Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses the concept of demonization in society, particularly in light of a recent attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Professor Margulies argues that rejecting demonization requires more than just avoiding certain language; it demands recognizing our own capacity for evil, abandoning the notion that eliminating a single person or group will solve all problems, and ultimately accepting that there is no “them,” only “us.”

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses recent events in American politics, including a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, President Biden’s debate performance, and an assassination attempt on former President Trump. Professor Sarat argues that these events have been traumatic for the nation and warns against allowing them to induce collective amnesia about Trump’s past actions and rhetoric, emphasizing the importance of remembering the full context as the country approaches the 2024 election.

In this second of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd continues to explore the challenges in interpreting the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and proposes a solution. Mr. Winograd suggests that courts should look to established labor and employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, Railway Labor Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act, for guidance in determining who qualifies as a transportation worker, rather than relying on vague qualifiers created by the courts.

University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the recent shooting at a Trump rally and its implications for American politics and society. Professor Buchanan argues that the incident represents three interconnected tragedies: the personal loss of life and injury, the failure of the political system to prevent such violence, and the inability of the public to reach a consensus on what actually happened due to the current polarized and conspiratorial political climate.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the variable effectiveness of political violence, particularly assassination attempts on political figures, and the challenges in preventing such acts. Professor Dorf argues that while political violence is widely condemned, it can sometimes achieve its intended goals, and that effective prevention requires not only heightened security measures but also stricter gun control laws, which the United States has been reluctant to implement.

In this first of a two-part series, arbitrator and mediator Barry Winograd examines the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries and its impact on the interpretation of the transportation worker exemption under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Mr. Winograd argues that the Court’s current approach to determining who qualifies as a transportation worker has led to increasing uncertainty and inefficiency in litigation, potentially transforming the FAA from a procedural statute into a de facto substantive employment law.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and its implications for American democracy and political violence. Professor Sarat argues that this event, combined with ongoing efforts to undermine election integrity and the increasing acceptance of political violence, poses a significant threat to the stability of American democracy and the principles of free and fair elections.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses his upcoming book on social forgiveness, exploring how society can become more forgiving towards those who have committed serious wrongs. Through the stories of Eric, Lucas, and Dante, Professor Margulies illustrates that a key factor in personal transformation and rehabilitation is having someone who believes in the individual’s potential for change, even after they’ve committed terrible acts.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent impeachment articles filed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, providing historical context for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices and examining the specific allegations against Alito and Thomas. Professor Sarat argues that while the impeachment is unlikely to succeed, it is justified given the Justices’ ethical transgressions, and it serves as an important condemnation of their conduct and a reminder of the need to uphold democratic principles and the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May examines Project 2025, a plan developed by conservative organizations to overhaul the Executive Branch, with a focus on its potential impact on the Department of Justice under a second Trump administration. Mr. May argues that Project 2025 is a roadmap for subverting the rule of law and transforming the DOJ into an instrument of political oppression, warning that its implementation would lead to authoritarian control, the politicization of law enforcement, and a threat to democratic principles.

Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the debate within the Democratic Party about whether President Joe Biden should continue as the nominee for the 2024 presidential election. Professor Buchanan argues that those calling for an open discussion about potentially replacing Biden are being unfairly attacked and silenced by Biden supporters and contends that having this conversation is crucial for the party’s chances of defeating Donald Trump and preserving American democracy.

Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses the potential outcomes of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, focusing on Joe Biden’s performance in a recent “non-debate” event and the broader implications for the Democratic Party and American democracy. Professor Buchanan argues that even if Biden is replaced as the Democratic nominee, Republican efforts to manipulate the electoral system and a heavily biased Supreme Court make a Trump presidency likely regardless of the election results, but he emphasizes that Democrats should still strive to win legitimately to strengthen future resistance against autocratic rule.

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Klara Nedrelow discuss the International Court of Justice’s May 24, 2024 order granting additional provisional measures against Israel in response to South Africa’s request, including an analysis of the court’s decision and the separate and dissenting opinions of various judges. Professor Estreicher and Ms. Nedrelow highlight the inconsistencies and potential overreach in the court’s decision, emphasizing the lack of consensus among judges and questioning whether the ICJ has exceeded its jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention by ordering measures that may not be directly related to preventing genocide.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision granting presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts and proposes a constitutional amendment as a response. Professor Sarat argues that pursuing a constitutional amendment to overturn this decision is the best way to engage the American people in defending democracy, reaffirming commitment to constitutional governance, and resisting judicial supremacy.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines the current U.S. presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, through the lens of the Founding Fathers’ constitutional principles and concerns about tyranny and abuse of power. Professor Hamilton argues that neither candidate is suitable for the presidency based on the Framers’ ideals, with Biden potentially leading to an ineffective government due to age-related issues and Trump posing a threat to democracy through his authoritarian tendencies, ultimately suggesting that voters should reject both options.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for presidential immunity and the rule of law in America. Professor Sarat argues that the decision “will live in infamy” and marks a dangerous shift towards authoritarianism by effectively placing the President above the law, contradicting fundamental constitutional principles and previous statements made by the Justices themselves.

University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler discusses the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in United States v. Rahimi and New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, focusing on their approach to interpreting the Second Amendment through historical analogues. Professor Alschuler argues that the Court’s reliance on irrelevant historical examples while disregarding relevant history is flawed, and that the Bruen standard is neither originalist nor workable, predicting that it will eventually be abandoned in favor of a more flexible approach that allows for some degree of interest balancing in Second Amendment cases.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses key cases from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Term, focusing on cases where the Court made non-merits decisions and cases with high stakes beyond their precedential value. Professor Dorf argues that the Court’s procedural dismissals in significant cases like those involving social media content moderation and abortion access led to public confusion and missed opportunities to clarify important legal questions, while its rulings in high-stakes cases such as those involving former President Donald Trump had immediate and far-reaching consequences that sometimes overshadowed their legal precedents.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the media's coverage of Supreme Court decisions, particularly focusing on the end-of-term rulings and their interpretation by journalists. Professor Amar argues that many prominent media organizations consistently misrepresent the Court’s actions by drawing incorrect conclusions from decisions not to review cases or dismissals, misinterpreting jurisdictional rulings as judgments on the merits, and making unfounded predictions about case outcomes, thus failing to meet basic standards of accuracy in legal reporting.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson and its broader approach to Eighth Amendment cases, particularly those involving cruel and unusual punishment. Professor Sarat argues that the Court’s conservative majority, led by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, is systematically weakening Eighth Amendment protections by adhering to a narrow originalist interpretation, ignoring evolving standards of decency, and showing indifference to vulnerable populations like the homeless.