UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the California legislature’s attempt to salvage its law restricting federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks by introducing SB 1004 to achieve legal parity between state and federal agents. Professor Amar argues that this effort is performative and legally futile because the statute constitutes an unconstitutional direct regulation of federal operations under the Supremacy Clause, regardless of whether it is applied evenhandedly.

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.

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.

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.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes California’s new law (SB 627) that bans ICE and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks while interacting with the public, focusing on its legal challenges and broader constitutional implications. Professor Amar argues that SB 627—and a related proposal by gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell to deny driver’s licenses to masked ICE agents—violates well-established constitutional principles protecting federal officers from state interference in the performance of their duties.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses California’s new law, SB 627, which bans masked law enforcement, including federal agents like ICE, from covering their faces in public interactions, and evaluates its constitutional viability under the Supremacy Clause. Professor Amar responds to a public commentary by Berkeley Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky and argues that because SB 627 directly regulates federal officers without clear congressional consent, it is unconstitutional, and as such, California cannot enforce it against federal agents like ICE.

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.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the role of racial bias in California’s death penalty system, drawing on various studies and statements from political figures like Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom. Professor Sarat argues that despite California’s progressive reputation and efforts to address racial injustice, the state’s capital punishment system remains plagued by racial disparities, supporting the call for its abolition.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the potential presidency of Kamala Harris, focusing on how her experience as a district attorney and California’s attorney general might positively influence her performance in the Oval Office. Professor Sarat argues that Harris’s prosecutorial background will be beneficial for her presidency, citing her pragmatic approach to law enforcement, her ability to make difficult decisions, and the skills she developed in exercising prosecutorial discretion judiciously.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses how California’s Rule of Court 2.1008, which allows individuals aged 70 and older to be excused from jury service due to disability without requiring documentation, may violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age discrimination in voting rights. Professor Amar argues that since jury service is a form of political participation akin to voting, singling out those 70 and older in a way that reduces their jury participation based on assumptions about age and disability is constitutionally problematic, just as it would be to excuse women from juries based on assumptions about their domestic responsibilities.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the systematic exclusion of Jewish people from death penalty juries in Alameda County, California, and explores Jewish perspectives on capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that while Jewish religious texts mention capital punishment, rabbinical interpretations and Jewish history have made many Jews wary of the death penalty, and the discriminatory practices in Alameda County highlight the need to end capital punishment altogether.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent unprecedented request by Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen to resentence all death row inmates from his county, highlighting the critical role prosecutors play as gatekeepers in the death penalty system. Professor Sarat argues that Rosen’s actions, driven by concerns about racial bias and changing attitudes towards capital punishment, serve as an important example for other prosecutors to follow in order to right past wrongs and ensure justice is upheld, regardless of how much time has passed.

Cornell Law Professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross, in which the Court rejected a challenge by a pork industry trade group to a California law that bans in-state sale of pork unless the pigs were raised in accordance with certain minimum standards for “humane” treatment. Professor Dorf points out that it is unusual for the Supreme Court to acknowledge, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s lead opinion does, animal welfare as a legitimate moral interest and expresses hope that the decision might pave the way to more substantial reforms of animal cruelty laws and changes in personal consumption choices.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar comments on California’s SB 403, which proposes to prohibit discrimination on the basis of caste. Dean Amar points out some of the constitutional flaws in the bill and describes some changes that likely need to be made to make the law more constitutionally defensible.

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the oral argument in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross, in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether California’s Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Professor Dorf observes that based on their questioning, the Justices are concerned about the case’s implications for other types of regulations based on a state’s moral interests and may seek a procedural “out” to avoid deciding the difficult question.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court involving a challenge by the pork industry to a California law—Proposition 12—that was adopted by referendum in 2018. Professor Dorf explains why Supreme Court should uphold Prop 12 against the plaintiffs’ “dormant” Commerce Clause claims, and he considers the implications of that holding on state power to ban abortion pills from other states.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat calls upon California Governor Gavin Newsom to ask the state legislature to end capital punishment. Professor Sarat explains why this route is superior to the direct democracy route (which failed in both 2012 and 2016) and why it’s so important that California abolish the death penalty.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar argues that legislative reform is the best response if Californians want to change the gubernatorial recall election process. Dean Amar points out that legislators who wish to act should do so before—rather than after—the results of the upcoming election come in, so as to deflect any concerns that they might be motivated by partisanship, even though the reform possibilities may not be facially partisan.

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker continue their conversation with Berkeley Law professor Aaron Edlin and dean Erwin Chemerinsky about the constitutionality of California’s recall mechanism. Deans Amar and Caminker respond to critiques of their arguments and explain why they have grown even stronger in their belief that that equal protection challenges to the recall mechanism are misguided.

Berkeley Law professor Aaron Edlin and dean Erwin Chemerinsky respond to arguments by Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker regarding the constitutionality of California’s recall process for governor. Professor Edlin and Dean Chemerinsky first rebut the argument that California Supreme Court precedent determines the outcome in this case and then argue on the merits that California’s recall process attempts to do in two steps what is clearly unconstitutional to do in one; because the ballot is an election for who will be governor, the candidate with the most votes should be the one chosen.