UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Illinois Bivens Act, a new state law aiming to provide state-law remedies for constitutional violations by federal officials, particularly in civil immigration enforcement, and situates it as an innovative experiment within the broader tradition of federalism and converse-1983 legal theory. While Professors Amar and Mazzone commend the law as a promising and necessary response to the erosion of federal remedies like Bivens actions, they argue that the Act is flawed in its scope—both too narrow (retaining qualified immunity and limited to immigration) and too broad (imposing liability under the Illinois Constitution and authorizing punitive damages)—and ultimately hope it sparks more refined versions in other states.

Child protection advocate Kathryn Robb urges King Charles III to use his moral authority to call out political leaders—particularly in the United States—for their failure to prioritize justice and transparency over power and self-preservation. Ms. Robb commends King Charles for previously demonstrating principled leadership and implores him to publicly advocate for the release of sealed files related to sexual abuse, arguing that moral courage from influential figures is vital for protecting children and confronting systemic cover-ups.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the contrasting legal outcomes of Sean Dunn, who was acquitted for throwing a turkey sandwich at a federal agent in protest of government actions, and Zoe Rosenberg, who was convicted for rescuing chickens from a slaughterhouse as an act of animal rights activism. Professor Dorf argues that Dunn’s acquittal reflects juror sympathies with political protest against authority, while Rosenberg’s conviction exposes society’s deep normalization of animal agriculture and the judicial system’s resistance to acknowledging nonviolent civil disobedience that challenges that norm.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores how the pervasive presence of war, violence, and graphic content—especially through social media—has shaped the mental health and worldview of the current generation of college students. Professor Sarat argues that educators must acknowledge these traumatic influences and develop strategies to help young people navigate a world filled with conflict, despair, and cynicism in order to cultivate resilience, critical thinking, and hope.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Orr, which granted the federal government a stay to allow the use of birth-assigned sex on passports during ongoing litigation, and critiques the broader procedural and substantive patterns the Court exhibits in such interim-relief (“shadow docket”) cases. Professor Amar argues that while the Court majority should provide fuller explanations even in emergency rulings, the liberal dissenters are strategically and analytically misguided in avoiding arguments about the constitutional merits, which are increasingly central to determining outcomes in these cases.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat uses a controversial Little League legal case to explore the broader topic of justice, its role in democratic societies, and its limitations when pursued without balance. Professor Sarat argues that while seeking justice is vital, it must be guided by prudence and proportionality, cautioning against an overzealous, justice-obsessed culture that reacts to every wrong with litigation.

Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center professor Rodger Citron explores the current legal and political challenges surrounding partisan gerrymandering and the future of the Voting Rights Act in a podcast interview with Harvard Law Professor Ruth Greenwood. Professor Greenwood argues that while the courts have increasingly stepped back from addressing gerrymandering—most notably in Rucho v. Common Cause—lasting reform must come from a combination of legal advocacy and grassroots political action, such as the establishment of independent redistricting commissions.

University of Chicago law professor emeritus Albert W. Alschuler examines whether President Donald Trump could face legal consequences—either domestically or internationally—for ordering the U.S. military to kill at least 64 suspected drug traffickers on the high seas without trial, purportedly as part of a broader anti-cartel strategy. Professor Alschuler argues that these killings constitute unlawful acts that violate U.S. and international law, likening them to extrajudicial executions, and concludes that while prosecution is theoretically possible, political and legal obstacles, including questionable legal justifications and potential presidential immunity, make accountability unlikely.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the use of nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution, particularly in Alabama, where it has resulted in prolonged, painful deaths that contradict claims of a humane alternative to previous execution methods. Professor Sarat argues that nitrogen hypoxia, like earlier methods, has failed to provide a foolproof or ethical solution and calls for the abolition of capital punishment altogether, emphasizing the psychological and physical torture it inflicts and questioning what such practices say about the values of American society.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses House Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to administer the oath of office to Adelita Grijalva, a duly elected representative from Arizona, and examines the constitutional and legal implications, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack. Professor Dorf argues that Johnson’s actions appear to be a politically motivated and constitutionally baseless effort to block Grijalva from voting—potentially on the Epstein files discharge petition—and reflects a broader disregard for democratic norms and the rule of law.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the Trump administration’s policy of conducting lethal maritime strikes on boats suspected of drug smuggling, highlighting the legal and moral implications when survivors are taken into custody. Professor Margulies argues that the administration is circumventing both criminal law and established due process by labeling survivors “enemy combatants,” and that its ultimate incentive is to avoid legal accountability—an incentive that could lead to more killings to eliminate potential witnesses.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the procedural and constitutional issues surrounding mootness in the Supreme Court case Little v. Hecox, which challenges Idaho’s law barring transgender women from participating in women’s collegiate sports. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff, Lindsay Hecox, to voluntarily dismiss her case after she ceased athletic participation, and they contend that the case is clearly moot under Article III, urging higher courts to recognize this and vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision accordingly.

Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, addresses how four legal mechanisms—statutes of limitations, charitable immunity, non-disclosure agreements, and bankruptcy laws—serve to shield powerful institutions from accountability in cases of child sexual abuse, often silencing survivors and obstructing justice. Ms. Robb argues that these outdated legal protections perpetuate secrecy and impunity, and she calls for urgent legal reforms to dismantle these barriers and prioritize justice for survivors.

Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler addresses Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s proposed rollback of military regulations on hazing, bullying, and toxic leadership, arguing that these changes are part of a broader agenda to recenter military culture around a rigid and potentially abusive interpretation of the “warrior ethos.” Professor Wexler warns that weakening existing protections risks encouraging cruelty, diminishing accountability, and harming both service members and civilians, and urges that any review be evidence-based, carefully defined, and mindful of the moral and operational consequences of reintroducing hazing practices.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss the Supreme Court case Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which addresses whether a candidate has Article III standing to challenge state laws on ballot counting. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that a candidate likely has standing to challenge election regulations because they have an inherent interest in the clarity of election rules, even if they cannot prove the regulation would change the election's outcome, and they emphasize that resolving these issues is crucial for electoral legitimacy.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Bowe v. United States, which raises the question of whether limits on successive habeas petitions for state prisoners also apply to federal prisoners and whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear such a case. Professor Dorf argues that while some legal scholars invoke the theory that certain review functions are essential to the Supreme Court’s constitutional role, that argument has limitations, and the Court may instead use the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to uphold its jurisdiction without definitively resolving the scope of its essential functions.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to stay Robert Roberson’s execution and send his case back to trial court to reconsider the now-discredited shaken baby syndrome diagnosis that led to his conviction. Professor Sarat argues that while the court’s intervention is a positive step, it falls short by ignoring other critical issues in Roberson’s case—such as his undiagnosed autism, poor legal representation, and evidence pointing to his daughter’s death from natural causes—thus failing to address the full scope of the miscarriage of justice.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton traces the decades-long movement to reform statutes of limitations (SOLs) for child sex abuse victims, highlighting the legal, political, and cultural progress made and the recent challenges posed by unscrupulous legal practices. Professor Hamilton argues that while the movement has empowered many survivors and exposed hidden abuse, the rise of false claims by unethical mass tort firms threatens its integrity, necessitating legal safeguards like certificate of merit requirements to preserve justice and protect genuine victims.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Donald Trump’s repeated denial of any connection to Project 2025 during his campaign, despite extensive evidence that its policy goals are being actively implemented now in his second term. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s deception about Project 2025 was deliberate and consequential, revealing his broader authoritarian ambitions and marking one of the most impactful political lies in modern American history.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin reviews the documentary Marcial Maciel: The Wolf of God, which investigates the life of Marcial Maciel, a powerful Catholic priest and founder of the Legion of Christ, who sexually abused numerous minors over decades with the protection of the Church, including several popes. Professor Griffin points out that the Catholic Church has consistently failed to hold abusive clergy like Maciel accountable, prioritizing institutional power and fundraising over justice for victims, and she calls for a different, more honest approach from current Church leadership.