University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan critiques J.D. Vance’s candidacy, highlighting the increasing negativity he brings to the Republican Party and his role in worsening the political culture in the U.S. Professor Buchanan argues that Vance embodies cruelty and harmful politics, particularly through his promotion of racist and sexist narratives, while undermining legitimate policy discussions.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May critically analyzes the Department of Justice’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, discussing its flaws and potential solutions. Mr. May argues that the program is fundamentally flawed due to its lack of certainty in awarding whistleblowers, prioritization of victim compensation over whistleblower awards, disqualification of whistleblowers eligible for other programs, and demanding cooperation requirements, ultimately deterring potential whistleblowers from coming forward with crucial information about corporate wrongdoing.

Retired UC Berkeley Law professor Jan Vetter discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a regulation classifying bump stocks as machine guns, and examines the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation. Professor Vetter argues that the Court’s majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, took an overly narrow and literal interpretation of the statute, neglecting to consider legislative intent and the broader purpose of the law, and he suggests that judges should act more as partners with the legislature in interpreting statutes to achieve their intended policy goals.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the poor state of political discourse in the United States. Professor Buchanan argues that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance frequently make incoherent or illogical statements that are not held to proper scrutiny, while Kamala Harris is unfairly criticized for making actual arguments and evolving her views based on new information or political realities.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses accusations of “flip-flopping” against Vice President Kamala Harris and examines the broader issue of how policy changes are perceived in political discourse. Professor Buchanan argues that Harris’s policy adjustments reflect evolving strategies rather than changes in core values, and he criticizes the media for mischaracterizing such adaptations as inconsistency, while also pointing out the double standard applied to Democrats compared to Republicans on this issue.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Donald Trump’s speech at the Israeli American Council summit, focusing on his comments about Jewish voters and accusations of antisemitism. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s remarks were self-centered, potentially dangerous, and reflective of his narcissistic tendencies, and he highlights the disconnect between Trump’s expectations of Jewish voter support and actual polling data.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Klara Nedrelow analyze the International Court of Justice’s July 19, 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, focusing on the dissenting opinion of Judge Julia Sebutinde. Professor Estreicher and Ms. Nedrelow argue that the ICJ’s opinion is one-sided and fails to consider the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing that a lasting solution requires carefully negotiated agreements between both parties rather than judicial recommendations based on incomplete narratives.

In this second part of a two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan examines recent Republican advice for Donald Trump to focus on “policy" rather than grievances in his presidential campaign. Professor Buchanan expands on the arguments he introduced in Part One, providing examples of Trump’s policy-free rhetoric and explaining why Republicans don’t actually want substantive policy discussions, as their specific policy positions are largely unpopular with voters.

In this two-part column, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses recent Republican advice for Donald Trump to focus on policy rather than “culture wars” in his presidential campaign. Professor Buchanan argues that this advice is misguided because Republicans lack popular policy positions, and their call for Trump to “talk policy” actually means inflaming voters’ emotions on select issues like immigration and the economy without offering substantive solutions.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May describes how Donald Trump might govern if re-elected, focusing on his potential appointments to key positions like Attorney General and FBI Director. Mr. May argues that Trump would likely select officials who prioritize loyalty to him over adherence to the Constitution, potentially leading to the implementation of extreme policies and the investigation of Trump’s perceived enemies, which could significantly erode democratic norms and institutions.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the adoption of “expressive activity policies” by colleges and universities in response to recent campus protests, examining the legal and practical implications of such policies. Professor Dorf argues that it is a mistake for educational institutions to frame their regulations as targeting expressive activities specifically, suggesting instead that they should focus on content-neutral conduct regulations that apply equally to expressive and non-expressive activities.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the case of Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate whose conviction has been challenged by the state’s attorney general, and the broader constitutional question of executing innocent people. Professor Sarat argues that the Supreme Court should use Glossip’s case to explicitly state that the Constitution forbids punishing innocent people, overturning previous jurisprudence that prioritized legal technicalities over justice.

In this two-part series of columns, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Chief Justice John Roberts’s leadership of the Supreme Court over multiple terms, focusing on his apparent dual objectives of balancing political attunement and advancing conservative ideology. In this second part, Professor Citron argues that Roberts re-established his control over the Court by successfully weakening the administrative state and expanding presidential immunity while simultaneously avoiding controversial decisions on gun rights and reproductive issues, ultimately demonstrating his ability to push a conservative agenda without incurring significant political backlash.

In this two-part series of columns, Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron examines Chief Justice John Roberts’s leadership of the Supreme Court over multiple terms, focusing on his apparent dual objectives of balancing political attunement and advancing conservative ideology. In this first part, Professor Citron highlights Roberts’s judicial statesmanship in the 2019-20 term, particularly in cases involving Trump administration subpoenas, and contrasts this with the 2021-22 term, where the Court’s conservative shift raised questions about Roberts' control, especially following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, discusses Vice President Kamala Harris’s unusual mention of child sexual abuse during her Democratic National Convention speech and its broader implications for addressing this issue in America. Ms. Robb argues that while highlighting the problem is important, real change requires comprehensive action at all levels of society, including passing protective laws, implementing stricter policies in schools and youth organizations, and establishing federal initiatives to combat child sexual abuse and exploitation.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Eighth Circuit ruling on Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which seeks to protect gun rights by limiting state cooperation with federal firearm laws. Professor Amar argues that while parts of SAPA are unconstitutional, the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed, particularly in its assertion that a state cannot withdraw enforcement support for federal laws based on its belief that those laws are unconstitutional, and suggests that the case may warrant Supreme Court review.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a legal controversy in Nebraska regarding felony disenfranchisement, specifically focusing on a recent law allowing felons to vote immediately after completing their sentences and the state attorney general’s challenge to this law. Professor Sarat argues that the Nebraska Supreme Court should reject the attorney general’s contentions, allow the new law to stand, and permit former felons to vote, asserting that felony disenfranchisement is a vestige of a shameful historical era that should be consigned to the past.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses a federal judge’s ruling that enjoins New York’s attorney general from enforcing state laws against crisis pregnancy centers promoting “abortion pill reversal” (APR) on First Amendment grounds. Professor Dorf argues that the ruling misunderstands the state’s interest in protecting citizens’ health and safety, asserting that the government should be able to regulate potentially false or dangerous medical claims even when they are made without commercial motive.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the unusual dynamics of the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, particularly focusing on how Vice President Kamala Harris is positioning herself on crime and criminal justice issues. Professor Sarat argues that Harris faces a delicate balancing act of appearing tough on crime to counter Republican attacks while maintaining credibility on criminal justice reform, suggesting she should emphasize crime prevention and address root causes rather than simply adopting traditional “tough-on-crime” rhetoric.

UC Davis Law professors Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat analyze the antitrust lawsuit filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) against the World Federation of Advertisers and other corporations, examining potential legal barriers to the suit under antitrust law and the First Amendment. Professors Amar and Bhagwat argue that X’s lawsuit faces significant challenges, primarily because the alleged boycott likely falls under First Amendment protection similar to that granted in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, and because forcing advertisers to advertise on X would constitute compelled speech, which is generally prohibited under recent Supreme Court precedents.