocence, the coercive nature of plea deals, inadequate legal defense, and the psychological torture of death row conditions, particularly during the final months before execution.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 2L Matthew Fouracre exploree the legal and jurisdictional complexities surrounding the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, focusing on the challenges against the ICC’s jurisdiction and the implications of head of state immunity. Professor Estreicher and Mr. Fouracre argue that while the ICC’s jurisdiction is contested due to Palestine’s statehood status and international legal principles, the varying international responses underscore a broader debate on the enforceability of such warrants against high-ranking officials.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the actions taken by Donald Trump shortly after his inauguration, focusing on his disregard for democratic norms and the potential legal violations involved, particularly highlighting the removal of security details from political adversaries like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Anthony Fauci. Professor Dorf argues that these decisions reflect Trump’s vengeful and autocratic tendencies, likening his behavior to that of a dictator or crime boss, and warning of the broader implications for democratic governance and personal safety of those perceived as his enemies.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the paradoxical status of the death penalty in California, highlighting its high number of death row inmates and new sentences despite a moratorium on executions and a progressive stance. Professor Sarat contrasts this with Texas’s declining death penalty numbers, emphasizing the complex political landscape in California where local prosecutors and public opinion continue to support capital punishment, creating challenges for abolitionists trying to effect change.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Supreme Court case FCC v. Consumers’ Research et al., which challenges the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of authority under the nondelegation doctrine. Professor Amar argues that while the nondelegation doctrine has been historically dormant, the case highlights important constitutional considerations about the delegation of legislative authority, specifically the ability to reclaim delegated power, and he urges the Court to address these broader issues if it examines the nondelegation questions in this case.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the disconnect between Donald Trump’s campaign promises, particularly regarding consumer prices, and the subsequent actions and attitudes of his administration and supporters following his second election win. Professor Buchanan argues that Trump’s voters are not misled by economic grievances but are rather motivated by deeper ideological convictions, particularly concerning race and identity, leading them to support policies and rhetoric aligned with their beliefs despite the apparent abandonment of campaign promises.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses a recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision where the majority struck down legislation purporting to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases, focusing on distinctions between vested rights and remedies. Professor Griffin argues that the dissenting justices correctly pointed out that the legislature’s extension aimed to address the unique nature of sexual abuse disclosure, challenging the notion of vested rights and emphasizing that there is no inherent right to avoid legal consequences for past wrongs.