University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines the Trump administration’s promotion of Christian Nationalism across multiple domains—the White House, the military, and Congress—and its corresponding erosion of church-state separation, particularly in the context of Trump’s war with Iran. Professor Hamilton argues that this government alignment with a specific evangelical Christian agenda violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, distorts American religious history, and has created a political permission structure for unconstitutional attacks on Muslims and other religious minorities.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf examines Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s notorious dissent in Olympus Spa v. Andretti—a Ninth Circuit case involving the constitutionality of applying Washington State’s transgender-inclusive public accommodations law to a women-only spa. Dorf argues that VanDyke’s opening phrase “swinging dicks” was not merely gratuitous and attention-seeking (in contrast to cases like Cohen v. California, where the use of profanity was justified), but reflected genuine anti-transgender bigotry that disqualifies it as legitimate judicial discourse and vindicates the ABA’s earlier finding that VanDyke was unfit for the bench.

UC Davis Law professor Irene Joe and restorative justice specialist Jeremiah Mungo examine how ABA advertising restrictions and the absence of meaningful credentialing standards leave criminal defendants—particularly those who can afford private counsel—with little reliable information for choosing a defense attorney, forcing them to rely almost entirely on informal word of mouth. Drawing on Mr. Mungo’s personal experience hiring a private attorney who was later disbarred, Professor Joe and Mr. Mungo argue that modest reforms such as voluntary specialist certification programs, tiered qualification requirements, and publicly available attorney experience data could establish a quality floor in the criminal defense market without dismantling legitimate concerns about lawyer advertising.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses California’s ongoing practice of forced prison labor, examining its legal foundations, recent failed efforts to abolish it through ballot measure and legislation, and the low wages and lack of workplace protections afforded to incarcerated workers. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Gavin Newsom should use his executive authority to direct the Department of Corrections to stop punishing inmates who refuse to work, as a meaningful step toward ending what is best characterized as a constitutionally sanctioned form of slavery incompatible with California’s self-described progressive values.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin examines the Rhode Island Attorney General’s sweeping report on clergy sexual abuse within the Diocese of Providence, including the diocese’s history of concealment and the AG’s reform recommendations. Professor Griffin argues that the report confirms decades of institutional cover-up and endorses the AG’s calls for stronger laws, expanded statutes of limitations, and greater diocesan accountability.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Ninth Circuit oral argument in United States v. California regarding SB 805, a state statute requiring all law enforcement officers—including federal agents—to wear identification on their uniforms. Professor Amar argues that the law violates the Supremacy Clause as an unauthorized direct regulation of federal sovereign functions and asserts that courts should focus on the lack of federal assent rather than the perceived burden or generality of the state mandate.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Harvard University, which seeks to compel the production of detailed, individual-level admissions and student performance data. Professor Sarat argues that the administration uses this litigation as a pretext for a “racial shaming campaign” intended to stigmatize people of color and weaponize data to serve a divisive political agenda.

Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb discusses how the civil legal system’s procedural requirements often inflict secondary trauma on survivors of childhood sexual abuse while shielding defendants and institutions. Ms. Robb argues that the law must balance due process for defendants with “due care” for victims by dismantling structural barriers—such as restrictive statutes of limitations and bankruptcy maneuvers—that prioritize institutional protection over accountability and child safety.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the recent standoff between Anthropic and the Pentagon over Anthropic’s refusal to permit its AI tools to be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons, leading the Trump administration to designate Anthropic a national security supply-chain. Professor Dorf argues that while both mass surveillance and autonomous weapons deployment may already be unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and customary international law respectively, Anthropic had sound reasons to seek explicit contractual carveouts rather than rely on those legal limits—and that the Pentagon’s unwillingness to accept those carveouts raises the alarming inference that the administration intends to pursue both activities.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal court ruling blocking the Trump administration’s transfer of Biden-commuted death row inmates to a federal supermax prison, examining the constitutional and procedural issues surrounding that action. Professor Sarat argues that the court was right to intervene, because the administration violated due process by bypassing individualized assessment procedures to pursue a predetermined punitive outcome, and that upholding constitutional protections for even the most heinous offenders is essential to preserving the rule of law and human dignity.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger D. Citron —along with fellow civil procedure professors Laura Dooley, Deseriee Kennedy, and John Quinn—discusses the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Berk v. Choy, which addressed whether Delaware’s affidavit-of-merit requirement in medical malpractice cases yields to federal pleading rules under the Erie doctrine. The professors analyze the majority’s conclusion that Federal Rule 8 displaces the state requirement under the Hanna v. Plumer framework, while also exploring Justice Jackson’s alternative framing, potential critiques of the majority’s reasoning, and the decision’s implications for access to federal courts and the ongoing challenge of distinguishing substance from procedure.

Attorney Lauren Stiller Rikleen discusses the Trump administration’s aggressive verbal attacks and social media rhetoric directed at the federal judiciary following the Supreme Court’s adverse ruling against his global tariffs. Ms. Rikleen argues that such hostile language from the executive branch incites threats against jurists and their families, ultimately endangering the physical safety of judges and undermining the foundational principle of judicial independence.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the future of the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) following the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, particularly focusing on debates among the Justices about its constitutional basis and scope for limiting executive power. Professor Amar and Mazzone argue in favor of Justice Gorsuch’s robust, constitutionally grounded approach to the MQD as an essential safeguard against the unchecked accumulation of presidential authority, and urge the Court to more firmly adopt this interpretation to preserve the balance of powers.

University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler discusses the federal government's obstruction of Minnesota state investigations into the fatal shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE and CBP officers during Operation Metro Surge. Professor Alschuler examines the legal, jurisdictional, and political dimensions of the conflict and argues that Congress should mandate evidence-sharing and state-federal investigative cooperation—specifically by enacting the Democrats’ demand to “require that evidence is preserved and shared with jurisdictions.” He explains why the Trump administration's refusal to share evidence constitutes a deliberate coverup that, if unchecked, will prevent accountability for what video evidence strongly suggests were unjustified killings.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the three primary avenues through which accountability in the Jeffrey Epstein cases can be pursued—congressional hearings, a New Mexico state investigation, and a United Nations crimes-against-humanity inquiry—in the face of what she characterizes as a deliberate federal cover-up by the Trump administration. Professor Hamilton argues that despite the administration’s efforts to suppress further investigation, the partial release of Epstein’s files has already implicated dozens of powerful figures across the political spectrum, and that these three pathways will continue to expose the truth, bring shame to those involved, and ultimately deliver justice to survivors.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses Texas’s criminal abortion ban, particularly its medical emergency exception and a 2025 amendment designed to clarify when doctors can legally perform abortions to save pregnant patients’ lives. Professor Grossman argues that while the abortion ban continues to endanger pregnant women by causing doctors to delay or deny necessary care due to fear of prosecution, providers must understand they have more legal latitude than they realize to perform emergency abortions, and exercising this authority is crucial for harm reduction until abortion rights are restored.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a federal district court ruling that preliminarily upheld California’s SB 805, which requires ICE officers to display visible identification, while blocking a related masking prohibition law (SB 627). Professor Amar argues that Judge Christina Snyder’s decision fundamentally misunderstands the constitutional distinction between “direct” and “indirect” state regulation of federal activities, contending that both California laws directly regulate federal employees performing their job duties and should therefore be invalidated under the Supremacy Clause absent explicit federal consent, regardless of any “functional” analysis of actual harm to federal operations.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses widespread speculation that Justice Samuel Alito may retire from the Supreme Court soon, examining both the evidence (particularly his book’s release date and strategic timing before the 2026 midterms) and the broader institutional problems this speculation reveals. Professor Dorf argues that the real issue is not the Supreme Court’s lack of transparency, but the combination of life tenure and ideological polarization, which creates an unhealthy obsession with Justices’ retirement timing and makes Supreme Court appointments depend on accidents of health and political calculations rather than a sensible democratic process.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen, non-permanent resident parents, and the Supreme Court case Trump v. Barbara challenging its validity. Professor Amar and Mazzone argue the executive order is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and also unlawful under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which explicitly codifies birthright citizenship based on birth within U.S. territory, regardless of parents’ immigration status.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explains how a federal judge’s decision in the Luigi Mangione case exemplifies the Trump administration’s broader failures to reinstate and pursue the federal death penalty. Professor Sarat argues that political motivations, procedural missteps, and disregard for legal standards have caused multiple courts to block capital prosecutions, undermining the administration’s aggressive death penalty agenda.